frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Your thoughts on pedophilia?

Debate Information

 I know it is a hard subject but I think it is one we need to talk about. To be more precise, I want to hear your thoughts about; pedophilia, acting on pedophilia, child pornography, fake (animated or drawn) child pornography, watchers of child pornography...

 I am mainly interested in the ethics of the issue. But I am also aware that ethics and application of those ethics are very different topics; so - for example - even though you find an act ethically wrong, it might be impossible to apply mentioned ethics in the form of law. Therefore, I am open to both ethics of the issue and your thoughts about how the laws should be structured.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • WinstonCWinstonC 235 Pts   -  
    Age of consent laws are necessary to protect children from taking actions which they do not fully understand and which causes them harm. Even if they agree, they do not fully understand what they are agreeing to and how this will effect them. It's like how we don't let children take drugs, even if they were willing. Finally, they are vulnerable in that they are easy for an adult to coerce into consent.

    ZeusAres42pistachiopants
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    I will start with expressing a very unpopular opinion: there is nothing wrong with exposing children to sexual materials. Case in point: I read a Russian book called "How children are born" or something like that when I was around 3 years old, and that book featured a very explicit display of the entire process, including how sex works, with very detailed pictures. Nothing terrible happened to me, and I do not see what could possibly happen to anyone else.

    Next, the modern consent laws need to be updated. Currently, there is a hard cutoff age, before which you are not allowed to have sex or commercialise your sexuality, and after which everything is a fair game. In my opinion, it should not work like this at all, and the responsibility for teaching children everything and for watching out for what they do with it should be on the parents, not on the government. If a child has sex with someone at the age of 12, and they were very well aware what they were doing because their parents taught them everything, then I fail to see what is wrong with it. Abuse can only occur when children do not know what is happening, and it is up to their parents to explain everything to them.
    I knew about condoms and other things when I was 8, and I knew a lot of the popular positions when I was 10. That helped me have a much more rational attitude towards sex and sexuality, and I did not treat it as a forbidden fruit. This is a healthy attitude, in my opinion. 

    Now, I do not know what exact policies we should have, say, on child pornography, pedophilia, etc. But I do know some general principles, and, unfortunately, the modern law does not follow those principles.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @WinstonC

     This mindset is what I do not understand. Do all of those children suddenly mature and become ready for sex after they have passed this certain age? Is it not possible for some people to mature at a later age? Is it not possible for some people to mature and become ready for these stuff early? 

     I do not really have any definite opinions on this issue. But I know for a fact that claiming every person matures after they have passed a specific age is absurd. One day they are not mature and one day later they become ready for everything? It just doesn't make any sense, at least from an ethical standpoint. 

     The current system we have might be the best for handling child pornography. I am not objecting to that. But I am really sure that the ethics of the issue do not work exactly the same way.
    MayCaesarPlaffelvohfen
  • WinstonCWinstonC 235 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland "This mindset is what I do not understand. Do all of those children suddenly mature and become ready for sex after they have passed this certain age? Is it not possible for some people to mature at a later age? Is it not possible for some people to mature and become ready for these stuff early?"

    Of course this is possible, everyone matures at different rates. It's entirely possible that a 15 year old is ready to have sex, while a 19 year old is not. The problem is that it's really not hard to talk a child into doing things; adults have so much power over children. As a result we make laws in order to protect children from exploitation.

    Perhaps more relevant to your point: if two 15 year olds do choose to have sex there aren't any repercussions; it's only if an adult has sex with a minor that there is a legal issue.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @WinstonC

     Oh, so you were only talking about it from a legal standpoint? Sorry, I kind of assumed this was your stance on the ethics of the issue as well.

     I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about that side too. To be honest, the main reason I started this was to hear the thoughts from an ethical standpoint. The legal standpoint was more like an addon. 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @WinstonC

     Also, I would like to mention that the same problem arises with the argument "Children can be easily talked into doing anything".

     This naiveness does not go away after a certain cemented age. Some children are able to say "no" while some young adults are not able to say "no". 

     I know you probably agree with this as well and were probably only talking about a practical application of ethics into law. Still, I think this is worth mentioning.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    The ethics of pedophilia... I think the only problems occur when someone acts on the pulsions... Someone can be attracted by young individual but never act on this urge, if that person never acts on it, is there a crime committed? I think it would be hard to demonstrate there is... I think it's perfectly imaginable to be a pedophile and never act on it, like it's possible to be a sober alcoholic... 

    There is probably a biological factor in there too... Humans have been reproducing at the age of 11-12, for tens of thousands of years... Biologically speaking, there is nothing wrong with it... If we're talking about attraction to even younger individuals (say 7-8 or younger), someone ought to realize they have a problem...  But again, if there is no action is there a crime? 
    AlexOland
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    For one to be able to consent to anything there must be a few things present:
    1) One must have other viable options (otherwise it's a choice of the lesser of undesired things)
    2) One must be aware of the other viable options.
    3) One must be able to comprehend and be consiously aware of what it is they are consenting to, including the risks and advantages.
    4) One must consciously desire the thing they are consenting to. 

    There may be other conditions I'm not thinking of at the moment, but I think that covers it. The reason I am speaking on consent should be self-evident. Morality is a subject that inherently deals with human interaction, or in the case of the religious, human interactions including between humans and a god or gods.  Now, I would say there simply isn't an objective standard for morality, but perhaps the golden rule comes close. When you think about it, the golden rule ultimately revolves around whether you have the consent of the other person you're interacting with as it pertains to what you are doing. Are there minors who, when presented with the idea of sex who meet the above four requirements? Certainly. It would be rather odd to say, someone who's 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds old is not capable of sex just because they're one second short of the arbitrary age society set for age of consent. But of course, laws tend to try to simplify matters.

    To hasten my argument, I'll try to shorten it from here. If one believes morality only deals with human interactions(so they take god or gods out of the picture) there is no moral justification to be opposed to pornography that isn't of real children but depicted to look like children. Who does it harm? There's not a person involved in it, and if morality only matters in terms of human interaction, well, by definition there is no human interaction there. It is amoral, neither moral nor immoral. It just is, it is not bad or good if we assume that is an objective measurement that morality inherently has human interactions.

