Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Bullsh*t: Google & Microsoft agree to block child abuse images

123 replies to this topic
Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#31

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:32 PM

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - you must leave these people an option to sate their desires in a legal manner which harms no one. 

I don't believe allowing people to masturbate to child pornography (real or otherwise) is any more of an effective way of prevention than regular porn is for stopping a person having sex. Besides which, what about the paedophiles who just can't get their rocks off to cartoons? What are these poor souls to do? I mean look, a recorded incident of child sexual abuse isn't technically harming anyone, the harm has already been done and people watching the act isn't going to conflate said harm, so why not let them watch it?

 

 

You can no more stamp out pedophilia than you could erase homosexuality. Stop trying and allow them the small, insignificant courtesy of at least being able to look at artificial images in which no child was harmed.

 

Well the difference being that sane adult humans can consent to being f*cked by another man.

 

We are needlessly criminalising people for impulses they cannot control and shouldn't have to.

 

Should they not? Many deranged psychopaths feel an overwhelming desire to murder. Should they not have to control that? Here's an idea: Shove every man and woman who has committed an egregious unforgivable crime to society in a big cage and then RELEASE THE PSYCHOPATHS! We can charge $25 for a ticket, it'll be great.


Crazyeighties
  • Crazyeighties

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#32

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:36 PM

"Leading search engine companies Google and Microsoft have agreed measures to make it harder to find child abuse images online.
 
As many as 100,000 search terms will now return no results that find illegal material, and will trigger warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal."
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765
 
This will make no difference to protecting children because; just as bank robbers don't leave their name and address before they leave the bank, paedophiles don't use f*cking Google anyway to look for illegal content, believe it or not.
 
This is about one thing, and that is censorship and restricting content on the Internet. Controlling our freedom. Sorry if I sound like a mad conspiracy theorist, but this move by the government is the start!
 
The government are using societies fear of the 'boogeyman' ie paedophiles to get what they want. If you don't believe me then Google 'culture of fear'.

like road runner said unless your into that kind of f*cked up sh*t it should not bother you. I hope to god you don't have any kids

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#33

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:56 PM

Edit - Typhus? Phrasing. Having the desires? Sure. Not controlling impulses? Irr-re-f*ckin-sponsible.

Ah, but isn't the very act of masturbation a submission to ones sexual impulses? We don't judge those who pleasure themselves to pictures of pretty girls, because we realise that they cannot control their nature.

Yet we sit on our pedestal of normality and expect the pedophile to make himself a eunuch. Telling people to fight their basic nature is very harmful and will inevitably result in more extreme, illegal behaviour.

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

  • Finn 7 five 11, StormerBoy, Kristian. and 2 others like this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#34

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:07 PM

 

Edit - Typhus? Phrasing. Having the desires? Sure. Not controlling impulses? Irr-re-f*ckin-sponsible.

Ah, but isn't the very act of masturbation a submission to ones sexual impulses? We don't judge those who pleasure themselves to pictures of pretty girls, because we realise that they cannot control their nature.

Yet we sit on our pedestal of normality and expect the pedophile to make himself a eunuch. Telling people to fight their basic nature is very harmful and will inevitably result in more extreme, illegal behaviour.

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

 

Oh I guess my reply wasn't up to the calibre that warrants a reply from an apologist for child molesters.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#35

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:20 PM

 

 

Edit - Typhus? Phrasing. Having the desires? Sure. Not controlling impulses? Irr-re-f*ckin-sponsible.

Ah, but isn't the very act of masturbation a submission to ones sexual impulses? We don't judge those who pleasure themselves to pictures of pretty girls, because we realise that they cannot control their nature.

Yet we sit on our pedestal of normality and expect the pedophile to make himself a eunuch. Telling people to fight their basic nature is very harmful and will inevitably result in more extreme, illegal behaviour.

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

 

Oh I guess my reply wasn't up to the calibre that warrants a reply from an apologist for child molesters.

 

Is it my fault you're boring?

Tell you what, add in a rainbow, some coloured text, maybe a picture of Patrick Stewart facepalming and I'll consider you just pathetic enough to humour.

Deal?

  • D- Ice and Melchior like this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#36

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:30 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 18 November 2013 - 06:38 PM.

 

 

 

Edit - Typhus? Phrasing. Having the desires? Sure. Not controlling impulses? Irr-re-f*ckin-sponsible.

Ah, but isn't the very act of masturbation a submission to ones sexual impulses? We don't judge those who pleasure themselves to pictures of pretty girls, because we realise that they cannot control their nature.

Yet we sit on our pedestal of normality and expect the pedophile to make himself a eunuch. Telling people to fight their basic nature is very harmful and will inevitably result in more extreme, illegal behaviour.

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

 

Oh I guess my reply wasn't up to the calibre that warrants a reply from an apologist for child molesters.

 

Is it my fault you're boring?

Tell you what, add in a rainbow, some coloured text, maybe a picture of Patrick Stewart facepalming and I'll consider you just pathetic enough to humour.

Deal?

 

Nah man you're right, I like to f*ck kids too.

 

You're a moron. If you don't have any substance to back up your stupid drivel, then don't bother, it wastes my time, it wastes your time, it wastes bandwidth.

 

I also don't know how seriously I should take a person who is proposing on a gta forum that society should allow child porn.

  • Typhus likes this

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#37

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:41 PM

No Patrick Stewart, no comprendo.

Try again when you're willing to put in a bit of f*cking effort.


StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#38

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:44 PM

 

"Leading search engine companies Google and Microsoft have agreed measures to make it harder to find child abuse images online.
 
As many as 100,000 search terms will now return no results that find illegal material, and will trigger warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal."
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765
 
This will make no difference to protecting children because; just as bank robbers don't leave their name and address before they leave the bank, paedophiles don't use f*cking Google anyway to look for illegal content, believe it or not.
 
This is about one thing, and that is censorship and restricting content on the Internet. Controlling our freedom. Sorry if I sound like a mad conspiracy theorist, but this move by the government is the start!
 
The government are using societies fear of the 'boogeyman' ie paedophiles to get what they want. If you don't believe me then Google 'culture of fear'.

like road runner said unless your into that kind of f*cked up sh*t it should not bother you. I hope to god you don't have any kids

 

 

Should I take offence to that?  :wtf:


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#39

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:48 PM

Well this seems to be going as well as I had imagined.

  • Revenge of the Donut likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#40

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:56 PM



No Patrick Stewart, no comprendo.

Try again when you're willing to put in a bit of f*cking effort.

shopaholic-couponing.jpg

Coloured text

patrick-stewart-facepalm.jpg

  • Typhus likes this

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#41

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:06 PM

I don't believe allowing people to masturbate to child pornography (real or otherwise) is any more of an effective way of prevention than regular porn is for stopping a person having sex. Besides which, what about the paedophiles who just can't get their rocks off to cartoons? 

That is a good point. Of course, there are going to be people who are - by their very nature - predatory and will not simply be satisfied with masturbatory aids. I won't deny that.

However, the first step to truly isolating these people is to embrace those who are not of that mindset.

 

How? By education and acceptance. If society can accept that some people have an attraction to children, but educate these people early that they must not act on their desires, we might get somewhere. Let me put it into bullet points to save time:

 

1. You acknowledge that pedophilia is a legitimate sexual orientation.

2. You educate the pedophile to understand that - at press time - we are unable to allow them to engage in actual intercourse in the manner they would enjoy.

3. You allow them artificial images of children in lieu of the existing material produced by sex-slavers.

 

That's it. I do not believe that all pedophiles are predatory any more than I believe the stereotype that every homosexual is attracted to every man they meet. If we met them halfway, stop criminalising things they cannot change and work with them towards a more acceptable climate, we further isolate those on the opposite end of the spectrum who molest children and produce videos and other materials documenting this abuse.

 

People develop sexual urges early, and we must accept responsibility as a society when people turn bad because we have made them hate, misunderstand and hide those urges.

  • D- Ice and StormerBoy like this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    5KΣΓ

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#42

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:30 PM

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

Just like porn, I doubt any sort of simulation would be satisfactory enough to replace intercourse. I would much rather be in favor of research to find a cure (if such a thing is possible).

 

Also, (real) child pornography is harmful by definition. Nobody is going to arrest a person for masturbating to My Little Pony though, as it doesn't hurt anyone, so I guess that's OK.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#43

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:34 PM

 

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

Just like porn, I doubt any sort of simulation would be satisfactory enough to replace intercourse. I would much rather be in favor of research to find a cure (if such a thing is possible).

A cure? But they're not sick, they're just attracted to something different.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#44

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:38 PM

 

 

We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

Just like porn, I doubt any sort of simulation would be satisfactory enough to replace intercourse. I would much rather be in favor of research to find a cure (if such a thing is possible).

A cure? But they're not sick, they're just attracted to something different.

 

 

It's a disease, just like homosexuality!

 

[That was sarcasm.]


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    5KΣΓ

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#45

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:02 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 18 November 2013 - 09:08 PM.



 



 


We must make some accommodations for them so they can gain sexual release in a way which harms no one.

Just like porn, I doubt any sort of simulation would be satisfactory enough to replace intercourse. I would much rather be in favor of research to find a cure (if such a thing is possible).

A cure? But they're not sick, they're just attracted to something different.

 

Let's look at the definition of "disease":

 

A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

It doesn't matter if they don't act on it, just as much as it doesn't matter if a psychopath (somehow) refrains from violent behavior. Both are basically a danger to society and would benefit from proper treatment (which doesn't exist right now).


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#46

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:29 PM

People said the same thing of homosexuality once. That it was harmful and needed to be 'cured'. They were wrong then, too.

If they are a danger to society, it is because we have made them so.

Please, for a moment, just think about a young man struggling with the same feelings others have, the blossoming of sexual attraction. Now, imagine if instead of women or men, this person happens to like children.

What happens when he hears how much people hate people like him? What happens when he hears members of his own family detailing every medieval torture they want to subject him to? Prejudice breeds monsters.

 

They don't need to be cured, they need to be accommodated. It's the only moral thing to do.

  • StormerBoy and Flight180Victm like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#47

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:42 PM

That person has no place in society, if I'm being frank.  If they don't seek help, they're contributing to a culture and cycle of abuse that is far more nefarious than most.

 

Just because an urge relates to one's sexuality does not give one the blanket of political protection.

  • D- Ice likes this

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#48

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:46 PM

That person has no place in society, if I'm being frank.  If they don't seek help, they're contributing to a culture and cycle of abuse that is far more nefarious than most.

 

Just because an urge relates to one's sexuality does not give one the blanket of political protection.

Seek help for how they were born? That concept doesn't bother you at all?


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    5KΣΓ

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#49

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:51 PM Edited by Criѕtian, 18 November 2013 - 09:52 PM.

Homosexuality is perfectly safe though. Pedophilia is harmful (in theory) due to the risk that those people might try to take advantage of children, convince them to do things that they wouldn't do otherwise. I do understand that they don't choose their orientation and I have no feelings of hate for them. I also agree that people in general have a distorted view of them.

 

However, if scientists were able to alter their brain's physiology to cure it I would be all for it. Accommodation doesn't sound like a good idea to me because the amount of research\time it would take to develop some sort realistic simulation should be spent on actually fixing the problem. Wouldn't you agree with a cure for psychopathy if such a thing was possible? Why not agree with one for pedophilia?


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#50

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:54 PM Edited by Raavi, 18 November 2013 - 09:57 PM.

Much throughout history what we now class as pedophilia was the most normal thing in the world, justly so as sexual preference isn't a choice. In a perfect world this would still be the case, unfortunately or rather fortunately (in this case) we don't live in a perfect world. We have moral boundaries that define what is right and what is wrong and engaging in sexual escapades with a child is wrong. Wether what we have branded as wrong is objectively wrong is debatable.

  • StormerBoy and Flight180Victm like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#51

Posted 18 November 2013 - 09:57 PM

 

That person has no place in society, if I'm being frank.  If they don't seek help, they're contributing to a culture and cycle of abuse that is far more nefarious than most.

 

Just because an urge relates to one's sexuality does not give one the blanket of political protection.

Seek help for how they were born? That concept doesn't bother you at all?

 

 

Of course it bothers me, even though there's no proof that pedophilia is genetic, and plenty to suggest that is environmental. Yet, to stay on point, some of us were born with incredibly violent tendencies. These certainly aren't tolerated. Some of us were born with a greater propensity to lie. The line between what constitutes a "birth defect" and normalcy is incredibly problematic but that fact is, we're talking about impulses that directly (or indirectly) victimize others. There's no place in our society for people so tragically broken if they don't seek treatment.

 

Exile the f*ckers.

  • D- Ice and Gilligan like this

Gilligan
  • Gilligan

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • None

#52

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:43 PM

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.

I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.

Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#53

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:49 PM

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.

I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.

Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 

Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#54

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:53 PM

 

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.

I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.

Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 

Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?

 

 

Because those videos aren't necessarily illegal, child pornography on the other hand is


Gilligan
  • Gilligan

    Midnight Toker

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2011
  • None

#55

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:54 PM

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.
I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.
Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 
Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?
Because there's a larger problem in pedophilia and illegal, sometimes forced child pornography than the decapitations or murders in videos. There's not as many videos.

Murder and declination videos are wrong, don't get me wrong. However, they're not as mentally disgusting as the thought of somebody forcing a child to make a pornographic movie so that a disgusting prick can bust a nut.

Plus, whoever said murder and decapitation videos are allowed? People have too much freedom and they take advantage of that. Maybe they'll be removed in the future. Not all child pornography will be removed, as it would be virtually impossible, however something is being done and that's a start.

Lucchese
  • Lucchese

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#56

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:56 PM Edited by niko bellic half brother, 18 November 2013 - 11:00 PM.

Speaking of decapitations and murder, 'n all that sh*t; I've just journey'd over from Bestgore.com, and have you heard the creative way their owner has alternatively christened Google and YouTube? - "Jewgle" and "JewTube"! How about that, eh?  :lol:


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#57

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:57 PM

I think everyone's missing the point that this has little to do with anything related to child abuse images and more to do with the actual censorship.. 

 

They'll use a touchy subject such as the one being discussed right now and the people who can't think things through will accuse those against censorship that they approve of child pron and completely miss the fact that it's not even about that lol...

 

What's actually wrong with this is that some people believe they're superiorly above others and get to choose what's right and wrong for everyone else. I don't need google blocking certain things for me to know it's wrong.. Censorship in general is just silly.

 

Who in the world got to decide women's breasts are 'bad' and can't be shown on television? Why is sex- the thing that brings about new life deemed inappropriate but a zombie eating someone's brains in graphic detail is totally cool entertainment? It all just seems so asshat backwards.

  • StormerBoy likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#58

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:00 PM Edited by Vlynor, 18 November 2013 - 11:00 PM.

 

 

Whilst most pedophiles don't use Google to search for such material, some will probably use Google Videos to find some. There's probably more people using Google Videos for such material than we think.
I think it's a good idea. It doesn't harm anybody but the disgusting bastards who view and get off of disgusting images and videos of young children.
Just arguing against the decision should make somebody feel disgusted.

 
Well, (and I'm not arguing in favor in child porn one bit, but...) if videos of decapitations, murder, etc. are allowed on the internet and are not blocked by Google search, then why should this be?
Because there's a larger problem in pedophilia and illegal, sometimes forced child pornography than the decapitations or murders in videos. There's not as many videos.

Murder and declination videos are wrong, don't get me wrong. However, they're not as mentally disgusting as the thought of somebody forcing a child to make a pornographic movie so that a disgusting prick can bust a nut.

Plus, whoever said murder and decapitation videos are allowed? People have too much freedom and they take advantage of that. Maybe they'll be removed in the future. Not all child pornography will be removed, as it would be virtually impossible, however something is being done and that's a start.

 

 

They're allowed at the present time. Which is why I ask. Why would they first decide to limit pornography of children and not the videos/images of executions/suicides/murders of innocent civilians? And sex with children is more disgusting than slitting someone's throat or stabbing them multiple times and cutting their limbs off, in your opinion?


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#59

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:01 PM

I'm not going to pretend I know much about internet security and censorship, and I do apologise for my part in derailing this topic, but I do completely agree with Typhus with regards to criminalisation of certain behaviours.

 

In theory, it is only justified to outlaw behaviours that pose direct, or significant indirect, harm to society. How to quantify this harm, balance it against good/personal freedoms and what cut-off point to use are seperate issue completely (e.g. legality of cigarettes).

IMO banning something due to it's abnormality or due to societal disapproval are unethical and counter-productive.

 

With Typhus' example of the completely harmless paedophile - neither molesting children directly or indirectly via watching child porn, I think it would be wrong to criminalise them.

However the issue is that paedophilia is strongly associated with heinous criminal acts, just as heterosexuality is associated with sex with members of the opposite sex. There is an udeniable strong corrolation between being a paedophile and supporting the abuse of children (directly or indirectly).

While I am sure there will be innocent exceptions, the high likelihood of the crime amongst paedophiles, combined with the sheer harm to society such crimes affect, has deemed it acceptable to blanket-criminalise all paedohilia.

 

TBH, I do agree with that logic. No justice system can have 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. It is more utilitarian to sacrifice some specificity resulting in the unjust imprisonment of one or two harmless paedohiles, while affording a high sensitivity that prevent the abuse of hundreds of children. The alternative would be high specificity and reduced sensitivity - resulting in the protection of one or two harmless paedophiles from unjust punichment, while allowing hundreds more children to be abused by harmful paedophiles.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#60

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:02 PM Edited by Typhus, 18 November 2013 - 11:04 PM.



Homosexuality is perfectly safe though. Pedophilia is harmful (in theory) due to the risk that those people might try to take advantage of children, convince them to do things that they wouldn't do otherwise. I do understand that they don't choose their orientation and I have no feelings of hate for them. I also agree that people in general have a distorted view of them.

 

However, if scientists were able to alter their brain's physiology to cure it I would be all for it. Accommodation doesn't sound like a good idea to me because the amount of research\time it would take to develop some sort realistic simulation should be spent on actually fixing the problem. Wouldn't you agree with a cure for psychopathy if such a thing was possible? Why not agree with one for pedophilia?

I don't agree because I'd like them to be happy. I'd like them to feel comfortable in their own skin.

They shouldn't have to change, they shouldn't be told that they're sick and they need to alter a big part of their make-up to make us feel better. You're right, it will take a long time to create adequate tools to accommodate their desires - but I believe one day robotics, and perhaps virtual reality shall make that possible.

 

I just can't stomach the idea of a man being told by the whole damn world that he should be castrated, flayed and crucified because of how he was born. An impulse they shouldn't have to control could, upon the light of publicity, estrange them from their family, cost them their liberty and - within the prison system - very possibly endanger their health. It makes me sick and it bothers me because once, homosexuals were treated the same way, as though they were devils or demons without a single ounce of humanity within them. And the 'kindness' of trying to cure them was just as cruel as any glob of spit or thrown rock.

They're not sick, they're just acting according to their nature, and I don't want to change them anymore than I want to force a dog to get hooked on catnip.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users