How Should Society Handle Pedophiles

[Danioover9000]

@Raptorsin7

   So going back to how society should handle pedos question, it's important to recognize that that question is based in morality and ethics of handling such individuals from a societal perspective first. It's also important to know that before we begin we must agree on facts about pedophilia and other statistics and ongoing research beforehand because that provides some basis for possible solutons later. Also, because this is addressing at society, that the value systems of that culture, cognitive development, moral development, personality typing and life experiences a person and those citizens of will vary from state to state, country to country, region to region.

   So, what is the definition of pedophilia, and what is the stereotype of that? For example, immediately to me, that tends to be white and either upper class or middle class, either middle age or older, mostly due to mianstream media depictions of such people from western culture from movies and so on. Now, contrast and compare that to mrgirl's story of his lesbian mom's sexual attempt at him when he was around 8 years old. That's almost a different kind of pedo to deal with than a typical stereotype. How does a society handle a pedo, whose sex is female, sexual orientation is homosexuality, who might have a masculine psyche, who might have had a traumatic childhood, who might think differently due to some degree of abnormality to her brain?

   Because of development psychology in individuals and the development systems in societies, we first have to choose which society, culture and country to be specific about which society handles this issue, because every social matrix is going to handle this issue differently. We then have to agree on what the facts we have on pedophilia going forward, so let's assume we agree there are cases that some individuals are born with a genetic trait for this tendency, and this tendency is also hereditary and eugenic in that the grand parent/parent has suppressed pedo tendency which passes on to the offspring, and that categorically, there are those that offend and those that don't and are suppressing their tendency. Going forward with these assumptions, while keeping in mind different societies have varying approaches to this issue, we can offer treatments plans that would start out abstract enough to be changeable per society standards, and flexible enough to be narrowed down to that particular person with this issue. For example, a pedo who was a victim himself/herself, would get therapy targeting that childhood trauma, tailored to their cognition, sense making and sense metrics. For another whose born with those genetic traits, they could be offered a different approach, like gene therapy. They can be prescribed healthier alternatives like a sex robot, or VR, or guided hypnosis, and so on.

   So, how should societies atound the world handle this issue? It depends per society standards and what each society is willing to address, build infrastructure for, and build specialised treatments for such an issue.

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

I am not informed on what kind of treatments are effective for pedophiles.

 

Yes

 

I am not informed on the efficacy of different kinds of treatments for pedophiles. From what I have heard, within the subset of pedophiles, it is usually individuals with anti-social disorders that are the problem.

 

Yes.

 

I think it is a combination of both, I am unaware of any treatment that is effective.

 

However, when we are talking about preventing abuse of child-like beings, adopting a vegan life-style and convincing as many people to do so aswell will be the most effective thing to do for any given individual who is not actively involved in solving these issues through other means.

   So, basically speaking, you have nothing meaningful to add to OP's question about how a society should handle pedophilia?

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

There are huge differences between the qualia of humans, to the qualia of animals, 

That's an assumption.

[4201]

12 hours ago, Scholar said:

It is very interesting, because animals basically are very much akin to small children in terms of their cognition, yet we completely accept raping, slaughtering and enslaving them for our own convenience. Imagine we had a child that would most likely die around 15 years of age and would remain stuck in the mind of a 2-3 year old. Imagine if we took millions of these kinds of children and raped and murdered them so that we can eat their corpses or drink some fluids of theirs. In an objective sense, our culture is completely backwards. Being a meat eater for example is in practice causing far more harm, in an objective sense, to child-like beings than most pedophiles cause with their pedophelia, even if they are predators.

 

We treat innocent, child-like beings worse than we treat pedophiles and mass murderers. And we also treat them worse than predators treat children and mass murderers treat their murder victims.

Of course it makes no sense to analyze behavior of humans under the idea that humans look to minimize suffering. The illegality and negative social stigma of murder, rape and pedophilia is not rooted in a "desire for less suffering" but simply in self-bias.

Wanna make a deal? I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't rape your children, you don't rape mine. This is basically the social contract that defines our laws and "what is OK" in our society. The reason we don't do the same with tigers or other animals is that they can't conceptualize a social contract or promise to follow it. They just can't understand the deal.

To try to evaluate culture on an "objective sense" however is deeply misguided. It's backwards according to your ideas of morality perhaps, but the society of humans with their self-bias is just "itself", it's not "backward". That being a meat eater causes "more harm" than raping children is an idea rooted in some quantification of harm based on your notion of harm. In practice the average human being benefits more from pedophilia being banned and deeply unacceptable as protecting their own children is an interest humans have much more than avoiding the suffering of animals. 

[lmfao]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The point is that if you're an anthropocentric sadist that wants to argue why animal suffering is somehow different from human suffering, then you for example say that it's because animals lack the cognitive complexity of humans, then you take a human with the cognitive complexity of an animal (a baby or a mentally disabled person) and realize that you still want to claim that their suffering is different and that your argument is bunk 

I used to be quite the theoretical vegetarian (never in practice ) in my teens, daydreaming the argument that killing animals for food is like killing human babies 

[lmfao]

I think it wouldn't be too far off the mark to hypothetically imagine, maybe in the future, good relationships between a 16 year old girl and 28 year old man. You'd just have to write a few autistic caveats and descriptions to that. "The implicit contract is written so that there is pressure on the man to be so good that...." something something something 

[Scholar]

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

Of course it makes no sense to analyze behavior of humans under the idea that humans look to minimize suffering. The illegality and negative social stigma of murder, rape and pedophilia is not rooted in a "desire for less suffering" but simply in self-bias.

Wanna make a deal? I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't rape your children, you don't rape mine. This is basically the social contract that defines our laws and "what is OK" in our society. The reason we don't do the same with tigers or other animals is that they can't conceptualize a social contract or promise to follow it. They just can't understand the deal.

To try to evaluate culture on an "objective sense" however is deeply misguided. It's backwards according to your ideas of morality perhaps, but the society of humans with their self-bias is just "itself", it's not "backward". That being a meat eater causes "more harm" than raping children is an idea rooted in some quantification of harm based on your notion of harm. In practice the average human being benefits more from pedophilia being banned and deeply unacceptable as protecting their own children is an interest humans have much more than avoiding the suffering of animals. 

Being a meat eater causes more harm than raping children. Just because the harm is not done to humans doesn'T mean we cannot quantify it subjectively. It is not my notion of harm, it is a notion of harm that takes into consideration the subjects that experience the suffering. What you are doign is basically like a pedophile who rapes mentally handicapped children and then says "Well, it's only harm according to your notion of harm, but the creature I raped can't even conceptualized social contracts!"

Of course an average human benefits more from it, how is that relevant? The average white person will also benefit more from avoiding white people suffering than avoiding the suffering of black people. You are just explaining bias, I never said humans aren't biased.

[4201]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

Being a meat eater causes more harm than raping children. Just because the harm is not done to humans doesn'T mean we cannot quantify it subjectively. It is not my notion of harm, it is a notion of harm that takes into consideration the subjects that experience the suffering. What you are doign is basically like a pedophile who rapes mentally handicapped children and then says "Well, it's only harm according to your notion of harm, but the creature I raped can't even conceptualized social contracts!"

When it comes to children the social contract isn't breached with the children but with their parents, who have the rights not their children to get raped. If nobody was the close family of children then no one would care to defend them. But it turns out children are like the most precious things to their parents, so no one would tolerate anything done to them.

The way you define harm is entirely subjective to you. Whether a biological organism is conscious or has an experience is entirely up to interpretation and any way of measuring "suffering" accross different organisms depends on how you equate the suffering accross those organisms (suffering of a mosquito vs human). Don't fool yourself into thinking your take on harm has anything objective to it.

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

Of course an average human benefits more from it, how is that relevant? The average white person will also benefit more from avoiding white people suffering than avoiding the suffering of black people. You are just explaining bias, I never said humans aren't biased.

What is acceptable or not in a society is entirely defined by the self bias of those individuals in that society. Any concept of morality or "harm" added on top of it is distraction from understanding the system beneath it. Hence your idea that it's "backward" when it's not. That's just how a society of humans works.

[Scholar]

44 minutes ago, 4201 said:

When it comes to children the social contract isn't breached with the children but with their parents, who have the rights not their children to get raped. If nobody was the close family of children then no one would care to defend them. But it turns out children are like the most precious things to their parents, so no one would tolerate anything done to them.

The way you define harm is entirely subjective to you. Whether a biological organism is conscious or has an experience is entirely up to interpretation and any way of measuring "suffering" accross different organisms depends on how you equate the suffering accross those organisms (suffering of a mosquito vs human). Don't fool yourself into thinking your take on harm has anything objective to it.

What is acceptable or not in a society is entirely defined by the self bias of those individuals in that society. Any concept of morality or "harm" added on top of it is distraction from understanding the system beneath it. Hence your idea that it's "backward" when it's not. That's just how a society of humans works.

You are just stating truisms. The entire discussion is based around prescription, not descriptivistic notions of humans and their biases. I could give the exact same account of things for the Nazi's and the holocaust, or why pedophiles rape children, and how your defintion of harm is subjective etc.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Scholar

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's an assumption.

   If you factor out Leo's teachings, psychedelics, spirituality, humanitarianism, animal rights, environmentalism, new age ideas, basically all of stage green's values, and look at a human and animal from the stages below, what do they look like? I posit the majority of the answers will contain a strong distinction between that animal and that human. It's a workable assumption as it's closer to a normative one.

   Putting the above aside, my only gripe with @Scholar, is that he does not have any proposals that answers the OP's question directly with some possible solutions. Instead, he brings argument points unrelated to dealing with pedophilia, like bringing up animal rights, veganism, environmentalism, and while he did bring up the point of compassion which is much closer to a possible solution, the ultimate logical fallout from applying animal welfare and veganism and environmentalism to dealing with pedophilia, is to first make all pedophiles eat a vegan diet, while herding them all in their regions into farms, but the nicest and well taken care ones where they won't have diseases or injuries or further trauma in being treated like farm animals while preventing damage to the environment as best they can. Like wtf does veganism and animal welfare do for providing a practical and psychological solution to pedophiles?

[Opo]

22 hours ago, fortifyacacia3 said:

He tells Vaush that everyone is scared to admit that the standard preference is 14 years old

Why would he say that everyone's scared when Vawsh admitted that he thinks it's 14 to 17? 

He might be a pedophile but he's not a liar. 

[4201]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

You are just stating truisms. The entire discussion is based around prescription, not descriptivistic notions of humans and their biases. I could give the exact same account of things for the Nazi's and the holocaust, or why pedophiles rape children, and how your defintion of harm is subjective etc.

I was only responding to the claim that "culture is completely backwards" with the argument that culture/society is just the way it is and your relative notion of "how we should behave" is what leads to such conclusion, not culture/society itself.

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Carl-Richard

   If you factor out Leo's teachings, psychedelics, spirituality, humanitarianism, animal rights, environmentalism, new age ideas, basically all of stage green's values, and look at a human and animal from the stages below, what do they look like? I posit the majority of the answers will contain a strong distinction between that animal and that human. It's a workable assumption as it's closer to a normative one.

   Putting the above aside, my only gripe with @Scholar, is that he does not have any proposals that answers the OP's question directly with some possible solutions. Instead, he brings argument points unrelated to dealing with pedophilia, like bringing up animal rights, veganism, environmentalism, and while he did bring up the point of compassion which is much closer to a possible solution, the ultimate logical fallout from applying animal welfare and veganism and environmentalism to dealing with pedophilia, is to first make all pedophiles eat a vegan diet, while herding them all in their regions into farms, but the nicest and well taken care ones where they won't have diseases or injuries or further trauma in being treated like farm animals while preventing damage to the environment as best they can. Like wtf does veganism and animal welfare do for providing a practical and psychological solution to pedophiles?

I have discussed my view on pedophilia in my initial posts, and provided my perspectives. Seems like you just got triggered by me pointing out that the best way to reduce harm to child-like beings is adopting a vegan lifestyle and convincing others to do so aswell. This was to point out how we as a society have biases just as bad as the pedophiles do, and that essentially, we are only marginally better than them.

I was making a more general point here. Most people are willing to put child-like beings through terrible suffering, trauma and death just so they can feel some pleasure or convenience. I don't expect such a society to be capable of maturely handling pedophelia.

 

 

The issue why people can't have empathy for pedophiles is fundamentally because they do not see that all sentience is the same, that there is only one experiencer. This kind of extention of identity and recognition of truth is essential for any actual progress to happen here. The reason why people discriminate against humans is the same reason they discriminate against animals. So that is the core issue that needs to be addressed.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Scholar

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

   I understand you were just providing your perspective on handling pedophilia, and I'm not triggered, more curious about your position that when you stated the following:

13 hours ago, Scholar said:

I am not informed on what kind of treatments are effective for pedophiles.

 

Yes

 

I am not informed on the efficacy of different kinds of treatments for pedophiles. From what I have heard, within the subset of pedophiles, it is usually individuals with anti-social disorders that are the problem.

 

Yes.

 

I think it is a combination of both, I am unaware of any treatment that is effective.

 

However, when we are talking about preventing abuse of child-like beings, adopting a vegan life-style and convincing as many people to do so aswell will be the most effective thing to do for any given individual who is not actively involved in solving these issues through other means.

 

   and claiming your take on the main issue of this thread is limited to not informed, then it becomes clear to me as to why you felt the need to bring up unrelated points simply because you were not informed at all. I just don't see any other reasons why you want to bring in unrelated issues about pedophilia, hijack this thread away from answering the question of how a society should handle pedophiles. You can easily create another thread talking about those other issues instead. Or if you truly are not informed, maybe it's better to go and do the research and learn about pedophilia beforehand, or maybe not saying you are completely not informed. I don't mean to seem like I'm going off on you, but it's just not a scholarly look to be not informed at all to me @Scholar.

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

If you factor out Leo's teachings, psychedelics, spirituality, humanitarianism, animal rights, environmentalism, new age ideas, basically all of stage green's values, and look at a human and animal from the stages below, what do they look like? I posit the majority of the answers will contain a strong distinction between that animal and that human. It's a workable assumption as it's closer to a normative one.

You were specifically talking about qualia (what experience is like from the inside), not whether humans or animals look different from the outside.

What is the point of factoring out these things?

[Scholar]

36 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Scholar

   I understand you were just providing your perspective on handling pedophilia, and I'm not triggered, more curious about your position that when you stated the following:

 

   and claiming your take on the main issue of this thread is limited to not informed, then it becomes clear to me as to why you felt the need to bring up unrelated points simply because you were not informed at all. I just don't see any other reasons why you want to bring in unrelated issues about pedophilia, hijack this thread away from answering the question of how a society should handle pedophiles. You can easily create another thread talking about those other issues instead. Or if you truly are not informed, maybe it's better to go and do the research and learn about pedophilia beforehand, or maybe not saying you are completely not informed. I don't mean to seem like I'm going off on you, but it's just not a scholarly look to be not informed at all to me @Scholar.

I don't think the question of "How Should Society Handle Pedophiles", is reducable exclusively to a conversation about treatments for pedophiles. I think the fact that you are narrowing the topic of this conversation to that particular issue indicates to me that you are scared to tackle and accept the statements I made that are, as I explained in my previous post, related to the issue we are discussing.

Whether or not I look informed to you is of little interest to me, you seem very bad faith and unstable in the way you handle disagreement with others.

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

I don't think the question of "How Should Society Handle Pedophiles", is reducable exclusively to a conversation about treatments for pedophiles. I think the fact that you are narrowing the topic of this conversation to that particular issue indicates to me that you are scared to tackle and accept the statements I made that are, as I explained in my previous post, related to the issue we are discussing.

Whether or not I look informed to you is of little interest to me, you seem very bad faith and unstable in the way you handle disagreement with others.

   Technically not accurate. I started off answering the OP's question broadly, then I reduced the set of answers to address the issue inside of the context. I started off giving a large holistic perspective on OP's issue, then I reduced it down to specifics and possible treatment methods, and suggested to the OP to, if he's serious in treating the issue, to be mindful of which specific culture/society he asks of to address this issue, then to abstract, go broad with the ecology and consider other treatments while working with the particular society. Between you and me, while I went meta and mesa, I respected the context and issue and still tied the issue even when I went meta and narrowed down to specifics. You went mostly abstract with little narrowing down, and while you went broad you failed to tie back to how, for example, animal welfare and veganism would benefit in reducing pedophilia if at all. I give my own effort in thinking broad, then narrow, then made some suggestions to the OP, while you mostly went braod, included unrelated talking points of other issues, and gave little concrete examples to tie in how veganism and animal welfare help OP's issue. To this day, some users are still wondering what your actually point was, oh wait, you said you were not informed, so please research and prepared before posting, maybe give a disclaimer about your position going into this issue, maybe.

   I also don't have a problem having a meta discussion on those topics unrelated to OP'S issue at all. However, for the purposes of not derailing the thread, respecting the main issue, I just keep at the main issue, while pointing out mistakes on your abstraction. It's just scholarly of me to maintain discussion on a main issue, be mindful of tying in loose sub points in how they relate back to the main issue.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You were specifically talking about qualia (what experience is like from the inside), not whether humans or animals look different from the outside.

What is the point of factoring out these things?

   Factoring out what? Leo's teachings and spirituality? I assume it's these, so in that reply to you, I just wanted it to be very stark about there is a distinction between a human and an animal. We can also go meta and include other creatures like insects, birds, reptiles, plants, fungi, every creature in a biosphere and hydrosphere and atmosphere and geosphere, aliens from other planets. Now, going back down to that time, I was engaging with @Scholar about the additional issues on top of addressing his position on the main issue being discussed when you wanted to involve yourself in between. Why I said to forget about those other teachings, is to get you to see that most normal people, their typical experiences when seeing, hearing and feeling between a human and an animal or any other creature or thing for comparison, is to see that most people do not see like you or me or @Scholar sees the world. It's very easy to take for granted the information from advanced teachings, mystical experiences, psychedelic experiences, non-dual experiences does to how a mind views reality again, and we could quickly generalize and think that most people are like, when in most cases that's not the case, it's relative.

   Also, do you have any suggestions as to how a society handles pedophilia?

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Carl-Richard

   Factoring out what? Leo's teachings and spirituality? I assume it's these, so in that reply to you, I just wanted it to be very stark about there is a distinction between a human and an animal. We can also go meta and include other creatures like insects, birds, reptiles, plants, fungi, every creature in a biosphere and hydrosphere and atmosphere and geosphere, aliens from other planets.

It's obvious that humans and other animals are different. The question is if those differences justify how we treat them.

 

21 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Now, going back down to that time, I was engaging with @Scholar about the additional issues on top of addressing his position on the main issue being discussed when you wanted to involve yourself in between. Why I said to forget about those other teachings, is to get you to see that most normal people, their typical experiences when seeing, hearing and feeling between a human and an animal or any other creature or thing for comparison, is to see that most people do not see like you or me or @Scholar sees the world. It's very easy to take for granted the information from advanced teachings, mystical experiences, psychedelic experiences, non-dual experiences does to how a mind views reality again, and we could quickly generalize and think that most people are like, when in most cases that's not the case, it's relative.

Why are you bringing up what other people think? It's you who are having the discussion.

 

21 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Also, do you have any suggestions as to how a society handles pedophilia?

We have to outgrow the value systems and social systems that make people hate pedophiles.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's obvious that humans and other animals are different. The question is if those differences justify how we treat them.

 

Why are you bringing up what other people think? It's you who are having the discussion.

 

We have to outgrow the value systems and social systems that make people hate pedophiles.

   I definitely agree, that the value systems and social systems that make people hate pedophiles, in their sense making through media, mainstream news portrayals, need to be addressed. Like I've stated to the OP, there are caricatures and different forms of this issue that it needs the nuance to address both the many surface points to the root.

   It takes two to have a discussion, but actually @Scholar was debating me a bit.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Danioover9000