> Pedophiles are are a sociopathic rot, and should be treated as the worthless dangerous filth that they are. I'd feel worse stepping on a spider than I would putting a bullet in a child pornographer.

I think the biggest issue is that people see such a black and white division between "good" and "bad". Firstly, there's the fact that general scientific consensus is that paedophilia is not something they can control, all they can control is their urges. And then, those who do act on their urges, there are still many levels.

Consider...

  - Paedophile who never acts on attraction to children
  - Paedophile who looks at non-nude legal photos of children
  - Paedophile who looks at cartoon child pornography
  - Paedophile who looks at nude / suggestive child pornography
  - Paedophile who looks at hard core child pornography
  - Paedophile who makes nude / suggestive CP
  - Paedophile who makes hard core CP
  - Paedophile who has a relationship with a 15yo who consents
  - Paedophile who has a relationship with a 15yo who doesn't consent
  - Paedophile who has a relationship with a 6yo who consents (** SEE DISCLAIMER)
  - Paedophile who has a relationship with a 6yo who doesn't consent

PLEASE note that I am not suggesting a 6yo can ever properly "consent", nor am I saying this relationship would ever be an OK thing. But I still presume that there's a difference between a young child who doesn't know any better, v.s a young child who is being forced to do something they hate.

So yes, I'm with you about child pornographers (well I wouldn't personally shoot them.. but no problem with strong laws against them), but I think there are many shades of paedophile, from "not their fault and they do nothing wrong" all the way down to "scum of the earth".

edit to respond to your edit: So you're happy drawing a straight line and place it between "done nothing" and "done something"? Does your moral code line up with the law? If so in which country? Are the following consensual relationships OK or not OK: 16+15, 16+14, 16+13, 18+15, 18+13, 21+15, 21+13, 40+15, 40+13....

> presume that there's a difference between a young child who doesn't know any better, v.s. a young child who is being forced to do something they hate.

Your disclaimer is troubling. Are you saying one is somehow a lesser problem than the other, even if only by a degree? By that logic is it "less" of a rape to sexually assault a 30-year-old with a mental handicap who doesn't understand what's happening vs. assaulting a 30-year-old who fights back?

Raping a six-year-old is rape. It doesn't make a difference whether he or she "hates" it or whether situation plays into some vulnerability.

The victim is no more or less responsible because he or she had an awareness of what was happening, and the criminal is no less culpable for his or her actions.

That's a really good question... and I'm not sure. Certainly if, outside of the context of this topic if you asked me your mentally handicap question I would say that no, there's no difference.

But think of it from a different angle, and separate each individual action. Let's define "causing physical pain" as a bad thing. Now take an example of child abuse in which physical pain is not caused - let's say fondling, or maybe consensual (ignoring subtle manipulation/etc.) sex with an older child - would you say that adding physical pain into that equation doesn't make it worse? And if adding one bad thing doesn't make it worse, what other things could you add before it does count as making it worse - murder?

Now to come back to a more specific example - if an adult has a sexual relationship with a child which the child is, at the time, untroubled by, then is there a chance that they could come out of it without any harm being done? Yes. I've no idea what the stats are, but certainly there are adults who as children had relationships with adults and who, now they are adults, still don't think there was anything wrong with it. So however likely or unlikely that is to be the case, a consensual relationship has a higher than 0% chance of doing no harm. On the other hand, a forced relationship in which the child hates it at the time, already is at 100% doing harm - even if the child gets over it and lives a happy life, there was already some harm (however serious or not serious) caused at the time. So doesn't that mean the odds suggest one is better than the other? Even if only by a tiny amount?

edit: Another thought - from a moral judgement point of view, I think it's also possible to see that there might be a difference in motivation from the abuser's point of view, who could look at a consensual relationship with a child as justifiable (i.e. deluded) vs. one who clearly knows the child doesn't want it (i.e. evil). Of course I'm sure that some of the consensual relationships (maybe the vast majority) involve adults who are just scheming and thinking about what makes their abuse easier, but some definitely justify to themselves that it's not OK. (Probably more likely with children older than 6, though.) Mental handicap example: difference between having sex with an adult who you believe to be consenting (but they're not, they just don't tell you because of their handicap) vs. having sex with an adult you know doesn't want to have sex.

You're trying to make the case that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, then it didn't fall.

If a stranger breaks into your home, goes through your belongings, and takes your prized possessions, it doesn't matter if you're well insured or if you're poor. It also doesn't matter if you're the extremely rare edge case who does not feel violated and doesn't press charges. The actual act of burglary occurred and the degree of it doesn't change based on your response.

