CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Unless it is a newfound practice to classify mentally ill persons as 'wrongdoers', then, no, pedophilia is not wrong, nor is it right. Mental illnesses are independent of any moral scope; thus, those whose actions resulted from their illness are exempt from wrongdoing.
Pedophilic acts committed by a non-pedophile may be deemed immoral, but that is tangential to the topic, which claims pedophilia as being wrong.
Hurting people is not a mental illness. Having an attraction to children may be a mental illness, but that does not eliminate the morality of acting on that mental illness. Someone who commits pedophilic acts is immoral, period.
So, someone compulsively committing a wrongful act, based solely on a condition which compelled them to do such act, and a condition which they cannot control, is immoral?
So a schizophrenic person killing someone who they believe is going to eradicate the entire nation, thus making the act a self-percieved heroic act, is immoral?
They can control it. The mental illness you speak of only affects your thoughts. Having thoughts that you should commit bad acts is not in your control. Pedophiles still know right from wrong.
You think pedophiles fucking little kids is equivalent to a crazy person trying to save the world? You are fucked up.
Mental illnesses affect your thoughts, which, in turn, affect your actions. Moreover, not all pedophiles know right from wrong: their view may be that having sex with prepubescent persons is not an immoral act. It is not uncommon for people to construct a justification for a perspective which they have and cannot control.
It is common to find a pedophile who believes that they have mutual feelings with the child, and hence their sexual acts are not done with malicious or exploitative intent. Sometimes, there is no sex involved, or sex is not the end-goal: they have simply fallen in (inappropriate) love with a child just as two legal adults would.
Basically, pedophiles may know the law, but to suggest that all pedophiles hold the same philosophy as the majority (i.e., sex with a child being wrong) is a gross overgeneralization and is manifestly false.
Morality governs our actions. The concept of immorality only exists because people are affected by their thoughts which affects their actions. It is ridiculous to claim that there is something special about mental illness that allows you to avoid morality.
We are talking about 2 different forms of morality. I am talking about social morality that governs everyone in the community. Individual morality (what you are discussing) does not eliminate social morality. Having a different philosophy does not mean you are exempt from morality. Pedophiles know that sex with children is bad because it is against the law. Feeling that it should not be against the law doesn't mean they don't know it is wrong.
It is ridiculous to claim that there is something special about mental illness that allows you to avoid morality.
A person with a mental illness can and should be exempt from certain moral clauses since their actions were derived from their being mentally ill; someone without a mental illness committing the same acts with the thrill of knowing that that which they are doing is immoral should be morally adjudicated differently.
- "According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual." (Source)
I am talking about social morality that governs everyone in the community.
I believe you mean 'social mores' (?); unless you are referring to morality in terms of cultural relativism?
Individual morality (what you are discussing) does not eliminate social morality.
Depending on your philosophical views, and it also depends on the society. For example, the 'social morality' of certain cultures (e.g. the Sambia Tribe) permits (and even encourages) sexual relations with young children. You may consider that immoral, but that is your subjective view.
Having a different philosophy does not mean you are exempt from morality.
It can be, especially since the concept of morality is a multivariant philosophy in itself.
Pedophiles know that sex with children is bad because it is against the law.
Aside from pedophiles, not all people generally believe that law is the objective standard for good and bad--not even the legal system adheres to such a notion, hence the purpose of repeals, amendments, et cetera.
Feeling that it should not be against the law doesn't mean they don't know it is wrong.
Again, the Law is not an objective standard for 'right and wrong'. In some states sodomy is still illegal, but do you think that when couples engage in oral sex they believe they are doing something wrong? Of course not, it is an archaic law which is not seriously enforced.
Govern - control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events).
Pedophilia can influence your beliefs, which, in turn, influences your actions. If a pedophile believes that sex with a child is not wrong, and they have the opportunity to have sex with a child, and they have sex with that child, then it would be their condition which influenced their beliefs, which led to their unlawful act. However, one can reasonably argue that if they did not have pedophilia, then they would not have had influential motive to have sex with that child.