    There are certainly good arguments for why a typical child misses one or more of those aforementioned requirements though. While I am personally disgusted with the idea, I cannot fathom an objective reason to oppose it if a child has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have the four aforementioned requirements present. That said, it is not something that can simply be decided by some random person though. We need quantifiable means to measure that the child has those conditions met. I would predict the vast majority don't, but humans do also mature and age at different rates from one another. If, say, a 10-year-old is proven to have the mind of the typical full-grown adult, who are we to tell them they do not have the freedom to consent just because of a number representing their age? As any reasonable person would, we need to approach this with utmost caution to ensure children are not harmed or taken advantage of. Since they are typically much further behind in brain and intellectual development than adults, the assumption should be they cannot consent unless otherwise proven. There would be wisdom in having a "softer" age of consent. Let's put it at 16 I suppose since most western nations and a third of the US states have it at that. So, the assumption could be if you're under 16, you can't consent, but you'd be given the option to prove that you can, and upon succeeding to do that, perhaps there could be some license indicating that(sounds weird, but there would need to be some proof they carry around they can). It should have the approval of at least one parent or guardian of theirs and the child must desire it themselves to prove they can consent. It should have perhaps something of a requirement akin to an institutional review board. A parent or guardian could be one of the judges, a cognitive scientist, child/developmental psychologist, counselor, and/or anyone else we think has relevant expertise in determining this. It would need unanimous approval among those judges, I would say, in order to further safeguard this.

    Now, by the same token, unless otherwise proven, someone 16 or older(or whatever age we set) should be assumed capable of consent. I think this would be the best way of going about it. It's important that we don't have a solid age of consent for consistency. I'm sure we would agree mentally-challenged adults can't consent. A mentally-exceptional minor could, however, by the reverse logic.

    So, my answers, reluctantly and cautiously, to all of the issues at hand deal with this line of thinking. In case one doesn't quite get where I'm getting at it from this line of thinking, it naturally follows with these answers to each topic you're asking about:
    Pedophilia: The attraction itself harms no one and by definition isn't a human interaction since it only involves one human. Amoral.
    Acting on pedophilia: Can be assumed to be immoral unless otherwise proven.
    Making Real Child Pornography: Again, can be assumed to be immoral unless otherwise proven without any doubt that the minors consented to be filmed in that manner.
    Animated Child Pornography: Amoral, only involves one human.
    Watching animated child pornography: Amoral, only involves one human.
    Watching real child pornography: Same as last two.

    This is while trying to maintain some objective standard for morality(if that's even possible). I would say what I laid out here is-forgive me, I'll explain what I mean and how this isn't an oxy-moron- a subjectively objective standard. What I mean by that is, it all objectively follows the rules I set up. But the rule itself is subjective. There's no way to really create an objective rule that I'm aware of.
    PlaffelvohfenAlexOlandpistachiopantsZeusAres42
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    Regards morality and moral positions being subjective /objective I’m drawn towards both sides of this question and my position has wavered over the years , I think there are aspects of morality that are objective and we can agree on such as in “ its objectively wrong to beat babies with a stick for crying” etc , etc 


    My thoughts are that universally it’s viewed a vile practice and I would say objectively so as  in morality is a social framework people agree too , ok this changes from society to society on certain issues but on questions such as this there seems to be an abhorrence in any country I can name.

    Of course objective morality and supporters of such usually come up with counters examples that embrace absurdity in an attempt to dismiss the idea of objective moral positions , if all morality is indeed subjective how come people that come up with their own subjective moral codes are normally tyrants or madmen whos subjective morality is rejected by the masses.

    Regards watching porn involving kids in one’s own home this is also to me vile as children were no doubt used and abused in the making of such , this again leaves those who support such in the position of once again coming up with positions that embrace absurdity in an attempt to justify such

    If a person has such tendencies and gets their kicks within the confines of their own head ok , but once it’s outside their head and in the real world their need to indulge their perversions has real life impact on innocents and they deserve anything legally that comes with that

    I also firmly believe people with this “tendency” should be named and put on public files as protection of children is of paramount importance 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    You say .....

     I do not really have any definite opinions on this issue. But I know for a fact that claiming every person matures after they have passed a specific age is absurd. One day they are not mature and one day later they become ready for everything? It just doesn't make any sense, at least from an ethical standpoint. 


    My reply .....Alex you make a fair point but as a general measure in most societies it works fairly well , we cannot give exact approximations in such things but we have to have something and it’s there as I think a necessary protection.

    It reminds me of speed limits where in my country I was driving down a road with a 50 mph limit I was stopped by a cop because I was doing 53 I said “ I was only 3 over “ he said “ it doesn’t matter if it was only one over the law applies to us all and it’s there for all our protection “........He let me go either ways but I got the point 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @Dee

     As I said, you are talking about the best way to apply the ethics in the real world. I am talking about ethics themselves. 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @GeoLibCogScientist

     So, the assumption could be if you're under 16, you can't consent, but you'd be given the option to prove that you can, and upon succeeding to do that, perhaps there could be some license indicating that(sounds weird, but there would need to be some proof they carry around they can). It should have the approval of at least one parent or guardian of theirs and the child must desire it themselves to prove they can consent.

     I also thought of this. But what I could not answer was what we test for. How can someone prove that they are able to give consent? 
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -  
    AlexOland said:

     I also thought of this. But what I could not answer was what we test for. How can someone prove that they are able to give consent? 
    Well, that's why I opened up with those four qualifying topics at the beginning of my answer. We'd have to test for those. Not sure if this fully answers your question, if you need more specifics on exactly how we test that they meet all four of those requirements I said above, then I could dive into that too.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @GeoLibCogScientist

     If what we do is just ask those specific questions, then one can easily memorize the questions-answers and cheat the test. We need to avoid this.

     Also, the problem is also properly testing for the things you mentioned. Do we just ask: "Are you aware of what you are going into?" to a child and if they say "yes", we let them pass? We need to make it (almost) impossible for an undeveloped mind to pass "the test". 

     Every one of those four topics, as it stands now, can be easily studied. First two topics is easy for the child to get a pass. The third topic can just be learned. The fourth topic is just relient on the few words of the child. Is this enough for a child to pass the test? OR do you have something different in mind?

     
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    Well, yes. When I say to test for them, I don't necessarily mean have them take a physical, written test, though that could be used for some of those topics, certainly shouldn't be the only criteria. You brought up good reasons why it shouldn't be.