Likewise, when a child is molested, it doesn't matter if he or she is not harmed physically. (Indeed, the psychological effects might be the longest lasting and most painful in many cases.)

Certainly, we can be thankful that they weren't physically harmed -- or in your rare edge case, that they are able to live the rest of their lives without any apparent repercussions. But that doesn't change the fact that there was an abuse of power (the other person was bigger, in a position of authority, more mentally capable, or more sober, etc.) And as I said before, it doesn't place any more responsibility on the child, nor any less culpability on the abuser.

The response does not change the act.

I disagree, on two points.

Firstly, I do think there's a difference between a burglar who thinks "they're insured, I'm only taking items they won't have any personal attachment too (e.g. money) and other than the nuisance of claiming insurance they won't mind" as opposed to one who just doesn't care. And that really does make a difference - I've been the victim of credit card fraud once, I just notified by card provider and got the money right back, and therefore it effected me far less than if they broke into my home and stole my computer.

And secondly: "when a child is molested, it doesn't matter if he or she is not harmed physically"

Really? In the burglar analogy is that not the same as saying "if someone breaks into your home it doesn't matter what they steal"?

<Got a bit confused here, not sure if I posted the above alone and then kept writing more below, or... so think this was an edit point here.>

Let's say you and I were walking along and discovered an adult having sex with a young child somewhere. The adult runs off. I then walk up to the child and punch them in the face - do you think "well that punch doesn't matter"? Assuming not, why is it different if that pain is caused by the sexual abuser as opposed to a different person? And/or why is it different if that pain is caused by a punch after the abuse or by the abuse itself? You do then go on to suggest that actually it is better if the child isn't physically hurt.. which seems like disagreeing with yourself.

> And as I said before, it doesn't place any more responsibility on the child, nor any less culpability on the abuser.

First off, I hope in none of my comments have I at any time suggested any responsibility be assigned to children in these situations. I can't see where I might have, but if I have.. it was by accident.

As to culpability, well I think it's a bad word since in my understanding of it that is much more binary in this sort of situation, and yes I would say both adults are 100% "culpable".

Think of it another way: if you were forced to chose between a child having sex with an adult and the child not minding it (at the time of the abuse, who knows how they will feel in the future) or a child being physically forced to have sex with an adult and crying as it happens, would you still think "doesn't matter which"?

In my opinion, your opinion is being clouded based on the fact that both situations are still extremely serious, and extremely wrong. In either situation you and I would both despise their actions strongly enough that it would be irrelevant to analyse the exact act and try to define exactly how bad it is. But that doesn't mean there still is a scale.

> The adult runs off. I then walk up to the child and punch them in the face - do you think "well that punch doesn't matter"?

You're muddling the context of "doesn't matter". In your hypothetical, the rapist would be prosecuted for rape and you would be prosecuted for assault. So yes, it matters in that it should not be ignored. In mine, I am saying it is inconsequential to the morality of the situation whether the child feels harmed or not. A prosecutor may still charge the abuser with additional counts for physical abuse if warranted.

> t it would be irrelevant to analyse the exact act and try to define exactly how bad it is. But that doesn't mean there still is a scale

This is my point. Trying to define a moral scale of abuse based on the response of the abused -- consent, nonconsent, etc. -- is not more than an irrelevant intellectual exercise.

> In your hypothetical, the rapist would be prosecuted for rape and you would be prosecuted for assault.

Legal issues haven't been part of the discussion, we're talking morals/ethics. Would you judge me for doing that?

> Trying to define a moral scale of abuse based on the response of the abused

I'm not talking about basing it on the response, I'm talking about doing it based on the way it is carried out.

If an adult sets out to have consensual sex with another adult, and the other adult shows they don't want to do it (maybe at first contact, or maybe when they're both naked and just about to get started, maybe even after they just had sex already and one wants to go again) then that adult can chose to continue (rape) or stop (not rape).

I doubt (though fuck knows, could be wrong) that any adult has ever set out to rape ("rape" as in, with physical force, blackmail, etc. rather than "rape" as in statutory) a child and then discovered that the child enjoyed it afterwards. But there are definitely cases of adults starting consensual relationships with children - maybe if those relationships didn't go well they would then move onto rape, or maybe they would pull back like any normal person would in a comparable adult/adult situation.

It's all about intent of the abuser, not response of the abused.

