Pedophile Nationalism

[norak]

One of the arguments for nationalism is that if you allow different groups to live together then conflict will erupt. For example, Jews and Muslims living in the Middle East just don't seem to get along. The answer, according to nationalists is to divide people up so they can live among their "own people." Jews live among Jews and Muslims live among Muslims.

Every day I hear about homophobia. Most people in the world are religious and most people tend to follow an Abrahamic religion, i.e. Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. The Abrahamic religions all seem to denounce homosexuality. Throughout history this has been the case. Sometimes I wonder why so many Christians hate homosexuals because it seems to go against the teachings of Christ of the New Testament who taught about love and tolerance, etc. But anyway, because of the influence of the Abrahamic religion, it is not surprising that many people are homophobic.

If Jews and Muslims can't get along and the answer is to separate them into their own nations, then why don't we apply the same concept to the conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals? If homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot get along then why not just create a separate nation for homosexuals? Maybe slowly change an existing nation (e.g. America) into one that is fully tolerance of homosexuals or establish a country where homosexuality is actively practiced and is declared as the state sexual orientation.

There are many pedophile activists around and many pro-pedophile organizations like NAMBLA. Pedophile activism has created a lot of controversy, as you can imagine. There are websites like Perverted Justice that tries to bait pedophiles and shame them using public humiliation. Another site that I think is strong on child protection is Warriors for Innocence. These people claim that they are the "only thing that stands between evil and the innocent."

Given that there seems to be so much conflict between pro-pedophiles and anti-pedophiles, why not just allow pedophiles to have their own country where they can do whatever they want? This may not work because, for most people, even just the thought that a child in another country is abused causes discomfort. However, even a Muslim who believes that some child in Israel is reading the Torah instead of the Koran might cause discomfort as well, so if nationalism applies to religion then why shouldn't it apply to sexual orientation?

[DavidOdden]

One of the arguments for nationalism is that if you allow different groups to live together then conflict will erupt. For example, Jews and Muslims living in the Middle East just don't seem to get along. The answer, according to nationalists is to divide people up so they can live among their "own people." Jews live among Jews and Muslims live among Muslims.

And of course, Shites need to live in a separate country from Sunnies, Orthodox Jews need a separate country from Conservative Jews (and for that matter, Orthodox males need a different country from Orthodox females). Methodists need a separate country from Presbyterians. Etc. Either that, or in fact you're not identifying a rational basis for nationhood.

Given that there seems to be so much conflict between pro-pedophiles and anti-pedophiles, why not just allow pedophiles to have their own country where they can do whatever they want?

That makes as much sense as saying that rapists deserve their own country, murderers deserve their own country, thieves deserve their own country. The principle of violating the rights of another human is not just an invalid basis for forming a nation, is would be morally mandatory for any decent country to destroy such a miscreant nation.

[kufa]

I don't see whats wrong with giving criminals their own "country." They can call it a country, I will call it "exile" or "prison." Just send all the dudes on death row to an island prison without materials, (so theres no way they could get out) and make a new reality show out of it. It could be a contest to see who could survive and prosper best. Other than that, it would be quite the interesting experiment. All of america would be hooked on it in no time!

Edited June 18, 2007 by kufa

[D'kian]

Either that, or in fact you're not identifying a rational basis for nationhood.

I thought norak presented a reductio ad absurdum argument, not badly done at that.

As for pedophiles, I favor giving each one a free plot of land: six feet by three feet by six feet deep.

[Chops]

I don't see whats wrong with giving criminals their own "country." They can call it a country, I will call it "exile" or "prison." Just send all the dudes on death row to an island prison without materials, (so theres no way they could get out) and make a new reality show out of it. It could be a contest to see who could survive and prosper best. Other than that, it would be quite the interesting experiment. All of america would be hooked on it in no time!

That's almost straight out of a classic George Carlin bit.

[fatdogs12]

That's almost straight out of a classic George Carlin bit.

wow the original post is scary. Pedophiles shouldn't have their own country they should be killed. Where's a suicide bomber when you need one?

[K-Mac]

wow the original post is scary. Pedophiles shouldn't have their own country they should be killed. Where's a suicide bomber when you need one?