---
Here, I will affix the rest argument, which you just lazily evaded:
It is ridiculous to claim that there is something special about mental illness that allows you to avoid morality.
A person with a mental illness can and should be exempt from certain moral clauses since their actions were derived from their being mentally ill; someone without a mental illness committing the same acts with the thrill of knowing that that which they are doing is immoral should be morally adjudicated differently.
- "According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual."
I am talking about social morality that governs everyone in the community.
I believe you mean 'social mores' (?); unless you are referring to morality in terms of cultural relativism?
Individual morality (what you are discussing) does not eliminate social morality.
Depending on your philosophical views, and it also depends on the society. For example, the 'social morality' of certain cultures (e.g. the Sambia Tribe) permits (and even encourages) sexual relations with young children. You may consider that immoral, but that is your subjective view.
Having a different philosophy does not mean you are exempt from morality.
It can be, especially since the concept of morality is a multivariant philosophy in itself.
Pedophiles know that sex with children is bad because it is against the law.
Aside from pedophiles, not all people generally believe that law is the objective standard for good and bad--not even the legal system adheres to such a notion, hence the purpose of repeals, amendments, et cetera.
Feeling that it should not be against the law doesn't mean they don't know it is wrong.
Again, the Law is not an objective standard for 'right and wrong'. In some states sodomy is still illegal, but do you think that when couples engage in oral sex they believe they are doing something wrong? Of course not, it is an archaic law which is not seriously enforced.
I have no problem with your assessment that people who have pedophilic thoughts are not moral or immoral. But, your stance that rape is ok as long as the rapist thinks it is ok makes no sense. You trying to claim that since some mental illness leads to loss of autonomy and since our actions are controlled by our thoughts that all mental illness can be treated as a loss of autonomy is bullshit. You backtracking on that point is the capitulation.
[Y]our stance that rape is ok as long as the rapist thinks it is ok makes no sense.
That is subjective relativism for you. Such a subjective concept as morality allows for seemingly outlandish moral views - which, of course, you can oppose (hence subjective); however, no moral views are objectively true. This debate was rendered philosophical when the creator questioned why a thing can be wrong. You absence of understanding of complex philosophy does not render my opinions as being irrespective to the debate.
You trying to claim that since some mental illness leads to loss of autonomy and since our actions are controlled by our thoughts that all mental illness can be treated as a loss of autonomy is bullshit.
"Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision." (Wikipedia)
If a person has a mental condition which strongly impels one to engage in or with some thing, and they decide or act on that urge, that can be considered a coerced action (coercion by virtue of a predetermined cognition, which, in this case, is pedophilia). Some persons with pedophilia can have a loss of autonomy, it merely depends on their self-discipline--which having the ability to do so is partially genetically predetermined.
You backtracking on that point is the capitulation.
Capitulate is a verb not a noun, i.e., there is no such thing as a "capitulation". Rather you should have stated that me backtracking is capitulating.
Sorry, but you aren't talking about complex philosophy, you are talking about incorrect philosophy.
There is no such thing as an "incorrect philosophy", rather someone can be incorrect when citing a specific philosophy.
Influence and strongly compel are vastly different.
First, the term I used was 'impel', which was used in the definition of autonomy (which I am positive you did not bother to read). Second, your influenced belief can impel you to do the action which is derived from that belief.
Very clever. Use a fake word, then correct me for using it as well. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Capitulation is a real word, the way in which you used it was improper: you used capitulate as if it were a noun, which it is not, instead of a verb, which it is. I expressly stated this in the sentence in reference, and I am nonplussed as to how you could not comprehend it.
--
I see no point in further disputation as you obviously do not have the intellectual capacity to understand relatively complex positions, or you are not even putting forth any intellectual effort to engage in fruitful philosophical discourse.
Sorry. There is a vast difference between influence and vastly impel.
Second, your influenced belief can impel you to do the action which is derived from that belief.
