Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Respect for Pedophiles?

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 10:45pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

Just a random shot kind of thread. Keeping the topic short and general. The OP is also pretty small, for your sake if anything. I was just curious about AG's opinion on pedophiles.

Do pedophiles deserve respect?

Which kind of pedophiles deserve respect?

What laws limit pedophiles? Do they violate civil liberties?

If you're not aware of this already, a pedophile is someone who "likes 'em young." In other words, attracted to children.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 10:51pm

loloynage2

loloynage2

3,106 posts

Do pedophiles deserve respect?

I don't know, kind of a personal opinion...

Which kind of pedophiles deserve respect?

The ones that wear pink?

What laws limit pedophiles? Do they violate civil liberties?

What??? I pretty sure imprisonment due to **** is not a violation of civil liberty. If it's under consent, then I'm all for it. I don't think the law should stop me from loving a 40 year old woman/man.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:20pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Just a random shot kind of thread. Keeping the topic short and general. The OP is also pretty small, for your sake if anything. I was just curious about AG's opinion on pedophiles.

I am wondering what you are expecting them to be.

Which kind of pedophiles deserve respect?

The kind that are not adults.

What laws limit pedophiles? Do they violate civil liberties?

There are a tone of them, I would not say that they violate civil liberties.

If you're not aware of this already, a pedophile is someone who "likes 'em young." In other words, attracted to children.

If your not aware of this, you probably are to young to be talking about this.

What??? I pretty sure imprisonment due to **** is not a violation of civil liberty. If it's under consent, then I'm all for it. I don't think the law should stop me from loving a 40 year old woman/man.

Perhaps not, but I would assume that you are old enough to think for yourself? I would say that people of...Sixteen, with parents consent, should be able to have sex with other consenting physically mature adults.

If people younger then sixteen are having sex, even consenting, then it is pretty much ****. A six year old girl is pretty much just a puppet, to say that someone should be aloud to have sex with her if he asks is just horrible, especially if it is someone like a parent. Why should it be aloud at all?

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:32pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Three things come to mind when I read the OP.

1) A pedophile is not a sexual offender. A pedophile is defined as: "noun
a person who is sexually attracted to children."

Oxford Dictionary

2) I see no reason why anyone deserves to not be respected based on an attraction/preference alone.

3) The whole "not able to make their own informed decision" card is played a lot, but, you can't just blanket statement say "all 18 year old people magically know what they are getting into." There are people who are ready (mature enough/informed) much earlier, and there are people who never go beyond the mindset of a child.

I would say that people of...Sixteen, with parents consent, should be able to have sex with other consenting physically mature adults.

Why do parents need to give their consent?

Why should it be aloud at all?

Again, there's a difference between a pedophile and someone who has sex with under-aged partners. Pedophilia is simply having the attraction.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:44pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Three things come to mind when I read the OP.

1) A pedophile is not a sexual offender. A pedophile is defined as: "noun
a person who is sexually attracted to children."

Oxford Dictionary

English is a living language. People say "Pedophile" to mean someone who has sex with children, so that is what it means. Or what would you call people who actually have sex with children?

2) I see no reason why anyone deserves to not be respected based on an attraction/preference alone.

Nor does anyone else?

3) The whole "not able to make their own informed decision" card is played a lot, but, you can't just blanket statement say "all 18 year old people magically know what they are getting into." There are people who are ready (mature enough/informed) much earlier, and there are people who never go beyond the mindset of a child.

Witch is why they should have parental consent if they are under 16, since it is more likely that the parents will be on board if they are prepared. If you are eighteen, your old enough to live by yourself and presumed capable of choosing your own decisions, as being physically mature enough to act on those decisions. Since the law can't go case by case, I say 18 for a cutoff, 16 with parents permission.

Why do parents need to give their consent?

As you just said, it is a case by case business. Having parental consent lowers the chance of it being a random, unknown manipulator, as well as lowering the chance of someone they knew as a friend rather than a sex partner. It works great as a fail safe. Why shouldn't they have parent's permission, when they are at the age when their parents pretty much control them in the matters of law?