    We would want personal interviews too where the person asking questions comes up with the questions on the spot, that way it's harder to just study for. Additionally, it would require observing them. The most qualified for that is the guardian since they observe them, or should be observing them, every day or nearly every day. Of course, that's not always the case, so someone who isn't the guardian should be invited in cases where the guardian doesn't see the child sufficiently enough, i.e perhaps their public school teacher, a babysitter, or someone else with a lot of observational experience with the child.

    I'd also say we'd want to have them undergo FMRI scanning to see if a particular part of the frontal lobe dealing with their judgment ability is not developed enough. That's where a neuroscientist or neurologist could come in. If they determine it is not developed enough for them to make this judgment for themselves, then that would disqualify them as well. But again, it's still up to each of these experts to recommend that they can consent.
    AlexOland
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    To add to that: the frontal lobe is one of the last areas of the brain to fully develop in human development(it's actually not completely finished, on average until mid-20s), and it is an area dealing with one's ability to judge situations. Obviously it's very important for determining if someone can consent. Thus, it's an important part of the brain to look at for this. If it looks like that part of the brain is quite underdeveloped to where the neurologist determines it's highly unlikely they have the ability to make this judgment, then they can decide the child can't consent, which should be the case for the vast majority, since most of them will have that region far too underdeveloped to argue they are capable of consenting to something like this.
    AlexOland
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    From "Universalism,"

    "However, I do find it interesting that you brought in pedophilia into this argument, as I noticed that it a legal topic that most of the uneducated and ignorant masses of society use as some sort of red herring to try and divert a topic. Fortunately for me, I happen to be intelligent enough to see through it because I have probably researched this topic more than most people have, including the so-called experts on law enforcement A.K.A. the police.

    First of all, pedophilia in itself is not a crime in the same way that being a homosexual is no longer a crime, even though homosexuality once carried the penalty of imprisonment and even castration until as recently as the 1960s, and it was considered a medical illness by doctors until 1973.

    Pedophilia also requires that an adult be sexually attracted to a minor who has yet to go into puberty, which typically happens around the age of nine or ten for females and eleven or twelve for males.

    Most sexual interactions involving minors with adults occur after this period, meaning that those who are adults being sexually attracted to teenagers are going to be classified as ephebophilia and hebophiles, as opposed to pedophiles.

    Statistics also show that most cases of forceful rape of a minor were not committed by a "pedophile" but by an adult who regarded a child as an easier target to go after, regardless of whether or not they felt sexual attraction to their target.

    In the United States, most states allow sexual intercourse between the ages of sixteen or eighteen.

    However, did you know that in South Korea, one must wait until the age of twenty in order to be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse?

    This means, quite ironically, that adults who go around screwing an eighteen or nineteen year old American teen would themselves be criminally charged and added to South Korea's own sex offender registry if they were to repeat the same act over in their country.

    Of course, in reverse, some countries, such as the Philippines, allow consent at twelve. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands permit it at fifteen, while Canada and the United Kingdom usually allow it at sixteen, though Canada sometimes allows sexual intercourse as early as age twelve, provided that their partner is also at least twelve years of age and within a year apart from them.

    In other words, there is no universal consensus on when somebody is "old" enough to engage in sexual acts. And I do find it quite hypocritical that the United States has one of the strictest laws in the world regarding sexual interactions with minors, because the United States is one of the few countries known to charge minors for taking photographs of themselves or having sexual intercourse with another minor and having them imprisoned and registered, usually for life.

    Outside the "sex offender" realm of American law, minors as young as ten have been imprisoned for periods ranging up to life for reasons including the act of burglary.

    Very few countries outside the United States actually try juveniles as adults, and when they do, it is usually for something like mass murder, and homicide laws in those countries are also going to be more lenient than the United States, which has been reputed to have the harshest legal system in the industrial world, as well as one of the harshest in the world for juveniles and adults alike.

    There is a case that is ongoing right now involving a man who is facing thirty years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry, because when he was twenty years old, he had sexual intercourse with his seventeen year old girlfriend and took a picture of her naked.

    What is even more hypocritical, however, is that the picture was taken nearly a decade ago, shortly after the United States had executed one of its last juveniles.

    The United States is the only country in the Western hemisphere that still exercises the death penalty, and it is also one of only a handful of countries on the planet with an active death penalty system. Most of the dwindling number of countries that still have it also don't apply the death penalty to juveniles, yet the United States, until 2004, did just that, executing dozens of juveniles between the 1980s and 2003 alone.

    That number is also dwarfed by the thousands of juveniles given life sentences during this period, often times for non-homicide offences. 

    So your government and police can preach to the choir all they want about "protecting the children" but it was the state and police that were mass incarcerating juveniles and sometimes executing them until very recently in American history (the former, of course, still being actively applied) and your argument against "pedophilia" falls flat on its face when one is confronted with the fact that the average person being registered was aged fourteen at the time they were registered, and that the most common reasons for being registered were for "inappropriate" touching, taking nude photos of themselves, or for engaging in sexual acts with another minor.

    Readers may find that my last response was more focused on the sex offender registry and the hypocrisy of the legal system, particularly in North America.

    However, since the person responding to me has failed twice now to address my main argument and has gone on a tangent about "robbers, pedophiles and murderers" I feel as though my choice to not entertain his questioning to be well deserved."

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

    So, you copy-paste an entire comment from someone else, from another discussion, and add nothing of your own?

    What is your point? What was the purpose of this quote? Are you endorsing @Universalism position? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "What is your point?

    "What was the purpose of this quote?

    "Are you endorsing @Universalismposition?"

    @Plaffelvohfen

    No, being that pedophilia is anti children, anti family, and anti law, isn't it?

    So what about their position, is their to endorse?

    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    Do you endorse "Universalism's" position? 


    "Universalism" expressed themselves, on an argument that I made, and elaborated on the argument, with their own individual point of view in regards to 

    "pedophilia?"


    This was my counter argument, to his argument:

    (This is the United States of America, so your non arguments below are irrelevant to American laws.

    Some odd rhetoric I guess, to educate the U.S. with, from whatever country you're from, that apparently isn't the United States? 

    Thank you for your education, being individually expressed rhetoric, from the standards of your argument making platform?)