I was disputing the "strongly" part.
Capitulation is a real word
Not according to you.
the way in which you used it was improper
False.
you used capitulate as if it were a noun
False. I used the word capitulation.
I expressly stated this in the sentence in reference, and I am nonplussed as to how you could not comprehend it.
Maybe you should have pulled your head out of your ass and thought about the fact that you might be wrong about something. I used the word capitulation.
I see no point in further disputation
That's good. Seeing as all you would do is claim rape is cool.
relatively complex positions
You aren't complex, you are ignoring the victim.
or you are not even putting forth any intellectual effort to engage in fruitful philosophical discourse.
There will never be fruitful philosophical discourse with assholes who attack you for using the wrong word when you didn't even use the word they claimed you used. Note: you are only an asshole for doubling down on me using the wrong word.
What a fool you are! You are the slippery slope I speak to.
It starts out with civil unions for Gays.
Then it goes to gay adoption.
Then it goes to Gay marriage.
Then it goes to FORCING every state to change their marriage laws.
Then it switches to Transgender conditioning of the public. Bruce Jenner (spokes person for the dysfunction of transgender people) on the media non stop speaking to his sex change.
Then our liar and cheif forcing every public school in the nation to allow boys in girls bathrooms.
Now we have fools starting to float the notion of pedophilia being ok!
You are the fools who allow the slippery slope to keep pushing the envelope of our normal natural biology. Twisted world we live in.
HOGWASH! Your entire debate is all about asking why it is wrong.
Any fool knows why it is wrong. How could you be so stupid not to know this simple truth?
The only possible reason to pose such a sick question is to start conditioning people to yet one more abnormal unnatural sexual orientation being presented as normal.
You didn't answer his question, you just called him a fool for it. That's precisely the type of post which would cause a FromWithin to block and mock the respondent.
Pedophilia is an illness inherent in our biology, in that it is not an artificially constructed fetish, nor can it be cured (there is, however, some evidence that brain surgery may be solution, but, since scientists are not allowed to invasively experiment on human subjects, such a cure exists only in theory).
Illnesses are a deviation from the norm. If you hurt someone else it doesn't matter if you have an illness you can't control, you are still responsible.
Have you ever heard of the slippery slope fallacy? If you state one thing is going to lead to another you need to back it up with more evidence than just saying they have something in common.
It should be said that they cannot give "Informed consent" which is really what you're looking for in any contractual language. furthermore, under the age of majority you pretty much need to have the parents give consent to take a child beyond state lines. (We took a field trip to the fire station like 5 blocks away. and needed permission slips) so a similar contract would need to be made with the parents. and Child protective services can basically take away your kids for all kinds of stupid shit, so this would probably be one such thing. assuming all this could happen, without CPS stepping in, who would actually have sex with the child? if it was done for money, that could be seen as a violation of child labor laws. if it was done for love, Then it goes back to informed consent, and I don't think you could convince someone that any child was consenting to be the ongoing Significant other to an adult, and or loved that non-familial person. also, since psychologically speaking pre-pubescent people have very little of a sex drive, this facade of consent could be the product of abuse, and that further confounds the problem. with certain aspects of personality not being developed at that stage in their life they cannot make fully informed decisions.
-
There is of course casual sex... but that might as well be on the same plane as letting the child be abused by a stranger simply to be cruel. CPS would probably step in.
At the stage of years 12-18, this is when we develop identity, and first understand our relationship to our peers. not only does that become impossible, when you're the wife or husband to someone older than you, as you'll likely be the outgroup, but that isolation further pushes you toward your family, and in this case, that's probably your pedo SO.
-
It's less to do with the act itself and more to do with the effects on their psyche, and the law surrounding the protection of the development of children, I would think. but you can't really do away with the laws, without there being abuses on those who aren't the willing. so they impose a law that delays a liberty. much in the same way of getting a credit card. I understood money at 12, and I had an income because I worked on the farm. I feasibly met all the requirements, but couldn't get a card because the credit card company didn't want my potential ignorance of the system to fuck me up.