If there is abuse of a child occurring, it is a particularly egregious form of it, and it should be dealt with harshly. Watching cartoons, although disturbing, is not abusing anyone. Making or watching any form of actual kiddie porn is over the the line.

I don't think teenagers making out with each other is abusive, and it admittedly gets grey when you have gown men (lets be honest, it's mostly men we're talking about but that is irrelevant) in relationships with teenagers. If I had to draw a line, it would be at 16, with an exception for age + 5 years or something along those lines that goes in the spirit of preventing abuse of children. It is not too much to ask a grown adult to control themselves around a 15 year old.

> Making or watching any form of actual kiddie porn is over the the line.

Where do you draw the line of what counts as porn, and even within that do you not agree there are levels? For example the photos taken by the man described in this blog post, they were nude children, I'm sure plenty of paedophiles would enjoy them. Or is it about intent, if this man had taken those pictures because he wanted to enjoy them sexually later, would that be over the line? Or distribution, if he shared them with paedophiles? Or if someone other than him got hold of them and distributed them?

What about very similar pictures to the ones in this blog, but this time they were taken specifically as pornography, and posed as such - but still no specific sexual acts depicted or taking place?

I suspect you and I both agree that the man in this blog is completely innocent, morally and legally, but between that and setting up a film studio and forcing children to have sex with each other on camera, there are many levels, both legally in terms of how they'll be punished, and I think morally in terms of how they should be judged.

As to 16 being the line, I think that's probably my preference too with regards to the law, but you were talking about moral judgement, specifically that you wouldn't mind "putting a bullet" in them. Do you honestly think that having sex with a 16 year old on their birthday is fine and the day before that would be evil? Of course there needs to be a line drawn for the law, but you don't need to base your judgements on this too.

And what about a paedophile who secretly took pictures of a young child in the shower and never shared them with anyone, vs. one who got into the shower and raped that child. Or even within physical abuse, someone who fondles a child vs. someone who penetrates. I'm not saying you should look at it as "well he didn't penetrate, so that's fine", just that your hatred should really be scaled according to the crime, not in a binary state.

Yes, the edges are a little fuzzy. I would not advocate shooting a 25 year old for sleeping with a 15 364/365 year old. I would advocate shooting a man who raped a 6 year old.

>Pedophiles are are a sociopathic rot, and should be treated as the worthless dangerous filth that they are. I'd feel worse stepping on a spider than I would putting a bullet in a child pornographer.

No, pedophiles are regular humans suffering from a terrible mental disorder. They are no less deserving of compassion and respect.

A child molester or someone who has otherwise abused a child is more deserving of your vitriol. The two are not necessarily the same and we need to stop acting like they are. Last I checked, thoughtcrime was a bad idea.

It's not generally polite to refer to a sexual orientation as a terrible mental disorder.

Except when it is...

I can't imagine having a compulsion as core as sexual desire which you can't satisfy without horribly damaging another person is anything but terrifying.

Perhaps "fetish" or "fantasy" would have been a better way to describe it.

Plenty of people have fetishes ranging from the distasteful (rape, both from the perspective of the rapist and the victim, cuckolding, etc) to the absolutely bizarre (inflation? transformation? vore? what the fuck, who comes up with this shit?) that they have absolutely no desire to participate in in reality. It exists purely as fantasy for them, never admitted to anyone but strangers on the internet or perhaps a very accepting (or similarly deviant) partner.

Of course this is the case. You don't hear stories about strange men chasing people down with bicycle pumps, do you?

In other words, it's almost as if the average person understands the line between fantasy and reality! What a relief, maybe they aren't all ticking time bombs after all.

  | In other words, it's almost as if the average
  | person understands the line between fantasy
  | and reality!

Then why must these fantasies be hidden in the closet? Do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be a lynch mob if someone admitted to fantasizing about children (but had no intention to ever act on it)?

Ok, let me rephrase that: In other words, it's almost as if the average pervert understands the line between fantasy and reality!

  | Last I checked, thoughtcrime was a bad idea.

No, no. It's ok so long as it's against thoughts that I personally disagree with. It's only wrong when the thoughts are ones that I agree with. </sarcasm>

>> "Pedophiles are are a sociopathic rot, and should be treated as the worthless dangerous filth that they are. I'd feel worse stepping on a spider than I would putting a bullet in a child pornographer."

Who's the sociopathic rot now...? Well at least statements like that clarify whether the witch hunters are taking their stance because they're fighting for human rights and the alleviating of people's suffering, or whether their stance if merely about feeling good about themselves.