CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Gillzy

Reward Points:1
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:3
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
3 most recent arguments.
2 points

Disregarding the making of, legality of and acceptability of child porn. The viewing of child porn hurts those involved in child porn. Proof arises from the recent case of Vannessa George, and her two accomplices, in the Little Ted's Nursery case. As far as I am aware, the mothers and fathers (and in the future the children) do not know if their child was used and abused in the pictures taken. It causes them all great distress. So the mere knowledge of the existence of child pornography which can be looked at by others surely hurts the child involved and the family supporting that child.

Furthermore to dispute the point made about "1000 videos for 1000 children" and that watching pornographic videos reduces the urge to perform sexually abusive acts towards children, I would like to raise the point that catharsism doesn't always work. It has been shown in aggression that the acting out or observation of aggressive behaviours does NOT discourage/reduce aggressive acts (as in the situations where in ye olde days, in ancient Greece, they would put people to fight each other in pits, as it was thought the audience would have expressed enough aggression in the viewing of it to reduce the aggression in society). And in fact it has been shown that in situations where aggressors act out behaviours they feel positive afterwards and so are encouraged to increase acts of a similar kind, causing an on-going snowball of acts of aggression.

So it can't be said that the viewing of child pornography reduces the chances that they will act out on it in future. However, it also can't be said that it will encourage it. So in reference as to whether or not the viewing of child pornography hurts those viewing it: if the viewer is a paedophile, then it can't be stated how it affects their complicated mental states.

Now, if the viewer is a child it would most definitely cause some sort of mental harm (since we're not specifically arguing the legality of viewing it for pleasure, we must bring into account what happens if someone not WANTING to view it experiences the scenes displayed in child pornography).

1 point

"You judge to harshly a person you know nothing about, because you debate with me doesn't mean you automatically know me." I believe you do the same yourself. And as Ama_Deviant said, her argument is the only one that comes from education and experience, whereas your argument speaks of no truth other than hurt, and wanting to get these "sick fucks". This is a basic reaction of a basic human, if you were to heed Ama's words and look into the realm of Psychology you'd find a lot of arguments for and against your thoughts, and with the education of those which are against you you will grow to understand humanity, and the fact that paedophiles are naturally occurring but shouting and screaming abuse at them does nothing.

As Albert Einstein said: “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” Try educating yourself in the area of paedophilia (from the paephiles point of view as well as the child's). Then with an open-mind you will be able to come back and argue a point that makes sense from an educated perspective.

My main problem with paedophilia is that I also don't understand how someone who (for the most part) has experienced child sexual abuse would be able to go on to do something so horrific to another child, and in fact the majority of those who do suffer from CSA have an fear of children, and going near them in case they DO inflict pain on them (if you look up on the internet I'm sure you can find numerous psychological studies on the typologies of CSAs, explaining the different reasons for why they are the way they are). However, it is understandable that if you have grown up only knowing that your mother or father abused you, then it would be a natural conclusion that this secret molesting is what human beings do. And sometimes even education in this isn't enough to change the opinion as by that time the psychological stigma with children is set. Another reason why the molested molest is due to loneliness and social exclusion (experienced because of the CSA), where they see the only person they can TRUST is another child. There is no way that an adult - someone capable of doing something like that to you as a child - could possibly be someone you could care about and love. It isn't true that ALL paedophiles prey on children because they are weak and unable to make decisions for themselves. (this is in addition to #3 on Ama's big post.)

Anyway, I'm just saying, your argument lacks the evidence needed to put forward your point accordingly. Do some research, then make your point, instead of aggressively jumping to conclusions.

2 points

I believe that the point Kinda is trying to make is that, whilst you argue that homosexuality is different to paedophilia based on the fact that one is a consenting sexual relationship, your argument does not define the difference between the two TYPES of people - the person not the act.

You yourself said that homosexuality comes down to a preference for a mate of the same sex, as hetrosexuality is a preference for the opposite sex. In this sense, paedophilia is preference for those who are younger (specifically, prepubescent children - and hebephilia is a preference for pubescent individuals). So, in essence, paedophilia is just the same as homosexuality. It is merely that society (with it's boundaries on age limits of sexual intercourse) judges whether or not it is acceptable to be one way or another, but in truth just like homosexuals don't have any choice in being gay or straight, paedophiles don't have any choice in that they prefer a younger partner. By judging paedophiles as being "disgusting, mentally disordered beings" we are also judging homosexuals as the same.

Gillzy has not yet created any debates.

About Me


"I have nearly completed my degree in Psychology. I find debates about the ways in which humans work fascinating! :D"

Biographical Information
Gender: Lady
Age: 35
Marital Status: In a Relationship
Political Party: Republican
Country: United Kingdom

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here