Lolled. I mean, who gives a **** about mentally ill people amirite ? It might even be contagious, you can never be too sure.

This post is an awful hot mess, but what is your opinion of those girls who have precocious puberties that are under the age of 8? Normal to be attracted to an 8 year old because she's started to bleed monthly?

Well maybe we could also offer treatment and some sort of path to social acceptability. Have a pscyh administer a treatment/evaluation program and sign off when the paedo oriented person poses no increased general risk over that of the general population before they can get off the list. I don't see how you can get around addressing the risk. Finding out someone knew the paedo was a paedo and did nothing is a potentially huge slam dunk lawsuit.

Like I am very much against racial or ethnic profiling. But if a foreign national whose people we massacred came forward and said they were plagued by constant ideations in which they commit terror, I think we would have to contain that individual even though they hadn't done anything yet and even though the bigger part of them is being prosocial. I'm not saying treat them exactly like a criminal, but the risk would have to be managed.

grunch........


technically, they are not paedos until they act on their desires, so soceity shouldn't do anything about them except for maybe some random empathizing.

once they act on their desires, throw the book at them.

I see. And what about the people who suffer from these desires, but are not cognizant of their desires? Do other people need to inform them that they have pedo desires? or alert the authorities?

and then should they be required to undergo counseling against their wishes?

and chez, are you aware of all of your criminal desires? What counseling have you undergone to control these desires?

do we need to tell you when you are not honest to yourself about what desires you are exhibiting?

How can you have a desire and not know you have a desire?

Not sure who the people are but:

I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

I suppose I could go to a therapist and say I don't think I'm worried about desires I don't think I have, and that that's worrying me. But it isn't

No but you can if you want to.

denile. alcoholics do it all the time

This is all very heavy-handed and authoritarian, not to mention unconstitutional. You don't get to infringe innocent people's rights based on some perceived "increased risk" of bad behavior in the future.

And there's still the point that imposing negative consequences on those seeking help is going to be a deep disincentive to future help-seekers.

Suppose there was a proposal that all those seeking treatment for drug or alcohol dependency have their driver's license immediately revoked until they can prove they've been sober for at least 5 years. You know, due to "increased risk" and all that. Would you support this proposal? Do you think it would be effective?

but they are drinking.

You are right that it could happen. Some older person who insists and maybe believes they have no desire to sleep with under age people but sleeps with 'adults' who are slightly over the legal line and makes friend with them much younger could be a concern. We can easily think of stronger examples involving images.

BTW I'm not suggesting compulsory therapy for anyone who hasn't broken the law. I very strongly believe we should make sure professional help easily available for anyone who thinks they might have a problem.

I've posted this before, but it's a good read for anyone interested in the topic: https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-y...bdb#.7ibfgvbbk

The subject of that article created his own support group with good results. If something like that can help people control their urges, it's hard to imagine that society isn't capable of creating counselling/therapy/support services which help on a bigger scale. This seems better than the current state of things, where no pedo in their right mind would ever admit their attractions, and therefore have to deal with the urges by themselves. I think this has been done in Germany to an extent now, but hasn't been around long enough for any meaningful studies (haven't looked much into it though).

A more open system could be better not only in terms of reducing the amount of child abuse, but also improving the moral treatment of a large number of people who have done nothing wrong. It's obviously hard to analyse. I wouldn't be surprised if society's overall treatment of non-offending pedophiles is considered a huge moral failure in 100-200 years.

Tom Cruise is in charge of enforcing all thought crime law, pretty sure.

Sure you can. If you don't believe me go threaten the President and see how whether your saying the above causes them to let you go.

Or make a failed attempt at suicide. There is a good chance you will be put somewhere for awhile, against your will.

Do you believe in preventing people with certain mental illnesses or histories from buying guns? Many people do. I certainly do. I mean, if you knew someone suffering psychotic delusions was attempting to acquire a gun don't you think we ought to physically stop them?

Or what do you think would happen if you started openly saying you wanted to be the next mass shooter to appear on the news? There are so many lunatics in our society acting out. As a result there is am emerging interdisciplinary field of threat assessment forming, the ultimate aim of which is intervening before a crime happens. The run up to that is surveillance, which is definitely an abridgement rights based on increased risk- no specific plotting or actions needed.

That is a realistic expectation which is not good but better than the alternative, which is exposing those most vulnerable in the public at large to someone with a known increased risk of committing irrevocable harm on others, someone whose impulses are predatory in nature. Where is doesn't lead to authority forcing treatment on the individual because the individual is afraid to come forward, the problem kind of take care of itself: they don't come forward and there is no onus on the authority to deal with the risk.

Since this might result in them not coming forward, of course it would have to be based on the efficacy of treatment. I was assuming (I could certainly be wrong) that there is no real cure for that. If there were decent prospects for treatment then, of course, that changes everything. The point is to protect everyone's rights. To protect the rights of those more vulnerable might require some give on the other end.

Five years sounds harsh. It depends on the data. At a certain increased risk of DUI over a certain time, then yes. If this proved to be counterproductive because it was too much of a disincentive for treatment, then scrap it. I will usually opt for better social outcomes at the expense of rights, certainly of privileges.

You take rights too far and you end up with "money is speech". Maybe one day the world will figure out that rights are a heuristic, like a guide or aid. What we really want are good outcomes, not allegiance to whatever the fashionable interpretation of "rights" happens to be at a given time.

Very little mental illnesses are actually curable, thats usually not the goal when starting treatment.

First one if it was somebody i knew i would ensure everybody close to that person was also aware of what they had disclosed to me

Second one: Nothing?? If we know he is never going to offend and is therefore harmless to children why would we do anything?

What i do not understand about paedophiles is what is it? Is it a fetish?

If I told you that I wanted to kill people, that I often want to pull out a gun and shoot somebody when I walk into a room full of people, but have never done so and would never dream of actually acting on this strong desire, what should society do about me.

I just assume it is a sexual prefence that is as much of a conscious choice as homosexuality.

I could get away with killing someone if I really wanted to. I just choose not to. Maybe I wouldn't give a damn if I were an atheist.

These are quite different, not wanting to or thinking you want be getting away with it.

Killing is a very poor analogy unless we're talking about the rare few who have some deep need to kill pretty much anybody just for the pleasure of it - in which case they become a good analogy.

and heterosexuality

Why would a benevolent pedo (or whatever the term is) come forward to seek help if they knew it would land them on the registry?

Virtuous I believe is the term and I guess they wouldn't.

Are we registering borderliners these days ? Seems like there is no need whatsoever to register non offending pedophiles. People are ****ing crazy.