Again, there's a difference between a pedophile and someone who has sex with under-aged partners. Pedophilia is simply having the attraction.

Once again, English is a living language. If people are using the word "Pedophile" to mean someone who has sex with little kids, then that is what it means. Or what word would you rather we use? "People who have sex with under age children" is a lot harder to type.

 

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:59pm

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

well im not sure if you mean a person who just likes children sexualy or a person whoa ctually has sex with children.

Do pedophiles deserve respect?

yes they do. they are humans and deserve the same respect any other human recieves.

Which kind of pedophiles deserve respect?

those who didnt let their fetish get the better of them and **** a child.

What laws limit pedophiles? Do they violate civil liberties?

every law limits every living human so thats a pretty weird question.

the fact that someone likes children sexualy doesnt mean anything bad about the person. people for some reason think there is a connection of ones sexual needs and his personality/"goodness". a pedophile/zoophile/necrophile can be a good person and wont necesairly do what he wants to do.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 12:11am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Again, there's a difference between a pedophile and someone who has sex with under-aged partners. Pedophilia is simply having the attraction.

This is a distinction far to often not made. There are pedophiles who while enjoying a sexual fantasy of children would think actually doing something to be bad as it comes with a high risk of physical and possibly emotional harm to the child.

3) The whole "not able to make their own informed decision" card is played a lot, but, you can't just blanket statement say "all 18 year old people magically know what they are getting into." There are people who are ready (mature enough/informed) much earlier, and there are people who never go beyond the mindset of a child.

There is some validity in this point when playing the odds. With adults we expect them to take on responsibilities even if they haven't gotten past some mindsets. This expectation doesn't really exist nor should it with children. Of course taking on these responsibilities also grants the ability to make choices we didn't have before.
But even in a situation where the child could decide for themselves there is still an issue of an unequal relationship. The child would be in a situation where the adult would have some form of dominance. The two would simply be playing on two completely different levels so to speak.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 12:13am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

English is a living language. People say "Pedophile" to mean someone who has sex with children, so that is what it means. Or what would you call people who actually have sex with children?

Whether or not that's what they mean by the word, how I use it and how it's officially defined is what I was referring to. There's a difference between slang and common language.

As for what I'd call people who have sex with children, terms such as "sexual offender" "child rapist" "molester" or "sexual predator" would all be more fitting.

Nor does anyone else?

Okay then? I was responding to this bit in the OP post: "Do pedophiles deserve respect?

Witch is why they should have parental consent if they are under 16, since it is more likely that the parents will be on board if they are prepared.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You're appealing to the common sense and quality of parents, as well as banking on that they know their child well enough to have an accurate view.

If you are eighteen, your old enough to live by yourself and presumed capable of choosing your own decisions, as being physically mature enough to act on those decisions. Since the law can't go case by case, I say 18 for a cutoff, 16 with parents permission.

Indeed that is where law fails, the exceptions. As to when parental permissible intercourse should be allowed, that is an entirely separate subject.

Why shouldn't they have parent's permission, when they are at the age when their parents pretty much control them in the matters of law?

I don't agree with the traditional role of parents, the "my house my rules you either follow them or get out" sort of thing. I believe parents should teach, support, and provide for their children, not be a dictator towards them. Yes, under the law it would make sense for parents to be involved, but this isn't a legal issue unless it is made one.

Once again, English is a living language. If people are using the word "Pedophile" to mean someone who has sex with little kids, then that is what it means.

I don't think you using the term quite right "living language" and are misconstruing that in order to try to make a point. Yes, languages change. Yes, language is determined by common and consistent usage of specific meanings to words. However, people also don't know their own language very well a lot of the time and use words wrong. That is part of how the language changes, ironically enough.

Dictionaries change with the language, that's why they release new ones every so often. What's in the dictionary "usually" is what the word means in day to day context. Just because some or many people don't know the proper definitions or meanings or usages of words does not make them correct.

