Originally posted by Proper KnobThere is no telling on what pretext a materialist will utilise pseudo scientific data. If paedophilia is a sexual orientation, as has been asserted, on what basis will you term it criminal? are other sexual orientations also criminalised? If not, why not and why is paedophilia to be viewed as any different.
If you seriously think that paedophilia will be decriminalised then you are more detached form reality then I already think you are. Which, but the way, is extremely detached.
I repeat again, seeing that you need reeled in from time to time, I am not arguing that it should be decriminalised, merely that a pretext might be found for citing some report and attempting the defence of diminished responsibility.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes, bestiality is illegal.
There is no telling on what pretext a materialist will utilise pseudo scientific data. If paedophilia is a sexual orientation, as has been asserted, on what basis will you term it criminal? are other sexual orientations also criminalised? If not, why not and why is paedophilia to be viewed as any different.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSociety protects children because they are not old enough to make decisions for themselves. We have an age of consent with regard to sexual intercourse in this country for that very reason.
There is no telling on what pretext a materialist will utilise pseudo scientific data. If paedophilia is a sexual orientation, as has been asserted, on what basis will you term it criminal? are other sexual orientations also criminalised? If not, why not and why is paedophilia to be viewed as any different.
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes i understand this and I am happy that it is the case, but these reports that are being proffered, that it causes no lasting harm, that it may be a sexual orientation don't bode well in my mind.
Society protects children because they are not old enough to make decisions for themselves. We have an age of consent with regard to sexual intercourse in this country for that very reason.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedata? what? anything can be a sexual orientation, if i found tea-cups hot, i would be sexual orientated towards tea-cups. actually i used the incorrect word earlier, i should have use zoophilia.
bestiality is a sexual orientation? wow, have you any data to support the claim?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieive already answered this question. its primarily a mental illness. it can also be a sexual orientation, but this is more complex and differs from person to person. the motives for pedophilia can vary.
is paedophilia a mental illness or a sexual orientation?
Originally posted by stellspalfiemork calling stellspalfie, come in stellspalfie, nanoo nanoo
data? what? anything can be a sexual orientation, if i found tea-cups hot, i would be sexual orientated towards tea-cups. actually i used the incorrect word earlier, i should have use zoophilia.
actually guys i need to go to work, but i tell you truly, i am seriously concerned with these reports and it does not bode well in my mind. I was listening to a program on radio 4 on paedophilia and I found it quite disturbing to be honest. Even chemical castration may not deter someone from abusing children and this idea that its a sexual orientation has all kinds of unresolved issues attached to it.
Originally posted by stellspalfieI see, so something may be a sexual orientation and a mental illness, what about homosexuality, is that a mental illness? If not, why not?
ive already answered this question. its primarily a mental illness. it can also be a sexual orientation, but this is more complex and differs from person to person. the motives for pedophilia can vary.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethere a reports flying all over the place. look at food, one minute we can eat eggs then we cant, dont drink wine, then have a glass everyday. one report does not mean the whole of society is going to lose its mind and start letting pedophiles have free pick of our children.
it was stated in these reports that were cited in the articles that were produced, from the guardian and the telegraph. I don't have time to go back and find them, but i am quite sure i did not make that up.
i dont believe you are that stupid to think that. i suspect there is something a little more machiavellian going on here.