Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[Thomas Eshuis]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied.

That is the focus of the current discussion however, that paedophiles should be persecuted if not outright shot, merely for being paedophiles.

My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence.

There's a crucial distiction between real threat and potential threat.

Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

And for the umpteenth time, we don't still don't persecute people for thought crime.

[PensivePenny]

Short of compulsory castration for all males, how would you propose prevention? Even that wouldn't necessarily prevent child molestation. Lock them all up? Lock up all the children? Segregate children from all males?

Society cannot, nor does it even TRY to prevent ANY crime. Punishment is a deterrent, relying on citizens self-monitoring. Those who break the law and are caught are punished. There is no "lock down," like keeping guns in a safe, that can prevent shit in society. It's foolish to expect it.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

...and there's the squishy nougat center.

[Pebble]

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

...and there's the squishy nougat center.

Sure, if you ignore the vast divide between not accepting a paedophile babysitter and killing them merely for being a paedophile.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Short of compulsory castration for all males, how would you propose prevention? Even that wouldn't necessarily prevent child molestation. Lock them all up? Lock up all the children? Segregate children from all males?

Society cannot, nor does it even TRY to prevent ANY crime. Punishment is a deterrent, relying on citizens self-monitoring. Those who break the law and are caught are punished. There is no "lock down," like keeping guns in a safe, that can prevent shit in society. It's foolish to expect it.

Your post also omits the existence of female child abusers btw.

[The_Metatron]

Short of compulsory castration for all males, how would you propose prevention? Even that wouldn't necessarily prevent child molestation. Lock them all up? Lock up all the children? Segregate children from all males?

Society cannot, nor does it even TRY to prevent ANY crime. Punishment is a deterrent, relying on citizens self-monitoring. Those who break the law and are caught are punished. There is no "lock down," like keeping guns in a safe, that can prevent shit in society. It's foolish to expect it.

This evening, I'll be dropping off my oldest son to play Dungeons and Dragons with a group at a comic book store. I know their names. I know the name of the shopkeep. I've had conversations with both of them to keep my son safe.

I am using independent sources to watch after my son in my absence.

He won't be leaving that store until I get him later this evening.

That's how. I put actions in motion that reinforce each other to achieve my goal. It's going to take a simultaneous multiple failure of those measures to result in harm to my boy.

[Skinny Puppy]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

You're a filatelist, with a large stamp, exclusive and very valuable stamp collection. Your nextdoor neighbour is a known environmental activist who thinks the post systems is harmful to the environment. However, he has, to this point, not destroyed any mail related items nor attacked members of the postal system.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a stampsitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your stamps for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them with them to the Burning Man festival on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the Burning Man festival he’s wants to take take your chrismas letters to the post office for you.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1
2
3
4

You can’t make those types of analogies Thomas since they are totally unrelated. You can replace stamps... not kids. What one would do in one situation doesn’t mean that such a decision would cover all of them.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

...and there's the squishy nougat center.

Sure, if you ignore the vast divide between not accepting a paedophile babysitter and killing them merely for being a paedophile.

Merely? Did you forget the rather grisly and specific circumstances I described that would likely trigger me to act?

It easier when you misrepresent what I've written, isn't it?

[SafeAsMilk]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen. Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

Yeah, I get that, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. What's the gun safe or the truck barrier in this situation? Murdering people who think about stuff that gives you the heebies? Are you saying that there's nothing preventing a person from burning and murdering a girl other than good faith? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

I"m talking about an unsupported and high risk idea that pedophiles' controlling their behavior using their own sense of empathy or social mores is somehow "preventive". Is this not plain?

It is, you're just wrong. It clearly does prevent people from acting on it. It's one of the most socially unacceptable behaviors that people can imagine, apparently even worse than murder -- just look at what you've said! It seems you won't be happy until "preventative" means it stops every single person, but the world doesn't work that way. This is irrelevant, of course, because there's more than just social mores preventing them. It's just a question of how much preventative is enough for you, though since your recourse is to murder people who haven't committed any crimes, your standards aren't much of a concern to me.

Also, take some care as to how you represent that which I've written. Pretty sure I've been clear that I've been talking about something a touch more sever than "people who think about stuff ".

You haven't. There's no actions involved in what you've been talking about, just thought and what you think it means they'll do.