Cartman said it best. Children cannot legally consent until they reach whatever point society has deemed to be adult. Granted not every society defines that age or status the same way.
And I'll add one more thing, it's is pretty well documented that victims of pedophilia grow up suffering incredible emotional scars from it. It's hard to argue it isn't wrong when there are far more examples of harm from it than there are happy endings. Indeed I'm not aware of any happy endings.
after children reach the point society has deemed to be an adult nothing biologically is going to happen to them it's not like their body is going to be ready for sex when there are exactly 18 or 21 right ?
And about the second paragraph I'm talking about what If the two partners are okay with having sex, not raping how is there going to be suffering ?
plus most of the elders in middle east got married when they are like 9-15 and had like 15 children and ended up happy
You and I actually aren't so far off on this. I acknowledged different societies around the world define the age of consent differently. But indeed there needs to be an age of consent, otherwise you could have 50 year old men having sex with 6 month old babies and claiming the baby clearly loves him and consented.
The age of consent is up for discussion, but there does need to be one.
And your comment about what if the two partners consent is completely subsumed by the age of consent point. In some societies a 14 year old can consent, in others they can't.
hildren cannot legally consent until they reach whatever point society has deemed to be adult.
Not true. In Germany the age of consent is 14. Completely different to when someone becomes an adult.
And I'll add one more thing, it's is pretty well documented that victims of pedophilia grow up suffering incredible emotional scars from it. It's hard to argue it isn't wrong when there are far more examples of harm from it than there are happy endings. Indeed I'm not aware of any happy endings.
Although I agree... where exactly would "happy endings" be published in research? How would such individuals be found?
Anyone who has to ask such a question should seriously seek psychiatric help as a matter of extreme urgency. A child's innocence should be cherished and protected from psychotic dirtballs such as you. In years past when children were relatively safe to enjoy their childhood filth like you would have been kicked up and down the street of the town or village where they infested. What a pity that political correctness has more or less put a stop to such preventative measures.
Pedophilia and child molestation are not the same thing despite people trying to accuse all pedophiles as child molesters.
To me, the term "pedophile" is a sort of made up word just like "racist" to be used as a form of a political and ideological weapon.
To clarify, they've basically created an imaginary line that doesn't really exist. If you find yourself attracted to a 17 year old girl, you're a pedophile, but if you are attracted to an 18 year old girl, it's totally normal? WTF? Who decided this imaginary line of what you can or can't be attracted to?
The word/term never existed in the "olden" days which wasn't even that long ago. It was a common everyday thing for 15, 16, 17 year old girls to get married and bear children and that was going on for centuries longer than this new imaginary world we created where the line has been drawn at 18 and you are now a sicko pedophile if you find yourself attracted to a 16 year old girl.
I believe in age of consent and age of accountability....but this whole make-belief imaginary boundaries that was recently created in the words pedophilia is very childish (no pun intended).
You are right. It hasn't been until recently that research is showing more and more clearly that pedophiles are not as dangerous and evil as people make them out to be because of the negativity swirling around that term with child molestation, child kidnappings, child murders, child rape, etc. In fact, most child molesters are not even pedophiles. They are classified as crimes of opportunity. But this is such a taboo area that even to suggest or hint that pedophiles are decent human beings who mostly are people that struggle with it and admittedly seek for help because they cannot control their attraction towards children, you will get attacked, viciously abused for trying to understand and shed light on pedophiles. It's much easier for those people to just wish them all dead, or to torture them as worthless monsters not worthy enough to be called a human. That's the kind of mindset I tend to see and hear on forums, video comments, and such.
Years ago I was listening to a preach talking about gay marriages which I felt "Fromwithin" addressed insight-fully well in his first post. The preacher began pointing out that Gay Marriages Were Not About Being Included in traditional marriages but if was more about changing traditional marriages to be more like Gay Marriages.
