PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 14, 2017 21:49:03 GMT
Again those qualities you have listed cause no harm in adult relationships or at least none that people should go to jail for. Also why do you think all pedophiles are psychopaths who want to manipulate and control children for their own ends? Your stance is rooted in an ageist emotional reaction. Well the paper I referenced says they often go for the lonely, depressed and impulsive, naive and victims of prior abuse. That can't be coincidence? But I never said all were so predatory, in fact I admitted as much several times. I just don't think these exceptions justify changing the law to the extent Terrapin suggests. Does he provide any evidence that they do this? If not it should be ignored. Also causation should not be confused for correlation. Also can you give me the quote? Right but you have provided no evidence that a child's brain differs to an adult's in a way tha these things cause harm. Whats the worst that can happen? They agree to go to an event they dont want to because peer pressure? They agree to sex when they wouldn't if they were not impulsive? Edit: do you not think the correlation can be explained by the possibilityt that the vast majority view sex with kids as repulsive so most of those who do it are terrible people who dont care about ethics? Also does he distinguish between what I would call consensual sex with kids and child molestation? Edit 2: And what about the possibility that kids with those personalities are more likely to agree to sex with adults or adults who would want to have sex with kids tend to be attracted to that type or even a combination of both of these things. I seriously doubt he/she took those things Into consideration.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 14, 2017 22:38:13 GMT
Does he provide any evidence that they do this? If not it should be ignored. Also causation should not be confused for correlation. Also can you give me the quote? Most of it is on page 115-117 and all the data is referenced. Coercion, pressure, exploitation etc are always harmful to anyone, children or adult, in that they cause us to do what we later regret. They are easier to bear on children though. As for whether children are mature enough to come to rational decisions about these things, this argues that most children don't reach full maturity until about 15: childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/piaget/#.WUG4XWhwbqAAnd regret it. Maybe. One could also say that because it is illegal, they tend to prey on more vulnerable children because they're less likely to tell. But your point was the existing system punishes innocent people, and by your own admission the majority it catches are terrible people. The innocent paedophiles just stay away. Yes, that's the focus of the paper, that much child abuse is at least semi-consensual and exploring what children consent to it and the type of person who pursues such relationships. The paper doesn't judge anyone, it just points out patterns. Still, you must admit it's a pretty big coincidence that the kinda chidren paedophiles are attracted to just so happen to be the kind most likely to give in to their advances and least likely to tell.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 15, 2017 8:47:37 GMT
Does he provide any evidence that they do this? If not it should be ignored. Also causation should not be confused for correlation. Also can you give me the quote? Most of it is on page 115-117 and all the data is referenced. Coercion, pressure, exploitation etc are always harmful to anyone, children or adult, in that they cause us to do what we later regret. They are easier to bear on children though. As for whether children are mature enough to come to rational decisions about these things, this argues that most children don't reach full maturity until about 15: childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/piaget/#.WUG4XWhwbqAAnd regret it. Maybe. One could also say that because it is illegal, they tend to prey on more vulnerable children because they're less likely to tell. But your point was the existing system punishes innocent people, and by your own admission the majority it catches are terrible people. The innocent paedophiles just stay away. Yes, that's the focus of the paper, that much child abuse is at least semi-consensual and exploring what children consent to it and the type of person who pursues such relationships. The paper doesn't judge anyone, it just points out patterns. Still, you must admit it's a pretty big coincidence that the kinda chidren paedophiles are attracted to just so happen to be the kind most likely to give in to their advances and least likely to tell. So lets get something straight, you think people should be locked up because they might be able to convince kids to do certain things like events and they might regret it? I really have no words. Should kids just be banned from social interaction all together because of peer pressure? Should a kids friends be arrested and are they guilty of exploitation? Childdevelopment.com seems like a dodgy source. Regardless what on earth does "full" maturity even mean? What do they mean "can come to rational decisions"? Are they suggesting kids are icapable of rationality until 15? If so that is llaughter inducing. Ok well I read the conclusion and it doesn't mention loneliness or depression. I love how they just assume they "target" people who use chatrooms a lot and who are questioning their sexual identity. Obviously if you go online you are more likely to have sex with someone that frequents chatrooms or is interested in sex. They also mentioned that children cannot consent which shows they know nothing about kids and sex so we have a big reason to assume everything the say is just coming out of there arse. There is no other word for this but pseudoscience.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 15, 2017 10:29:37 GMT
So lets get something straight, you think people should be locked up because they might be able to convince kids to do certain things like events and they might regret it? I really have no words. I don't know what you're talking about with "events". Vulnerable kids are talked into sex by older people who specifically target them for their vulnerability and that's not ok. There may be situations where say a 23 year old just happens to fall for a mature 14 year old and in those cases these facts are taken into account and the sentence is usually light as it should be. But these are not the norm. You keep deliberately missing the point here. People target children who are easier to exploit and pressurise. A kid can't exploit another kid in that way. They just create situations like bullying and peer pressure (which they are rightly punished for)that predators take advantage of. You haven't offered any sources yourself. Anyway it's hardly dodgy, this is based on the work of Jean Piaget, a respected biologist and psychologist. Now I imagine other psychologists have