Take Skinny Puppy's recent post, for example. Do you consider a confessed pedophile's professed sense of empathy to be sufficient preventative to hire him to babysit your own 9 year old daughter?

It might be, do I know this guy? Or is he just some neighbor? I wouldn't trust any "just some neighbor" to watch my kid, does this mean I get to shoot them in the face?

[Thomas Eshuis]

Thomas, you ascribe to empathy much more than it deserves.

So you assert but fail to demonstrate.
Note: I am not saying that all humans experience empathy and to the same degree.

You ever slaughter an animal? With your bare hands?

No.

You think that animal enjoys it?

No.

Or, do you think it does what it can to protect its own life?


Do you further think that stops the butcher from slaughtering the animal?

Do you think this non-sequitur analogy is going to convince me anymore than the several you've already posted?

I've killed plenty of animals to eat them. Hundreds. I knew perfectly well their fear. I sure wouldn't have wanted what I was about to do to them to be done to me.

But, I did it anyway. Lots of times. I did it as quickly and cleanly as I could, but I did it anyway.

That empathy prevented nothing. Even in its presence, I made a decision to act.

And how many women have you had sex with agains their will?

As an aside, if you eat meat, you do also. Every time.

Except that I derive no pleasure from their death.
And I am trying to limit if not stop my meat and other animal product consumption.
So, how many women have you had sex with against their will?

If I had to kill animals to sustain my family now, I would do it.

Sure, because survival is completely analogous to rape.

The animals wouldn't like it, and I would be perfectly aware that they don't, but I'd do it anyway.

So much for the power of your precious empathy.

All you've managed to do is present yet another severly flawed analogy and ignored the fact that the vast majority of people do not rape or commit most other crimes because they are aware it would hurt others.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always

[Skinny Puppy]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

...and there's the squishy nougat center.

Sure, if you ignore the vast divide between not accepting a paedophile babysitter and killing them merely for being a paedophile.

I've never mentioned killing them Thomas, just ostracizing them from anything to do with me.

[SafeAsMilk]

Short of compulsory castration for all males, how would you propose prevention? Even that wouldn't necessarily prevent child molestation. Lock them all up? Lock up all the children? Segregate children from all males?

Society cannot, nor does it even TRY to prevent ANY crime. Punishment is a deterrent, relying on citizens self-monitoring. Those who break the law and are caught are punished. There is no "lock down," like keeping guns in a safe, that can prevent shit in society. It's foolish to expect it.

This evening, I'll be dropping off my oldest son to play Dungeons and Dragons with a group at a comic book store. I know their names. I know the name of the shopkeep. I've had conversations with both of them to keep my son safe.

I am using independent sources to watch after my son in my absence.

He won't be leaving that store until I get him later this evening.

That's how. I put actions in motion that reinforce each other to achieve my goal. It's going to take a simultaneous multiple failure of those measures to result in harm to my boy.

Yeah, but they could still be pedophiles anyway. Not preventative enough. Shoot them in the face?

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen. Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

Yeah, I get that, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. What's the gun safe or the truck barrier in this situation? Murdering people who think about stuff that gives you the heebies? Are you saying that there's nothing preventing a person from burning and murdering a girl other than good faith? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

I"m talking about an unsupported and high risk idea that pedophiles' controlling their behavior using their own sense of empathy or social mores is somehow "preventive". Is this not plain?

Except that it isn't unsupported.
And it's not plain either. If you are empathic and aware that having sex with children would hurt them, having sex with them would violate the core of your personality.

Also, take some care as to how you represent that which I've written. Pretty sure I've been clear that I've been talking about something a touch more sever than "people who think about stuff ".

Wrong.
You've been using the term 'sexual gratification' which, unlike your idiosyncratic definition includes all forms of sexual pleasure include physical responses limited to your own body, without masturbation or any other concious act being required.

Take Skinny Puppy's recent post, for example. Do you consider a confessed pedophile's professed sense of empathy to be sufficient preventative to hire him to babysit your own 9 year old daughter?

Do you think continued conflation of seperate scenarios will fly?

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

...and there's the squishy nougat center.

Sure, if you ignore the vast divide between not accepting a paedophile babysitter and killing them merely for being a paedophile.