There also is the differentiation between slang and the language. "wassup" isn't an actual word, but most everyone I've ever encountered knows that it means "hello." 

Or what word would you rather we use? "People who have sex with under age children" is a lot harder to type.

Restatement from above.

"sexual offender" "child rapist" "molester" or "sexual predator"

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 12:32am

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Whether or not that's what they mean by the word, how I use it and how it's officially defined is what I was referring to. There's a difference between slang and common language.

Is there now? Lets go ask five random people what a pedophile is and see what they answer. I think the definition of "someone who has sex with children" would be one of the most likely said statements.

As for what I'd call people who have sex with children, terms such as "sexual offender" "child rapist" "molester" or "sexual predator" would all be more fitting. 

But what would you call it if it was legal? All of those statements have negative meanings, what would you call legal sex?

Okay then? I was responding to this bit in the OP post: "Do pedophiles deserve respect?

It sounds like he is using it to mean "People who have sex with children" as well...

Perhaps, perhaps not. You're appealing to the common sense and quality of parents, as well as banking on that they know their child well enough to have an accurate view.

In any case, it is a good fail safe, we can't make laws to the lowest denominator.

I don't agree with the traditional role of parents, the "my house my rules you either follow them or get out" sort of thing. I believe parents should teach, support, and provide for their children, not be a dictator towards them. Yes, under the law it would make sense for parents to be involved, but this isn't a legal issue unless it is made one. 

Parents are the lawful guardians of the child. They are responsible for the well being of the child, especially as the law is concerned. The parent's signature is necessary in many legal actions, so why wouldn't it be needed?

It is a legal issue. It is totally a legal issue, why wouldn't it be?

I don't think you using the term quite right "living language" and are misconstruing that in order to try to make a point. Yes, languages change. Yes, language is determined by common and consistent usage of specific meanings to words. However, people also don't know their own language very well a lot of the time and use words wrong. That is part of how the language changes, ironically enough.

I know what I am saying. When people use a word to mean something, no matter if you think it is wrong enough, then the word changes. That is why it is a living language. What does nerd mean? It means someone who is smart, but socially awkward and interested in weird things, correct? Nope- it means "1.
a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person. ". So that must be what it means, right? It isn't like it could change or anything. The dictionary means nothing to people.

Dictionaries change with the language, that's why they release new ones every so often. What's in the dictionary "usually" is what the word means in day to day context. Just because some or many people don't know the proper definitions or meanings or usages of words does not make them correct.

No matter what a book says, no matter what book it is, whatever people say a word means is what a word means. The book says "Ain't" isn't a word? Doesn't matter. People use it anyway. So it is a word, no matter if you say it isn't or not.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 2:23am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Is there now? Lets go ask five random people what a pedophile is and see what they answer. I think the definition of "someone who has sex with children" would be one of the most likely said statements.

Perhaps. They are still using the word wrong though. This isn't really relevant anyways.

But what would you call it if it was legal? All of those statements have negative meanings, what would you call legal sex?

Sex? Seems pretty straightforward.

It is a legal issue. It is totally a legal issue, why wouldn't it be?

Because it's not at base a legal issue, but a personal feeling/action. It's only a legal matter when you try to make it so and impose regulations and restrictions on it in regards to specific terms.

. When people use a word to mean something, no matter if you think it is wrong enough, then the word changes.

Correction: When the majority of people use a word to mean something for extended periods of time, then the word changes.

The book says "Ain't" isn't a word?

Hmm...
but
it does?

Dictionaries change with the language.

So it is a word, no matter if you say it isn't or not.

I never said it wasn't a word. I said that a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, but that doesn't mean they are a sexual offender, molester, rapist, or whatever you want to call breaking the law to have sex with an underage person.

Just because people don't know the exact definition or tag along extra meaning to it doesn't make them right, or make the language change.

 
Reply to Respect for Pedophiles?

You must be logged in to post a reply!