Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Jaecp]

Feeding a perversion doesn't solve it. It makes it worse and the pedophile will stop being satisfied and want the real thing. It encourages them to attack children, not prevent it.

The conversation is predicated off the possibility that viewing porn could help act as a substitute for wanting to engage in risky behavior. Same way that, for example, a women might enjoy watching group sex videos but never really want to be in the middle of one. I've said repeatedly that if it doesn't help then its not something that should be done. This was, and is, a thought experiment about if it does help then what would that mean the right course of action is? It's not exactly pretty to think about, obviously, but such is life.

[Jaecp]

Jaecp is arguing for the creation of animated/CGI child porn. Unfreakingbelieavable

I keep telling you this isn't the case

[seer]

The suggestion that child pornography is an acceptable outlet for pedophiles is absolutely insane.

I think execution is an acceptable outcome...

[seer]

I've said repeatedly that if it doesn't help then its not something that should be done.

And how on earth would you gauge this? Do you think the child molester is going to tell you that the virtual porn is intensifying his desire or causing him to go out and actually find children to molest? The whole concept is nonsensical.

[Sparko]

The conversation is predicated off the possibility that viewing porn could help act as a substitute for wanting to engage in risky behavior. Same way that, for example, a women might enjoy watching group sex videos but never really want to be in the middle of one. I've said repeatedly that if it doesn't help then its not something that should be done. This was, and is, a thought experiment about if it does help then what would that mean the right course of action is? It's not exactly pretty to think about, obviously, but such is life.

You want to do something to prevent children being raped? find and arrest pedophiles and castrate them. Feeding their perversion makes things worse. Does looking at food commercials when you are hungry satisfy your hunger?

[Jaecp]

You want to do something to prevent children being raped? find and arrest pedophiles and castrate them. Feeding their perversion makes things worse. Does looking at food commercials when you are hungry satisfy your hunger?

Sparko the science is split on the matter near as I can tell with what little is available. Your simple insistence is simply not good enough.

And how on earth would you gauge this? Do you think the child molester is going to tell you that the virtual porn is intensifying his desire or causing him to go out and actually find children to molest? The whole concept is nonsensical.

Well you wouldn't. Not directly. It would never get funded so we'd need to have some other research that ties into porn and illegal activities and that, too, probably would never get funded so you'd some sort of broader stuff that kind of touches on this in the basic research division of a Research 1 level institution but that hasn't happened yet so as far as the science goes on this issue we have uncertainty and with uncertainty comes philosophy and with philosophy comes thought experiments and if it is effective then that opens up more avenues of discussion.

As a note, pedophilia is studied a loooooooot less than you guys might think because, cmon now, we've got people in this thread saying that we should just execute them all or castrate them, etc etc etc. How much money do you think the NIH would give to study this? There just isn't much in the way of research about this.

[Mountain Man]

The conversation is predicated off the possibility that viewing porn could help act as a substitute for wanting to engage in risky behavior.

Which is as insane as saying that giving a drug addict ready access to drugs will curb his desire to get high. Even suggesting this as a thought experiment is insane.

[Sparko]

Sparko the science is split on the matter near as I can tell with what little is available. Your simple insistence is simply not good enough.

can you give me any examples where viewing virtual or photographic stimuli actually leads to lowering a desire? Does watching regular porn make people less interested in actual sex? Does watching food commercials make you less hungry? Any example, please.

Well you wouldn't. Not directly. It would never get funded so we'd need to have some other research that ties into porn and illegal activities and that, too, probably would never get funded so you'd some sort of broader stuff that kind of touches on this in the basic research division of a Research 1 level institution but that hasn't happened yet so as far as the science goes on this issue we have uncertainty and with uncertainty comes philosophy and with philosophy comes thought experiments and if it is effective then that opens up more avenues of discussion.

We have plenty of research already with things like marketing and advertising to drive sales of goods, and food. And just look at the regular porn industry.

As a note, pedophilia is studied a loooooooot less than you guys might think because, cmon now, we've got people in this thread saying that we should just execute them all or castrate them, etc etc etc. How much money do you think the NIH would give to study this? There just isn't much in the way of research about this.

Pedophilia is just another desire, an addiction. It happens to be perverted and immoral. But from a research standpoint it is no different from sexual desire, hunger, or addiction. So just look at TV commercials, Magazine ads, and other things that marketing uses to increase your desire for products, food, or sex. Stimulating a desire or hunger does not satisfy it. It increases it. That is marketing 101.

[Jaecp]

Which is as insane as saying that giving a drug addict ready access to drugs will curb his desire to get high. Even suggesting this as a thought experiment is insane.

No, because that's exacerbating a physical dependency while the thought experiment is about CGI as an outlet.

Do you have any training in chemical dependency? Because I do, it's one of those things I learned about graduating cum laude in Psychology from an R1 school. Any training on how outlets can be used to help people manage issues? Particularly in the concept of weening people off of something?

[Cow Poke]

Guys, neither Starlight nor myself spend a particularly large amount of time considering this stuff and, as such, you're getting our raw, off the cuff, "hmm, I wonder" level of contemplation. These are not our positions. We do not have an particular experience on how to "solve" pedophilia or whatever, but one thing especially comes off as weird and it's this

Interesting that you should choose to associate yourself with, and speak for, Starlight. wow

If you haven't already guessed I'm speaking of animation or CGI.

So, you're for employing graphic artists who are so screwed up in the head they spend their lives contemplating the violation of children. Sick. Profoundly perversely sick.

No children harmed and if the first order question is in the former then we both have a solution that doesn't hurt existing children and decreases the chance of other children being harmed. This is a win win, but its also just gross on the face of it, but --and this is an important but-- a big part of philosophy as a discipline is confronting counter-intuitive solutions that we might instinctively shy away from and, you can be sure, contemplating this bothers me, and Star, because it just feels gross to think about.

How twisted and perverted does your mind have to be to even THINK this, yet alone argue for it?

Still, gross or not, if it will help kids without hurting other kids, if we assume for the sake of argument that it works, what would you do? If you knew giving a pedophile CGI porn would decrease the odds of him raping a child would you give him the porn? If it was the single most effective way to decrease that chance, would you be ok with that?

You have reached a new low.

[lilpixieofterror]

The fact that you hadn't even thought this through beyond a pedophile getting off on pictures of nude children exposes the depths of your moral depravity. You are rotten to the core, and the contempt I show you is well-deserved.

And he wonders why I call him a psychopath, with the comments he keeps making...

Defending abortion.
Defending killing 3 year old children.
Now defending allowing pedophiles to view nude pictures of children.

When you can't think his immorality can't go any further, he proves us all wrong and goes even further. And yet... some atheist wonder why Christians view them as immoral... (the fact the great one tries to defend this sicko stuff should tell us how deprived he is too).

[Jaecp]

can you give me any examples where viewing virtual or photographic stimuli actually leads to lowering a desire? Does watching regular porn make people less interested in actual sex? Does watching food commercials make you less hungry? Any example, please.

If there was actual evidence either way with this it wouldn't be a thought experiment. Seriously, I'm not arguing for the plausibility. I'm taking a concept and going "if yes, then what" and "if no, then what"

The no path ended with "ok, well then" and the yes path had some interesting ideas to consider. Because their isn't any evidence for or against this as a coping mechanism.

As to your example questions? Have you never masturbated to Porn? Sexual desire has a way of going away after you ejaculate.

We have plenty of research already with things like marketing and advertising to drive sales of goods, and food. And just look at the regular porn industry.

Those are substantially different in scope, aim and goal. Not applicable.

Pedophilia is just another desire, an addiction. It happens to be perverted and immoral. But from a research standpoint it is no different from sexual desire, hunger, or addiction. So just look at TV commercials, Magazine ads, and other things that marketing uses to increase your desire for products, food, or sex. Stimulating a desire or hunger does not satisfy it. It increases it. That is marketing 101.