    The below is my counter argument to the individual as well.

    Universalism:

    (Is your below question, being based on how you apparently, are viewing, some U.S. based laws, in contrast to the country, where you are from?

    "Are Cops Held To A Lower Standard Than Civilians?"


    If, that might be the case, then I'm sure, that others besides myself, can get a more, clearer understanding from where your individual views are coming from?

    Police Officers take an Oath to protect and serve the public, or community.

    The problem with some of the US citizens, is that the 
    rapist, the drug dealer, the murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, are apparently holding themselves, to their own criminal or offender standards, thus placing their victims, inhumanely below them?)

    @Plaffelvohfen

    Your response:

    "I see you've met TK, it's his usual MO to answer with questions rather than arguments, and always go on irrelevant tangents, argumentative structures are always deficient... There are a few disingenuous individuals on here, as always on debate sites, you'll recognize them soon enough, but there are really good debaters too!"

    My response to you:

    (Police Officers take an Oath to protect and serve the public, or community.

    The problem with some of the US citizens, is that the rapist, the drug dealer, the  murderer, the shooter, the gang member, the domestic violence, and abuse offender, the pedophile, the marijuana addict, the illegal drug addict, the prescription drug abuser, the drunk driver, the drugged driver, the kidnapper, and so on, are apparently holding themselves, to their own criminal or offender standards, thus placing their victims, inhumanely below them?  

    Here's a fair, and equal idea:

    Create a law, that every US citizen, takes an Oath, just like the Police Officers do, to protect, and serve the public, and see how many of the above crimes, see a reduction, in their occurrences?

    Or might those same US citizen, criminals, or offenders, balk at the fair and equal idea, of taking an Oath, to treat their fellow citizens, more humanely, by not victimizing their victims, through the very acts of the committed crimes?

    This way everyone is being held to the same "Standards?"

    You have your standards, on how you manage your debate arguments, and I have mine.

    I'm about being fair, and equal, and I believe in equality. )

    From "Universalism"

    And their counter argument response:

    "Yea... Ummm... I clearly won this debate and have no intention in continuing with this childish charade above me.

    I also don't care about the algorithm claiming the debate is a "tie" as the algorithm obviously goes by the number of responses one gives, as opposed to the quality of such answers.

    If the algorithm were anything useful, I would be "winning" this with a slam dunk success."

    PlaffelvohfenAlexOland
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "Are you endorsing @Universalismposition?"

    (No, being that pedophilia is anti children, anti family, and anti law, isn't it?

    So what about their position, is their to endorse?)

    @Plaffelvohfen

    Do you endorse "Universalism's" position? 
  • Generally, when people talk of pedophilia they're often referring to actual offenses that have taken place involving non-consenting individuals. This actually, in turn, causes social stigma and makes it hard for those that have urges but which do not act on them and actually want to try and get help for themselves. Interestingly, the DSM-5 did actually originally once classify all Paraphilias as a criminal. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/dsm-5-and-paraphilias-what-psychiatrists-need-know

    Moreover, technically and medically speaking Pedophilia is a Paraphilia Disorder that involves being attracted to pre-pubescent children. In fact, there are three types of Paraphilia Disorders that evolve around minors (anyone under the age of eighteen) and they are as follows:
    1. Pedophilia
    2. Hebephilia
    3. Ephebophilia
    Pedophilia which we have already touched upon involves being attracted to pre-pubescent minors, usually below the age of eleven years old.  Hebephilia involves the attraction to pubescent minors usually between the ages of 11 to 15. Ephebophilia centers around being attracted to mid to late adolescents, often between the ages of 15 to 18.

    However, in regards to Ephebophilia, there are some issues we must be aware of. For example, if a male in their mid-twenties comes across a sixteen-year-old female that looks like a young twenty-one female and becomes attracted to them then is that a disorder? Absolutely not. However, if someone in their mid-twenties could only derive gratification from young people between the ages of 15 to 18 then that could be considered a paraphilia disorder.  

    Now, in regards to the ethics, legality, and morality of the issue I personally ascribe to the following:
    • There is no objective justification for committing an offense on a non-consenting individual.
    • Pre-pubescent and pubescent minors are underdeveloped and are not consensual whether or not they think they are.
    • It is objectively unjust and inappropriate for an adult to engage in an intimate relationship with a pre-pubescent or pubescent minor regardless of whether or not is legal in another country. In fact, some people with these deviations try to lie to themselves as well as others with no end of excuses as to why what they're doing is justified.
    •  Ephebophilia unlike the above points which go without saying is a much more complex issue.  
    References:
    https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/dsm-5-and-paraphilias-what-psychiatrists-need-know
    Plaffelvohfen



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    What are your thoughts on @Universalism's opinions on pedophilia?

  • I do not know what that is. What is that TKDB?



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    What are your thoughts on @Universalism'sopinions on pedophilia?

    Pedophilia, is the theme of this specific forum.

    That you just elaborated on with your below shared information? 

    "Generally, when people talk of pedophilia they're often referring to actual offenses that have taken place involving non-consenting individuals. This actually, in turn, causes social stigma and makes it hard for those that have urges but which do not act on them and actually want to try and get help for themselves. Interestingly, the DSM-5 did actually originally once classify all Paraphilias as a criminal. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/dsm-5-and-paraphilias-what-psychiatrists-need-know

    Moreover, technically and medically speaking Pedophilia is a Paraphilia Disorder that involves being attracted to pre-pubescent children. In fact, there are three types of Paraphilia Disorders that evolve around minors (anyone under the age of eighteen) and they are as follows: 
    1. Pedophilia
    2. Hebephilia
    3. Ephebophilia
    Pedophilia which we have already touched upon involves being attracted to pre-pubescent minors, usually below the age of eleven years old.  Hebephilia involves the attraction to pubescentminors usually between the ages of 11 to 15. Ephebophilia centers around being attracted to mid to late adolescents, often between the ages of 15 to 18. 

    However, in regards to Ephebophilia, there are some issues we must be aware of. For example, if a male in their mid-twenties comes across a sixteen-year-old female that looks like a young twenty-one female and becomes attracted to them then is that a disorder? Absolutely not. However, if someone in their mid-twenties could only derive gratification from young people between the ages of 15 to 18 then that could be considered a paraphilia disorder.   