That doesn't really make any sense, at all. The legalization of same-sex marriage has had no effect on heterosexual marriages, and there is no evidence that those who wanted same-sex marriage (myself included) had any intent to alter heterosexual marriage.
I believe he was talking about how seemingly many gay relationships were were more open relationships compared to traditional marriage relationships plus he talked about how Gay relationships tend to break up more so than traditional ones. It's had to be maybe 8 or more years ago I heard this but I went online and found:
Even though gay couples reported more overall happiness in their relationships, they also were more likely to break up. After three years of follow-up, the breakup rate among gay couples in the study who were not in civil unions was 9.3 percent. Gay couples in civil unions had a breakup rate of 3.8 percent, while only 2.7 percent of heterosexual couples had split up.
Pedophelia implies sexual interactions in which one party is not sexually mature, and thus lacks an understanding of the implications of the interaction. That's why we say children can't give consent, and why pedophelic actions are considered rape.
It doesn't transfer at all. I think you're hard pressed to find a 17 year old who isn't sexually mature.
However, the laws are in place to protect those who aren't ready or aware enough to respond effectively. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a judge who would actually give a harsh sentence to an 18 year old who had consensual sex with a 17 year old.
Pedophelia implies sexual interactions in which one party is not sexually mature, and thus lacks an understanding of the implications of the interaction. That's why we say children can't give consent, and why pedophelic actions are considered rape.
My point is that even when the child ages past the pedophilic threshold, which is, by legal definition, 12, he or she is still considered unable to consent by virtue of their sexual maturity. My example merely illustrated the nonsensical consequences entailed by that logical framework.
The transition from prepubescence to pubescence is sort of predicated on sexual maturity; moreover, puberty is defined as: The period during which adolescents reach sexual maturity and become capable of reproduction.
I do not know if you are trying to distinguish between the social definition of maturity or the biological. If the former, I wholly agree that someone who just reached puberty does not render them socially mature enough to make coherent, sexual decisions.
I did not know American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia just another sexual choice.
That would mean Joyce Meyers' claims that he raped her isn't true.
Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent .... In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because of wording in its ..... Pedophilia is not a legal term, and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. A pedophile may be attracted to a child but only if they act upon how they feel would they be wrong as the child is likely to come to harm. Although I feel it to be morally wrong, it is presumably a feeling they cannot change just like everyone else and their own sexual orientation. I disagree with pedophilia entirely but they are not all kinky child molesters.
Personally I think something is wrong with this definition or idea "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation."
A scenario: let's say my be best friend brought his new girlfriend over to my place and is she a knockout so if I lust after her, rub up against her I'm really doing nothing wrong because let's say she's a blonde and we all know blondes have more fun?
It is a wrong and unhealthy orientation, but an orientation nonetheless.
I just mean that the whole pedophilia topic is taboo and people think anyone with those thoughts or feelings should be punished (which they should if they act upon their urges) when they should really be getting help getting out of their unhealthy habits. The idea of anyone getting turned on by a child makes me feel sick, but that is why they should be getting helped not disciplined (again unless they have actually harmed a child).
I also don't understand what you are getting at with the whole blonde sentiment; I don't get what you're comparing that to.
Yes I can tell you. pedophilia is wrong because it requires someone to have sex with a minor person that doesnt have the capacity to understand what is happening to them. Its rape in it worst form.
I think age of consent should be around 13 unless the minor makes a complaint or there is evidence of coercion. Any lower than that is wrong because the child is 100% not sexual attracted to the person they are engaging in sexual activity with before then and that is assurance that the sex was abuse rather than a reciprocal act.
By your logic, any child under the age of 13 has no sexual desires which can encompass another individual. Moreover, if two individuals under the age of 13 engage in coital activities, then they are therefore abusing(?) each other.
I will let you restructure your entire position as it is decidedly erroneous as it is nonsensical.
Most states now have the age of consent at 16. But you know perfectly well at those ages and under they are not necessarily making a rational judgement. You on the other hand are attempting to mix love with teenage infatuation...
