yes, Pedos should suffer, Pedophiles know what their doing. they just dont care or even think that they are ****ing up someone elses life when that person is young to stand up for themselves. They can burn for all I care. all of em

How do you know paedophiles know what they're doing? Are you a paedophile?

I think we would say that all typical people know what they are doing, if you mean they have their motives or urges that they understand when they act. A typical person as far as I am concerned is a rational one, and from the organizations that you hear about police bringing down of pedophiles they are rational enough to create those and to hide what they are doing and as such are 'typical' in that sense at least. Although there may be some that aren't, as with all other types of people, or there may be some other grounds I am missing.

So am I the only one that thinks it's a little hypocritical for the APA to flaunt about in the tight stockings, saying that paedophiles are mentally ill people (didn't the Soviets say similarly about homosexuals at one point [just some Palachinov bait to add to the mix]?) whilst there is clearly no defense for a paedophile on the grounds that he is mentally ill.

The question of whether they know what they are doing is a grey area. How much control do they have? Perhaps they have control on how well they hide it, but what about the actual urge?

If a guy kills because he's mentally retarded he's generally given a much lighter sentence in Western over-developed countries, unless he REALLY pissed some important people off. And his 'punishment' will generally be aimed toward recuperation.

Whereas people here, claim that paedophile are mentally handicapped and then proceed to say that they deserve to have their balls cut off (I think these people would do well to move to a conservative Muslim country, they might just get to see the reality of their twisted rants. Then we get some people that say they're totally sane. So if they're not mentally retarded, what are they? Is it just another sexual attraction but to children? Guess it doesn't really matter, as long as the majority sits on it, it's of little importance what others think.

BravoLima wrote:

QUOTE:
The question of whether they know what they are doing is a grey area. How much control do they have? Perhaps they have control on how well they hide it, but what about the actual urge?

I would personally believe that they are in as much control of their sexual urges as other people in their particular age bracket, given that I do not think that tehir hormone levels would change due to their sexual attraction.

QUOTE:
Whereas people here, claim that paedophile are mentally handicapped and then proceed to say that they deserve to have their balls cut off (I think these people would do well to move to a conservative Muslim country, they might just get to see the reality of their twisted rants. Then we get some people that say they're totally sane. So if they're not mentally retarded, what are they? Is it just another sexual attraction but to children? Guess it doesn't really matter, as long as the majority sits on it, it's of little importance what others think.

I would say they aren't mentally handicapped, and I would agree that cutting off their balls would not serve any purpose. That sort of punishment is rarely effective. I must also agree that what we say here doesn't matter, the law is what it is, and the majority of society views it in the same way.

What they do is illegal. What they do is wrong in so far as it damages the child they do it to. If that were found to be different, i.e. it was not illegal or did not cause harm then we would have much different circumstances to work with.

'If that were found to be different, i.e. it was not illegal or did not cause harm then we would have much different circumstances to work with.'

What, you mean, if a study was issued to show that young people in concensual sexual relationships when they were children with older partners weren't inherently harmed by their experiences? Some to most even benefitting from the experiences? You mean, the 'Rind report' concluding this? Oh, too bad Congress perverted the course of science especially just to condemn this material. Like I said, there is no room for dissent on the issue, arguing any contrary is the quickest way to become a mute.

BravoLima wrote:

QUOTE:
'If that were found to be different, i.e. it was not illegal or did not cause harm then we would have much different circumstances to work with.'

What, you mean, if a study was issued to show that young people in concensual sexual relationships when they were children with older partners weren't inherently harmed by their experiences? Some to most even benefitting from the experiences? You mean, the 'Rind report' concluding this? Oh, too bad Congress perverted the course of science especially just to condemn this material. Like I said, there is no room for dissent on the issue, arguing any contrary is the quickest way to become a mute.

You've completely misrepresented my point.

'You've completely misrepresented my point.'

How? You suggested if there were 'evidence' that the contrary opinion was to be able to be found different, i.e. it was not illegal or did not cause harm, then we would have much different circumstances to work with.' I gave you an example.

Then clearly explain the "Rind report" and how it's bad science.

Evil Science cannot win Good Science is stronger and always wins.

"Because of outside pressure stemming from this research, Dr. Rind has publicly admitted that he cannot continue pending research on this topic and will pursue other subjects of research as a result of the public reaction to his paper."

Do not let them practice their Evil Science!