    Now, in regards to the ethics, legality, and morality of the issue I personally ascribe to the following: 
    • There is no objective justification for committing an offense on a non-consenting individual. 
    • Pre-pubescent and pubescent minors are underdeveloped and are not consensual whether or not they think they are. 
    • It is objectively unjust and inappropriate for an adult to engage in an intimate relationship with a pre-pubescent or pubescent minor regardless of whether or not is legal in another country. In fact, some people with these deviations try to lie to themselves as well as others with no end of excuses as to why what they're doing is justified. 
    •  Ephebophilia unlike the above points which go without saying is a much more complex issue.  
    References: 
    https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5/dsm-5-and-paraphilias-what-psychiatrists-need-know. "



  • Sorry TKDB but I do not see anyone in this thread called  @Universalism's and which has posted anything.



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "Sorry TKDB but I do not see anyone in this thread called Universalism's and which has posted anything. "

    I posted a counter argument on the below thread, and the below individual, educated their forum about pedophilia:

    So the below is their argument, and the thread that they created as well:

    It's very educational, and enlightening, in regards to the topic of "Pedophilia"

    I view pedophilia as anti children, anti family, and anti law, as well.

    So how, some individually view pedophilia, from their own positions, or their own ideological stances, I'm unsure on?

    I hope the below reference material helps you understand what's been talked about?

    From "Universalism," 

    "However, I do find it interesting that you brought in pedophilia into this argument, as I noticed that it a legal topic that most of the uneducated and ignorant masses of society use as some sort of red herring to try and divert a topic. Fortunately for me, I happen to be intelligent enough to see through it because I have probably researched this topic more than most people have, including the so-called experts on law enforcement A.K.A. the police.

    First of all, pedophilia in itself is not a crime in the same way that being a homosexual is no longer a crime, even though homosexuality once carried the penalty of imprisonment and even castration until as recently as the 1960s, and it was considered a medical illness by doctors until 1973.

    Pedophilia also requires that an adult be sexually attracted to a minor who has yet to go into puberty, which typically happens around the age of nine or ten for females and eleven or twelve for males.

    Most sexual interactions involving minors with adults occur after this period, meaning that those who are adults being sexually attracted to teenagers are going to be classified as ephebophilia and hebophiles, as opposed to pedophiles.

    Statistics also show that most cases of forceful rape of a minor were not committed by a "pedophile" but by an adult who regarded a child as an easier target to go after, regardless of whether or not they felt sexual attraction to their target.

    In the United States, most states allow sexual intercourse between the ages of sixteen or eighteen.

    However, did you know that in South Korea, one must wait until the age of twenty in order to be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse?

    This means, quite ironically, that adults who go around screwing an eighteen or nineteen year old American teen would themselves be criminally charged and added to South Korea's own sex offender registry if they were to repeat the same act over in their country.

    Of course, in reverse, some countries, such as the Philippines, allow consent at twelve. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands permit it at fifteen, while Canada and the United Kingdom usually allow it at sixteen, though Canada sometimes allows sexual intercourse as early as age twelve, provided that their partner is also at least twelve years of age and within a year apart from them.

    In other words, there is no universal consensus on when somebody is "old" enough to engage in sexual acts. And I do find it quite hypocritical that the United States has one of the strictest laws in the world regarding sexual interactions with minors, because the United States is one of the few countries known to charge minors for taking photographs of themselves or having sexual intercourse with another minor and having them imprisoned and registered, usually for life.

    Outside the "sex offender" realm of American law, minors as young as ten have been imprisoned for periods ranging up to life for reasons including the act of burglary.

    Very few countries outside the United States actually try juveniles as adults, and when they do, it is usually for something like mass murder, and homicide laws in those countries are also going to be more lenient than the United States, which has been reputed to have the harshest legal system in the industrial world, as well as one of the harshest in the world for juveniles and adults alike.

    There is a case that is ongoing right now involving a man who is facing thirty years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry, because when he was twenty years old, he had sexual intercourse with his seventeen year old girlfriend and took a picture of her naked.

    What is even more hypocritical, however, is that the picture was taken nearly a decade ago, shortly after the United States had executed one of its last juveniles.

    The United States is the only country in the Western hemisphere that still exercises the death penalty, and it is also one of only a handful of countries on the planet with an active death penalty system. Most of the dwindling number of countries that still have it also don't apply the death penalty to juveniles, yet the United States, until 2004, did just that, executing dozens of juveniles between the 1980s and 2003 alone.

    That number is also dwarfed by the thousands of juveniles given life sentences during this period, often times for non-homicide offences. 

    So your government and police can preach to the choir all they want about "protecting the children" but it was the state and police that were mass incarcerating juveniles and sometimes executing them until very recently in American history (the former, of course, still being actively applied) and your argument against "pedophilia" falls flat on its face when one is confronted with the fact that the average person being registered was aged fourteen at the time they were registered, and that the most common reasons for being registered were for "inappropriate" touching, taking nude photos of themselves, or for engaging in sexual acts with another minor.

    Readers may find that my last response was more focused on the sex offender registry and the hypocrisy of the legal system, particularly in North America.

    However, since the person responding to me has failed twice now to address my main argument and has gone on a tangent about "robbers, pedophiles and murderers" I feel as though my choice to not entertain his questioning to be well deserved." 



    "Are Cops Held To A Lower Standard Than Civilians?
    in Politics"

    "By UniversalismUniversalism 16 Pts July 25 Flag
    I expect there to be some disagreement over this question, and perhaps that is a good thing, as it will give those in disagreement with this question the opportunity to persuade me why this assertion is false, just as I intend to reinforce my question with a post filled with real life events and references to back my own statement.

    First of all, let's get down to the main point of my question and put it down into context: What do I mean by a "lower" standard?

    Here are some of the main arguments I plan to make in bullet form, which will then be later translated into a summary of their own:

    I believe...

    1) Cops are given more legal rights than civilians

    2) Cops are allowed to do to civilians what would be seen as a crime if it were conducted by anybody else, even in the rare case a judge sides AGAINST the cop in question

    3) Cops as an institution, and not just on an individual basis, are rotten; therefore rendering the argument of a "few bad apples" completely moot


    So, let's get down to the first point that I made.