I've never mentioned killing them Thomas, just ostracizing them from anything to do with me.

I was responding to Metatron, not you however.
Also, you're free to not engage with them as much as you want.
The point of contention in this thread, is whether they should be persecuted, if not outright killed, merely for having an uncontrollable attraction to children.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen. Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

Yeah, I get that, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. What's the gun safe or the truck barrier in this situation? Murdering people who think about stuff that gives you the heebies? Are you saying that there's nothing preventing a person from burning and murdering a girl other than good faith? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

I"m talking about an unsupported and high risk idea that pedophiles' controlling their behavior using their own sense of empathy or social mores is somehow "preventive". Is this not plain?

Except that it isn't unsupported.
And it's not plain either. If you are empathic and aware that having sex with children would hurt them, having sex with them would violate the core of your personality.

Also, take some care as to how you represent that which I've written. Pretty sure I've been clear that I've been talking about something a touch more sever than "people who think about stuff ".

Wrong.
You've been using the term 'sexual gratification' which, unlike your idiosyncratic definition includes all forms of sexual pleasure include physical responses limited to your own body, without masturbation or any other concious act being required.

Take Skinny Puppy's recent post, for example. Do you consider a confessed pedophile's professed sense of empathy to be sufficient preventative to hire him to babysit your own 9 year old daughter?

Do you think continued conflation of seperate scenarios will fly?

What's the problem, Thomas? Unwilling to put something you value to the test?

No shit.

Now, you're starting to get it.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

You're a filatelist, with a large stamp, exclusive and very valuable stamp collection. Your nextdoor neighbour is a known environmental activist who thinks the post systems is harmful to the environment. However, he has, to this point, not destroyed any mail related items nor attacked members of the postal system.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a stampsitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your stamps for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them with them to the Burning Man festival on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the Burning Man festival he’s wants to take take your chrismas letters to the post office for you.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1
2
3
4

You can’t make those types of analogies Thomas since they are totally unrelated. You can replace stamps... not kids. What one would do in one situation doesn’t mean that such a decision would cover all of them.

The point of my post is that yours is not at all analogous the point of contention in this thread.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Yeah, I get that, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. What's the gun safe or the truck barrier in this situation? Murdering people who think about stuff that gives you the heebies? Are you saying that there's nothing preventing a person from burning and murdering a girl other than good faith? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

I"m talking about an unsupported and high risk idea that pedophiles' controlling their behavior using their own sense of empathy or social mores is somehow "preventive". Is this not plain?

Except that it isn't unsupported.
And it's not plain either. If you are empathic and aware that having sex with children would hurt them, having sex with them would violate the core of your personality.

Also, take some care as to how you represent that which I've written. Pretty sure I've been clear that I've been talking about something a touch more sever than "people who think about stuff ".

Wrong.
You've been using the term 'sexual gratification' which, unlike your idiosyncratic definition includes all forms of sexual pleasure include physical responses limited to your own body, without masturbation or any other concious act being required.

Take Skinny Puppy's recent post, for example. Do you consider a confessed pedophile's professed sense of empathy to be sufficient preventative to hire him to babysit your own 9 year old daughter?

Do you think continued conflation of seperate scenarios will fly?

What's the problem, Thomas? Unwilling to put something you value to the test?

No shit.

Now, you're starting to get it.

I am really disappointed to see someone who usually very consistent with regards to rational discourse, fail to see the bullshit of conflating letting a paedophile watch your kids, with persecuting and/or killing them.
Your depserate handwaving notwithstanding.

[SafeAsMilk]

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children without getting run out of the neighborhood would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.

[Thomas Eshuis]

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

Life is full of risks. Our job as parents is to educate children to handle risks, within their capacity. Further the best guide to future behavior is past behavior.

So assuming you knew, rather than was just assured that this individual was a 'virgin' paedophile - then the question is how mature are your children. Can they be told about paedophilia? What to do if anyone - or this individual in particular does anything inappropriate etc?
It may well be something that I could envisage doing very carefully. It would include a discussion with the paedophile and my children in the same room at the same time agreeing the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Who are these open pedophiles asking to watch people's kids? I'm pretty sure anyone who can figure out how to let everyone know they're a pedophile and they'd never touch your children would know enough to not ask you to watch them. I understand it's just an example, but it's a really absurd one.