I'm addicted to reality crime shows, such as Forensic Files on Court TV and Cold Case Files on A&E. After watching literally hundreds of episodes, I can easily say that I would be in favor of the death penalty for sex offenders. It seems quite obvious that these people are not capable of being rehabilitated and will habitually re-offend. Particularly the pedophiles.

As a victim of a violent crime, although not sexual in nature, I have very strong feelings about how violent criminals should be punished. I went through years of hell and therapy just to be able to function and not hate everyone and everything. I can only imagine what a rape victim must go through.

Edited June 18, 2007 by K-Mac

[BrandonMV]

I think the lines are being blurred between a pedophile and a rapist/molester. I'm not a psychologist and can't tell you if the cause of pedophilia is biological or not, but if it is, then condemning someone for being a pedophile is the same thing as condemning someone just for being. The real problem is the pedophile who acts on his or her feelings in an unjust or violent manner.

For those who rape and kill children, they certainly deserve to die. However, you can never be 100% certain that someone committed a crime - even if they admit it. And if a lethal mistake has been made, there is no undoing it.

As for giving pedophiles their own nation - that's ridiculous! Are you suggesting that there should be mandatory testing for everyone, and that those who are pedophiles be shipped away from their families, even if they have not committed a crime? Or do you mean that just those who commit the crime should be shipped away to this nation? Well, we do this already - it's called prison. Or would this nation be a place where pedophiles have the choice to move if they want to abuse children? This solves nothing. And by the way, whose land would we steal to establish such a nation?

Non-violent pedophiles should be allowed to live among us and that violent ones should be sent to prison. Isn't this the only logical solution?

[DavidOdden]

The real problem is the pedophile who acts on his or her feelings in an unjust or violent manner.

Well, the problem is the pedophile who acts on his feelings with children, period. Conventionally, by "pedophile" we mean people who have sex with children. People who can control their sickness aren't under discussion.

[BrandonMV]

Well, the problem is the pedophile who acts on his feelings with children, period. Conventionally, by "pedophile" we mean people who have sex with children. People who can control their sickness aren't under discussion.

That's not the dictionary definition and that's not the definition I use. Similarly, a homosexual is not someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, it is someone that has the desire to do so. I think it's important to identify this because there are many pedophiles who are non-violent and do not practice the act.

And I stand by my statement: "The real problem is the pedophile who acts on his or her feelings in an unjust or violent manner." Are you saying that if pedophilia causes someone to act differently "period", even if it's not in a violent or unjust manner, then they are also a problem?

Edited June 19, 2007 by Enixyle

[DavidOdden]

And I stand by my statement: "The real problem is the pedophile who acts on his or her feelings in an unjust or violent manner." Are you saying that if pedophilia causes someone to act differently "period", even if it's not in a violent or unjust manner, then they are also a problem?

A person who has sex with a child is a rapist. As long as we're clear on that point, there's be issue worth discussing further.

[D'kian]

For those who rape and kill children, they certainly deserve to die. However, you can never be 100% certain that someone committed a crime - even if they admit it. And if a lethal mistake has been made, there is no undoing it.

To parpahrase Rudy Giuliani, I'll ask that you restate it and say you dind't really mean it.

There's always a possibility of error, but there are also many cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that there is a 100% certainty of who commited the crime, particularly when the guilty party admits it.

[K-Mac]

Non-violent pedophiles should be allowed to live among us and that violent ones should be sent to prison. Isn't this the only logical solution?

I feel that any sexual act or molestation that is perpetrated against a child or an unwilling adult, IS a violent crime. I believe "non-violent pedophiles" is an oxymoron. Of course other options, such as life in prison, should be available to jurors/judges, but I think the death penalty should be put on the table as well.

A few things seem certain to me...the majority of sexual offenders are repeat offenders and their sentences are far too light. Perhaps if our prisons weren't so overcrowded with non-violent, petty, drug offenders, this wouldn't even be an issue? I find it utterly ridiculous that a functioning member of society caught growing a few pot plants in their basement can be sentenced to life in prison, while a child molester is released after a few years.

Edited June 19, 2007 by K-Mac

[BrandonMV]

Yes, David, I agree with you that a person who has sex with a child is a rapist. But again, that's not the definition of a pedophile. You're equating the two, and you didn't answer my question.