    Cops have been known to commit egregious assaults against civilians, whether it be the elderly, disabled or even juvenile children, and they often do it WHILE on camera, which makes it easier for the observer to see for themselves what did or did not happen.

    However, with very rare exceptions, if a judge or police department declares the cop to be at fault, then the cop is always granted the right to resign quietly and are then usually hired at a neighbouring department, instead.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb1E6Uu79ko "
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/

    "Massive online pedophile ring busted by cops"

    msnbc.com staff and news service reports

    "An Internet pedophile ring with up to 70,000 members — thought to be the world's largest —has been uncovered by police, a security official said Wednesday.

    The European police agency Europol said in a statement that "Operation Rescue" had identified 670 suspects and that 230 abused children in 30 countries had been taken to safety. More children are expected to be found, Europol said.

    It said that so far 184 people had been arrested and investigations in some countries were continuing. Most of those detained are suspected of direct involvement in sexually abusing children.

    They include teachers, police officers and scout leaders, AP reported. One Spaniard who worked at summer youth camps is suspected of abusing some 100 children over five years.

    Europol director Rob Wainwright said Wednesday the ring, which communicated using an Internet forum, was "probably the largest online pedophile network in the world."

    Cori Bassett, a public affairs officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an email that there had been five arrests and four convictions in connection with Operation Rescue in the U.S.

    "Arrests so far have been made in Georgia and Connecticut. ICE continues to pursue the leads provided by Europol," she added.

    The website was shut down following the three-year investigation, Europol said.

    "The website operated from a server based in the Netherlands and, at its height, boasted up to 70,000 members worldwide," it added.

    "It attempted to operate as a 'discussion–only' forum where people could share their sexual interest in young boys without committing any specific offences, thus operating 'below the radar' of police attention," Europol said.

    "Having made contact on the site, some members would move to more private channels, such as email, to exchange and share illegal images and films of children being abused. Computers seized from those arrested have harvested huge quantities of child abuse images and videos," it added.

    Police infiltrated site 
    The Europol statement said U.K. and Australian police infiltrated the site to identify the members who posed the greatest danger to children. Police also sometimes posed as children online as part of the investigation.

    Law enforcement authorities from 13 countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada, Italy, Spain and the U.K., were involved in the case, Europol said.

    The statement said Europol analysts had cracked the security features of a key computer server at the center of the network which uncovered the identities of suspected child sex offenders.

    And, after his arrest, the forum's Dutch administrator helped police break encryption measures that shielded users' identities, allowing police to begin their covert investigations.

    "Europol subsequently issued over 4,000 intelligence reports to police authorities in over 30 countries in Europe and elsewhere, which has led to the arrests of suspects and the safeguarding of children," Europol said.

    Wainwright said he was proud of the "exceptional work of our experts in helping police authorities around the world to record these groundbreaking results."

    "The safeguarding of so many vulnerable children is particularly rewarding and demonstrates the commitment of our agency to make Europe a safer place for its citizens," he added.

    The investigation was led by Britain's Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center.

    Peter Davies, of the center, said there would be more arrests as the investigations continue.

    "Those who have been members of the site can expect a knock on the door in the very near future," he said.

    In Britain, police said, the children involved were aged between 7 and 14.

    Australian Federal Police commander Grant Edwards said suspects arrested in Australia ranged in age from 19 to 84 and used the Internet to "prey on children with anonymity, with subterfuge and with camouflage."

    Children, Edwards said, "should be able to use the Internet safely, without fear of being approached or groomed by these online predators."

    The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    God hates pedophiles.
    GeoLibCogScientistPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    Pre-pubescent and pubescent minors are underdeveloped and are not consensual whether or not they think they are. 

     This is usually true but there are exceptions. Have you read about the system which @GeoLibCogScientist suggests? I really think it is a good solution as long as we can implement it properly. 
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @AlexOland

    What are your thoughts on @Universalism opinions on pedophilia?
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    What is the point of your information?

    To maybe have other's, feel sad, or sorry for the pedophile?

    I view the pedophile, as anti children, anti family, and anti law.

    And here's your beginning paragraph from your argument:

    "Generally, when people talk of pedophilia they're often referring to actual offenses that have taken place involving non-consenting individuals."

    "This actually, in turn, causes social stigma and makes it hard for those that have urges but which do not act on them and actually want to try and get help for themselves. Interestingly, the DSM-5 did actually originally once classify all Paraphilias as a criminal. "

    The above sounds somewhat, like the redefining of the offender, verses the non violent offender classification, brought to the public, as a way to lessen the social stigma, on those millions of non violent drug users? 

    Another venue of conversation on pedophilia, how many pedophiles in the U.S., are probable drug users? 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

     He touches on how laws regarding pedophilia do not really make sense. He points out what is false but doesn't really talk about what the true version of it should be. And that "true version" is what I am asking for here. Therefore I am not entirely sure if it is fit for this discussion.

     Why don't you try sharing your own opinions on the issue? You always copy and paste these articles. It would be better if you shared your own thoughts. Single cases are not really relevant to making a general argument anyways. Plus, I think a lot of people would appreciate arguments which you form yourself way more. It's still your decision though.

  • You have a terrible habit of loaded questioning. What I said is as-is and is clear as is.



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    My opinion, I view the pedophile, as anti children, anti family, and anti law.

    I'm an equal and fair conversationalist.

    @ZeusAres42

    https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/sex-crimes-states-with-most-registered-sex-offenders.html/ ;

    "Sex Crimes: Here Are 15 States With the Most Registered Sex Offenders"


    "If you have children and you’re thinking of moving to a new state, one cause for concern is safety. Unfortunately, one very real threat in our society is sexual offenders. If you’re concerned about the safety of your state or you want to do some research on a state, you might want to review the state’s sex offender registry.

    In addition to contacting the local police precinct for information, here are 15 states that have the highest rates of registered sex offenders per 100,000 people, according to research from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. How safe is your state?"


  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @TKDB

     You still don't explain your stance though. Well, that's your choice. I am just telling you that what you say is of no help to the discussion.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @AlexOland

    What are you confused about?

    My opinion my stance again is, I view the pedophile, as anti children, anti family, and anti law.

    Is the new norm now, for some to come to the internet, and to "maybe persuade," others feel sad, or sorry, or to have sympathy for the millions of pedophiles in the United States?

    @AlexOland

    Do you see anything confusing with the below headline?