Like above, no, these are not equivalent. Sparko, if you want to jump into a discussion about this please find the earlier posts I made and respond to some of the actual things I've said. You're coming at this from an angle that shows you're going off of what Adrift is saying about what I said and not what I actually said. It's understandable since I'd usually trust him 100% for his replies to be indicative of the person he's talking to but today is just not his day. Basically, this stuff would be part of a treatment plan. It's not like you'd give pedophiles a bunch of porn and go "ok you lovable rascals, stay out of trouble!" because as part of a treatment program the porn would be used as a way to release their urges when they started feeling out of control or whatever. Like having that nicotine gum to deal with cravings or something

[Mountain Man]

No, because that's exacerbating a physical dependency while the thought experiment is about CGI as an outlet.

Do you have any training in chemical dependency? Because I do, it's one of those things I learned about graduating cum laude in Psychology from an R1 school. Any training on how outlets can be used to help people manage issues? Particularly in the concept of weening people off of something?

Well then, based on your self-proclaimed expertise on the matter, I assume you have examples of using pornography as an outlet to suppress someone's sexual desires?

[Cow Poke]

If there was actual evidence either way with this it wouldn't be a thought experiment. Seriously, I'm not arguing for the plausibility. I'm taking a concept and going "if yes, then what" and "if no, then what"

The no path ended with "ok, well then" and the yes path had some interesting ideas to consider. Because their isn't any evidence for or against this as a coping mechanism.

As to your example questions? Have you never masturbated to Porn? Sexual desire has a way of going away after you ejaculate.



Those are substantially different in scope, aim and goal. Not applicable.



Like above, no, these are not equivalent. Sparko, if you want to jump into a discussion about this please find the earlier posts I made and respond to some of the actual things I've said. You're coming at this from an angle that shows you're going off of what Adrift is saying about what I said and not what I actually said. It's understandable since I'd usually trust him 100% for his replies to be indicative of the person he's talking to but today is just not his day. Basically, this stuff would be part of a treatment plan. It's not like you'd give pedophiles a bunch of porn and go "ok you lovable rascals, stay out of trouble!" because as part of a treatment program the porn would be used as a way to release their urges when they started feeling out of control or whatever. Like having that nicotine gum to deal with cravings or something

Your whole line of reasoning is like, "OK, many mass murderers and serial killers started off killing kittens and puppies and abusing animals, so if we just made that acceptable, maybe they wouldn't graduate to killing people" Maybe we should hire graphic artists to come up with virtual puppies and kittens they can kill, and they'll be content with that. Perhaps we could just hire the people who produce snuff videos, and they can portray the murder of small animals instead of people....

You are one sick... I can't even say the rest....

[Jaecp]

Interesting that you should choose to associate yourself with, and speak for, Starlight. wow

He's a fun person to chat with when you don't have yourselves set against him. I also noticed, early on, that people were starting to go "OH SNAP PEDOS!" instead of actually reading anything that was being written and was attempting to take steps to mitigate that. I've obviously failed.

So, you're for employing graphic artists who are so screwed up in the head they spend their lives contemplating the violation of children. Sick. Profoundly perversely sick.

Presumably whatever bit of neurological damage that makes someone a pedophile doesn't remove their ability to draw or use a computer. Where else would the CGI come from? And why would we have to pay them for it? Do you have any idea how much free porn there is on the internet?

How twisted and perverted does your mind have to be to even THINK this, yet alone argue for it?

It's... it's a thought experiment. How many times do I have to say this? I'm choosing to contemplate something gross and am now thinking about it. Thinking its gross and disgusting doesn't make my brain shut off.

Still, gross or not, if it will help kids without hurting other kids, if we assume for the sake of argument that it works, what would you do? If you knew giving a pedophile CGI porn would decrease the odds of him raping a child would you give him the porn? If it was the single most effective way to decrease that chance, would you be ok with that?

You have reached a new low.

I mean, sure, but how do you find a second solution?