Same thing, K-Mac, you're using another definition of pedophile. It's very important when discussing a crime that you use objective definitions, and a pedophile is not, by definition, a criminal.

And D'kian, you're right in saying that when the evidence is very strong, then the individual should be punished. I still believe, however, that the death penalty is not a viable option because there is always the chance of error. As Ayn Rand said, "It's better to condemn murderers to jail for life than risk taking the life of an innocent man through a possible miscarriage of justice." This extends to people with a criminal history as well. It is because of their history that they may be accused, and the jury may also be biased because of this.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Enixyle

[K-Mac]

Enixyle, if someone has not committed a crime, I do not believe they should be subject to prosecution/punishment. Many pedophiles do turn to crime as a means of satisfying their urges (even if only viewing images on line), and I assumed that's what we were discussing.

And I might be willing to do away with the death penalty if a life sentence were indeed a life sentence. (None of this early release program junk.) Another condition for me would be that the prison be self-sufficient. I am sick and tired of my hard-earned money being stolen from me and used to pay for criminals to have cable television.

With regards to them having a country or region to call their own, do we really want all those people together? I shudder to think of the ideas they would share with each other. And what unfortunate country would share borders with them?

[Drew1776]

A person who has sex with a child is a rapist. As long as we're clear on that point, there's be issue worth discussing further.

I assume the definition of child you are using is not "someone under the age of 18."

Edited June 19, 2007 by Drew1776

[BrandonMV]

K-Mac, I understand what was meant. I'm just pointing out the abuse of the term pedophile, because what was meant is not what the word means, and it's important to identify that.

And David, I ask about your statement "Well, the problem is the pedophile who acts on his feelings with children, period." because there may be a pedophile who could satisfy his needs by finding non-pornographic images on the internet. He's still acting on his urges, just not in an unjust or violent manner. Adding "period" implies that doing anything to satisfy those urges is wrong.

[D'kian]

And D'kian, you're right in saying that when the evidence is very strong, then the individual should be punished.

The standard of proof in America is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is as appropriate as it needs to be if the trial involves objective evidence. Maybe it's not enough for a death sentence. But....

I still believe, however, that the death penalty is not a viable option because there is always the chance of error.

Not always. I would pull the switch for McVeigh, Kazcinski, bin Laden, Saddam, Castro, Chavez, Putin and several others without a second thought and with a perfectly clear conscience. Other less well-known murderers require a more specific standard of proof. The question is what this standard should be.

As Ayn Rand said, "It's better to condemn murderers to jail for life than risk taking the life of an innocent man through a possible miscarriage of justice."

I think Rand tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater on that one. Besides, she also did say the death penalty is moral; that is, that a murderer does deserve to die. So we come back to it: what is sufficient proof to hang a man for a crime?

The quick and easy answer is "Beyond any doubt." But that asks that the prosecution disprove any notion put forward by the defense, no matter how absurd or irrational it might be. Maybe "beyond any rational doubt." I'd be satisified with that, even if the distinction beyond reasonable and rational is a subtle one.

[DavidOdden]

You're equating the two, and you didn't answer my question.

No, if you check back over my last two posts, you'll see that I do not. You continue to use this dodgy expression "not in a violent or unjust manner". In the context of a thread where we're talking about a rapist organisation (NAMBLA), it's really important to make it utterly clear that you're not supporting their evil ideas. I presume that you don't support the rape of children, or creating a nation of child-rapists, which is what this thread is about. I think I was clear enough on the difference between the mentally ill who can behave themselves and the mentally ill who cannot control themselves and rape children. The discussion is only about rapists (and Islamists). In my opinion, dictionary definitions aren't worth discussing until you can show that they are grounded in reality. If you can show that some definition you have is correct, that's fine, but the burden is on you to prove the correctness of the definition.

You might read some of the literature on the Objectivist theory of politics and the notion of "initiation of force" in connection with proper law. This isn't really the right thread to clarify the matter, but if you have any questions about what kinds of actions would be rightly prohibited by law, I'd be happy to explain further.

[K-Mac]

K-Mac, I understand what was meant. I'm just pointing out the abuse of the term pedophile, because what was meant is not what the word means, and it's important to identify that.

I understand what you're saying also. Not all pedophiles are criminals, but some criminals are pedophiles. Either way, they need help and far too many of them do not seek it. Then begins the progression of their perversion...they think about children, then they watch them from a window, then they watch them at the playground, then they talk to them, then they touch them, then they rape them, then they kill them. From what I've learned, it just seems like a matter of time before the non-criminal pedophile becomes the criminal version. (Like an addictive drug, it takes more and more and more for them to get off.) I think that is why so many people abuse the term pedophile. They've given themselves a bad name.

Edited June 19, 2007 by K-Mac

[BrandonMV]

Well, the problem is the pedophile who acts on his feelings with children, period. Conventionally, by "pedophile" we mean people who have sex with children.

By your definition, a pedophile is a rapist. Here, you are equating the two. Conventionally, selfishness means to care only for oneself, but we do not use that definition either. Like homosexuality, pedophilia is a sexual desire, and it does not necessarily indicate any action.

I think we both made it "utterly clear" that we do not support the evil ideas. I said that there is a problem with the pedophile who acts on his urges in an unjust or violent manner. How is that a 'dodgy' expression at all? This encompasses all potential evils that may be committed. Adding "period" suggests that any consequential action is evil, whether or not it is harmful, whether or not force is initiated.

I agree with you, K-Mac. For a pedophile to act on his urges, even if no harm is committed, can lead from one thing to another. Still, this does not always occur, it's not an absolute, and it's wrong to criminalize all of them.

[K-Mac]

For a pedophile to act on his urges, even if no harm is committed, can lead from one thing to another. Still, this does not always occur, it's not an absolute, and it's wrong to criminalize all of them.

I agree. We cannot convict until a crime has occurred. Unfortunately, we must wait for another child to be harmed before we are able to act.

That being said, if we were to provide them with their own country or region, at what point would you send someone there? Would you ask them to go voluntarily? (And would they?) Would it be used as punishment for a conviction or would it be preventative? It could be the beginnings of another Salem witch trial.

[hunterrose]

I said that there is a problem with the pedophile who acts on his urges in an unjust or violent manner. How is that a 'dodgy' expression at all?

It implies that "justice-based pedophilia" exists. And that there isn't a problem with it.

Suppose a pedophile, one who has not acted in an unjust or violent manner, wants to adopt some children.

Would you have a problem with this?

If [the cause of pedophilia is biological], then condemning someone for being a pedophile is the same thing as condemning someone just for being.

That depends on whether you think there is something wrong with being sexually attracted to children.

[BrandonMV]

Justice-based pedophilia? That doesn't make much sense. I'm only saying that it is possible to be a non-criminal pedophile. Although I think that the individual should seek therapy, I'm not going to shun him for his problem if he does not commit an immoral act because of it.

I would have a problem with a convicted pedophile adopting a child. I think that it would be wrong to judge someone's self-control and deny them of children even if they have shown no criminal history. People can control themselves.

That depends on whether you think there is something wrong with being sexually attracted to children.

If it's natural and unchangeable, like homosexuality, why should you have a problem with it? If the person doesn't do anything wrong, would you still condemn them for having a biological disorder? As long as the person is moral, why should you care?

Edited June 20, 2007 by Enixyle

[DavidOdden]

Justice-based pedophilia? That doesn't make much sense.

Then what would "just pedophila" be? How is "just pedophilia" different from "unjust pedophilia". Similarly with "violent pedophilia", which implies that there is such a thing as "non-violent pedophila".

I think the problem is that you believe the definitions of pedophile that you read on a dictionary web page. The right way to approach the question is inductively from reality, not deductively from a definition. Definitions are derivative of concepts, not determinative. The first step is to identify the existents referred to by the concept. In fact there are two related concepts under the same word, "child-luster" and "child-rapist". All I can do is suggest that you do some web research to determine whether the referents of the concept are well-behaved lusters or rapists -- I think you would have to conclude that the word is in fact used to refer to rapists, and that the non-judgemental political correctness movement is responsible for dictionaries not reflecting actual meaning accurately. And as I said, in the context of this thread, given especially the fact that the discussion was framed around the criminal rape-advocating organization NAMBLA, the politically-corrected definition "well-behaved child luster" is simply irrelevant. It's not that I don't understand your definition of pedophile, I just reject it as inappropriate in this context.