    "Sex Crimes: Here Are 15 States With the Most Registered Sex Offenders"


    "If you have children and you’re thinking of moving to a new state, one cause for concern is safety. Unfortunately, one very real threat in our society is sexual offenders. If you’re concerned about the safety of your state or you want to do some research on a state, you might want to review the state’s sex offender registry.

    In addition to contacting the local police precinct for information, here are 15 states that have the highest rates of registered sex offenders per 100,000 people, according to research from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. How safe is your state?" 



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    So in other words:

    What are your thoughts on @Universalism opinions on pedophilia?

    You refuse to comment on the above question.

    But instead rely on the below, sterile response?

    "You have a terrible habit of loaded questioning. What I said is as-is and is clear as is."

    What you said, is clear to yourself, and is not clear as is, to those who haven't, maybe, adopted, your apparent mindset, based, on the information that you've provided? 

    My question, is fair, equal, and about equality.

    @ZeusAres42

    Where is the equality, when it comes to the victims, who have been victimized by those pedophiles? 

  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    So in other words:

    What are your thoughts on @Universalism opinions on pedophilia?

    You refuse to comment on the above question.

    Your first sterile response:

    "Sorry TKDB but I do not see anyone in this thread called  @Universalism and which has posted anything."

    But instead rely on another sterile response?

    "You have a terrible habit of loaded questioning. What I said is as-is and is clear as is."

    What you said, is clear to yourself, and is not clear as is, to those who haven't, maybe, adopted, your apparent mindset, based, on the information that you've provided? 

    My question, is fair, equal, and about equality.

    @ZeusAres42

    Where is the equality, when it comes to the victims, who have been victimized by those pedophiles? 

    More loaded questioning. I have no interest in commenting on someone else's post from another debate topic. Second, my argument may not be clear to you according to the way your mind works but for the rest of us sane individuals it is indeed clear and understandable; nothing needs to be assumed or inferred about it. Third, you loaded questioning examples are these:
    Where is the equality, when it comes to the victims, who have been victimized by those pedophiles?
    What is the point of your information?

    To maybe have other's, feel sad, or sorry for the pedophile?
    The above sounds somewhat, like the redefining of the offender, verses the non violent offender classification, brought to the public, as a way to lessen the social stigma, on those millions of non violent drug users? 

    Another venue of conversation on pedophilia, how many pedophiles in the U.S., are probable drug users? 
    These questions of yours are the true sterile questions here and reflect absolutely nothing about my position in my argument from above. This is, however, a reflection of the way your individual mind works, inferring and assuming things even when to do so makes no sense whatsoever.

    Also note that your continuing use of loaded questioning here, trying to portray me as some bad immoral person serves as grounds for your posts being removed!

    Plaffelvohfen



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "Also note that your continuing use of loaded questioning here, trying to portray me as some bad immoral person serves as grounds for your posts being removed!"

    Show me, and the public, where I stated anything out of bounds, or out of order, in regards to the theme of this specific thread? 

    Is the below an out of bounds, or out of order  question?

    When a pedophile victimizes an innocent person, how should their victims, or the victims families, be allowed to maybe view the pedophile?

    Because it's confusing, when innocent people, get victimized, and then the public, in general, gets to be educated, on the various types of articles, written, in regards to the pedophile, or pedophilia in general? 

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Is the below a loaded question?

    What is sane, clear, or understandable, about a pedophile, victimizing an innocent person? 

    Do you seriously have to ask that question? Your question here implies that I think it is sane or right for a pedophile to harm an innocent person, which is not my position at all, I have not even said that, or implied such stupidity. 

    When talking about sanity I am referring to the people that have no trouble on this site with reading what I actually wrote.

    You seriously do have trouble understanding what I wrote if you think my position is about sympathizing with an offender. 
    Plaffelvohfen



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    https://www.kidslivesafe.com/mobile/index01

    "Protect Your Family

    Find out if your neighborhood has Sex Offenders.

    • There are more than 800,000 Sex Offenders in the US.
    • One of every 7 victims of sexual assault is under the age of 6.
    • 46% of rapists released from prison are rearrested within 3 years. "

    "Why use KidsLiveSafe?

    Every day tens of thousands of American families use Kids Live Safe's free search to quickly and easily find out if they are at risk from a nearby Sex Offender, making Kids Live Safe the preferred and #1 provider of Sex Offender information and family protection tools on the Internet.

    Find out if there are Sex Offenders near your home.

    Kids Live Safe's database tracks Sex Offenders at the national, state, and local levels. You can protect your family by searching for offenders by location or name.

    It takes only a moment to discover potential threats.

    It takes less than a minute to find out if there is a potential predator in your neighborhood. Enter your ZIP Code to find out.

    Information is powerful. Information is protection.

    If there are potential threats in your area then Kids Live Safe's robust offender profiles and features will inform you so you can make smart decisions about your family's safety

    How KidsLiveSafe Works

    1

    Enter Your Home ZIP Code

    Kids Live Safe will search all sex offender databases for the offenders that have been identified within a short distance of your home ZIP code.

    2

    Identify Offenders Near Your Home

    You learn how many offenders are nearby and see a summary of the closets offenders, including their distance to your home ZIP Code.

    3

    Get Protected

    If there are threats nearby then Kids Live Safe can provide you with the complete offender details and tools to help you make informed decisions to protect your family."


    "IN THE NEWS

    With over 800,000 Sex Offenders in the United States it seems like we read about an assault every day in the news. Here are just a few recent headlines to make us think about the safety of our families.

    “Registered Sex Offender Who Abducted 5 Year Old - Lived about a Mile Away From Her.”

    “Arkansas Man Suspected of Sexually Assaulting More Than 30 Minors”

    “Registered Sex Offenders Allowed to Drive Ice Cream Trucks” 


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    I haven't implied anything.

    But it would appear, that the way you individually view something, is maybe, how you appear to be expressing yourself, from your argument platform, apparently on how you view, something said? 

    "I have no interest in commenting on someone else's post from another debate topic."

    I made a comment, and the said individual, took the word "pedophile," segregated it from the overall argument, and expressed their lengthy opinion, about the same topic, that exists in this specific thread? 

    Individuals share various links to various websites, and articles, from time to time, along with sharing quotes, statements, and sound bites?