debated points of his work. If you have one that argues children are fully mature before 15, then by all means post their thoughts. Did you read the page? They say that the last stage of rationality is abstract logic which starts developing around 12 and reaches full height around 15. Before that logic is limited to dealing with immediate concrete problems. So a 12 year old will on average be much worse at considering the long-term consequences of their actions than an average 15 year old. This seems pretty significant when it comes to the decision whether to sleep with a much older person who is probably much more worldly and logical in their thinking. Page 116 mentions that chatrooms are often an environment children are targeted for sex and mentions children who use chatrooms are more likely to suffer from loneliness and depression referencing two academic studies to back this up. Who's assuming? Another 2 academic studies on it are referenced again on page 116. Maybe you should look into these studies rather than just saying they're just baseless assumptions. True. Their point though is those that go online are also the most vulnerable to paedophiles even aside from their being online. I think child psychologists specialising in this particular field probably know a thing or two about both. As opposed to you and Terrapin saying children are fine to make these decisions based on no evidence but your own personal experience?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 15, 2017 10:49:15 GMT
So lets get something straight, you think people should be locked up because they might be able to convince kids to do certain things like events and they might regret it? I really have no words. I don't know what you're talking about with "events". Vulnerable kids are talked into sex by older people who specifically target them for their vulnerability and that's not ok. There may be situations where say a 23 year old just happens to fall for a mature 14 year old and in those cases these facts are taken into account and the sentence is usually light as it should be. But these are not the norm. You keep deliberately missing the point here. People target children who are easier to exploit and pressurise. A kid can't exploit another kid in that way. They just create situations like bullying and peer pressure (which they are rightly punished for)that predators take advantage of. You haven't offered any sources yourself. Anyway it's hardly dodgy, this is based on the work of Jean Piaget, a respected biologist and psychologist. Now I imagine other psychologists have debated points of his work. If you have one that argues children are fully mature before 15, then by all means post their thoughts. Did you read the page? They say that the last stage of rationality is abstract logic which starts developing around 12 and reaches full height around 15. Before that logic is limited to dealing with immediate concrete problems. So a 12 year old will on average be much worse at considering the long-term consequences of their actions than an average 15 year old. This seems pretty significant when it comes to the decision whether to sleep with a much older person who is probably much more worldly and logical in their thinking. Page 116 mentions that chatrooms are often an environment children are targeted for sex and mentions children who use chatrooms are more likely to suffer from loneliness and depression referencing two academic studies to back this up. Who's assuming? Another 2 academic studies on it are referenced again on page 116. Maybe you should look into these studies rather than just saying they're just baseless assumptions. True. Their point though is those that go online are also the most vulnerable to paedophiles even aside from their being online. I think child psychologists specialising in this particular field probably know a thing or two about both. As opposed to you and Terrapin saying children are fine to make these decisions based on no evidence but your own personal experience? There is no evidence they target anyone. Anyway why is that bad? Of course you are going to try and woo someone who is more likely to be into you. Most wouldnt approach a model in a bar for obvious reasons but They might approach someone who They thought was "in their league". Re rationality: Believe it or not but sex is not some intellectual problem. When an adults asks a kid for sex he/she is not asking it to do Calculus or explain Einstein's theory of relativity. Its as simple as "Do you want to engage in a pleasurable activity with me?" No different then asking "do you want to go to a carnival with me?" Re loneliness etc: How is it someone's fault if most of the fish in the pond are a certain way? Also the study only deals with "online predators" hence the title of the study. Also child psychology is not exactly a hard discipline to master. Its pretty easy actually based on my experience from studying it as an autodidact. Child psychology really just consists of development stage theories and how kids are more impulsive etxc I am not claiming to be an expert btw, I am only a layman.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 15, 2017 11:39:36 GMT
There is no evidence they target anyone. Anyway why is that bad? Of course you are going to try and woo someone who is more likely to be into you. Most wouldnt approach a model in a bar for obvious reasons but They might approach someone who They thought was "in their league". To me it seems less like that and more like a sober man approaching the girl who's had a few too many (yet is not so drunk she doesn't know what's going on). People have all sorts of psychological hang-ups about sex that they don't have about, say, riding the ferris wheel. Now perhaps you could argue that there's no reason why they should and you may well be right there. But that's not the world we live in. As regards child psychology, we're both laypeople here so perhaps we should just cease this conversation, it doesn't seem like either of us are likely to change our minds.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 15, 2017 23:02:04 GMT
"I would trust off the cuff remarks from child psychiatrists in an academic paper "<---that's ridiculously bad epistemology in my opinion. I'm not just going by gut feeling. I'm going by experience. But as I'm a layperson in terms of child psychiatry, why should I trust your experience over the views of experts? Unless their view has some research foundation, it's no better than my own view, and it might be worse. That they're experts in psychiatry is irrelevant. They'd need to have an empirical basis for it to be a view that's better than any set of anecdotal experiences from anyone.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 3, 2017 14:33:39 GMT
Here is an interesting post on Reddit regarding the psychological effects of pedophilia if anybody is interested. https://www.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/comments/6kzo30/why_do_people_not_accept_that_adultchild_sex_is/
|
|