    At least, that has been my experience.


  • Intellectual honesty in regards to civil discourse isn't really your forte is it. 




  • The ethics of pedophilia... I think the only problems occur when someone acts on the pulsions... Someone can be attracted by young individual but never act on this urge, if that person never acts on it, is there a crime committed? I think it would be hard to demonstrate there is... I think it's perfectly imaginable to be a pedophile and never act on it, like it's possible to be a sober alcoholic...

    In a similar way, a heterosexual male finding a woman in the street attractive does not automatically equate to them a rapist.

    Plaffelvohfen




  • Pre-pubescent and pubescent minors are underdeveloped and are not consensual whether or not they think they are. 

     This is usually true but there are exceptions. Have you read about the system which GeoLibCogScientist suggests? I really think it is a good solution as long as we can implement it properly. 
    I have just read his original post and voted it a great argument which I think it is. However, would you mind elaborating as to what these exceptions are as well as the connection about GeoLibScientist proposed system?



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    You have your ways or interpretating, how you individually view, another's words?

    And I view things, from what information is shared, and from what I have shared as well.

    I individually try to present another side of a conversation, thus the information that I shared, from the before mentioned websites.

    And I individually, am pro children, pro family, and pro law.

    And I have experienced two situations involving the actions of sex offenders:

    1) The first individual was 21, his victim was 17, so during his day in court, he was ordered by the Judge to register as a sex offender, wherever he moved to, but he refused to, and I saw this sex offender, get taken to jail.

    2) The second individual, was 35, his victim as well was 17, and got upset, that the state that he lived in changed the sex offender law, and was permanently kept on the sex offender registry.

    And he got upset about that.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "Intellectual honesty in regards to civil discourse isn't really your forte is it."

    You could pose that question, to pedophile, criminal, or offender, and see what their answers are, couldn't you? 

    Or to the lady smoking marijuana, while she is carrying a baby? 

    Because both of the sex offenders, that I mentioned?

    One moved around from place to place every 4-5 months, to avoid registering with the sex offender registry.

    The other moved was contemplating moving from his state, because of its sex offender law.

    That's how I view their intellectual honesty.


  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    You have your ways or interpretating, how you individually view, another's words?

    And I view things, from what information is shared, and from what I have shared as well.
    You seem to have these two quotes around the wrong way. Let me just correct for you:
    TKDB has his ways or interpretating, how he individually views, another's words?

    And I ZeusAres42 view things, from what information is shared, and from what I have shared as well.

     I am beginning to wonder if you're doing this on purpose. Hence why I said intellectual honesty isn't really your forte, and your last comment just confirms that even more.

    You continue to address me as if I am taking the position of someone that is pro-offender and anti-children; this is extremely intellectually dishonest. If you view things from the information that is presented you know full well that this is not my position.

    I am not going to bother continuing having this discussion with you. If you keep doing this I will report you, and your posts will be a complete waste of time as they'll just be taken down.


    Plaffelvohfen



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    I'm sorry for asking, but do you make it a habit of rearranging things, to make a probable argument with?

    "You seem to have these two quotes around the wrong way. Let me just correct for you: 
    TKDB has his ways or interpretating, how he individually views, another's words?

    And I ZeusAres42 view things, from what information is shared, and from what I have shared as well.

    " I am beginning to wonder if you're doing this on purpose. Hence why I said intellectual honesty isn't really your forte, and your last comment just confirms that even more. "

    Are you. maybe trying to instruct me, in how I should rephrase a statement? 

    Because you said it yourself:

    "You seem to have these two quotes around the wrong way."

    "Let me just correct for you:"

    Have I ever corrected you, in a statement, in regards to me? 



    And reiterating my previous points of view:

    @ZeusAres42

    "Intellectual honesty in regards to civil discourse isn't really your forte is it."

    You could pose that question, to pedophile, criminal, or offender, and see what their answers are, couldn't you? 

    Or to the lady smoking marijuana, while she is carrying a baby? 

    Because both of the sex offenders, that I mentioned?

    One moved around from place to place every 4-5 months, to avoid registering with the sex offender registry.

    The other moved was contemplating moving from his state, because of its sex offender law, and moving to a state, that doesn't have a sex offender law?

    That's how I view their intellectual honesty.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  



    In regards to pedophilia:

    https://www.kidslivesafe.com/mobile/index01

    "Protect Your Family

    Find out if your neighborhood has Sex Offenders.

    • There are more than 800,000 Sex Offenders in the US.
    • One of every 7 victims of sexual assault is under the age of 6.
    • 46% of rapists released from prison are rearrested within 3 years. "

    "Why use KidsLiveSafe?

    Every day tens of thousands of American families use Kids Live Safe's free search to quickly and easily find out if they are at risk from a nearby Sex Offender, making Kids Live Safe the preferred and #1provider of Sex Offender information and family protection tools on the Internet.

    Find Out If There Are Sex Offenders Near Your Home.

    Kids Live Safe's database tracks Sex Offenders at the national, state, and local levels. You can protect your family by searching for offenders by location or name.

    It Takes Only A Moment To Discover Potential Threats.

    It takes less than a minute to find out if there is a potential predator in your neighborhood. Enter your ZIP Code to find out.

    Information Is Powerful. Information Is Protection.

    If there are potential threats in your area then Kids Live Safe's robust offender profiles and features will inform you so you can make smart decisions about your family's safety

    How KidsLiveSafe Works

    1

    Enter Your Home ZIP Code

    Kids Live Safe will search all sex offender databases for the offenders that have been identified within a short distance of your home ZIP code.

    Identify Offenders Near Your Home

    You learn how many offenders are nearby and see a summary of the closets offenders, including their distance to your home ZIP Code.

    3

    Get Protected

    If there are threats nearby then Kids Live Safe can provide you with the complete offender details and tools to help you make informed decisions to protect your family."


    "IN THE NEWS

    With over 800,000 Sex Offenders in the United States it seems like we read about an assault every day in the news. Here are just a few recent headlines to make us think about the safety of our families.

    “Registered Sex Offender Who Abducted 5 Year Old - Lived About A Mile Away From Her.”

    “Arkansas Man Suspected Of Sexually Assaulting More Than 30 Minors”

    “Registered Sex Offenders Allowed To Drive Ice Cream Trucks”  

    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch