# What shall we do with the pedophiles?



## Mulefa Zalif (Oct 29, 2010)

Suppose we had a fast, cheap and 100% correct way of identifying pedophiles.
No false positives, no false negatives.

What would we do with them?

I suppose we could kill them all. But let's do some math:
There are almost 7 billion people on the planet. It's a well-known fact that only men (who make up roughly 50% of humanity) can be pedophiles*, and according to Wikipedia, fewer than 5% of them actually are. So, assuming that 1% of all men are pedophiles, the total number of pedos on the planet would be:
7*10^9*0.5*10^-2 = 3.5*10^7 = 35 million
That's 5 holocausts. And remember, you'd have to keep on killing, because new pedophiles are born every day.

We could tattoo some kind of "mark of the beast" on their foreheads, like the Greek letter Pi (for "pedophile", duh).
We could resettle them to special ghettos and/or concentration camps.
We could castrate them all, and let God sort 'em out.

And if pedophilia turned out to be genetic, what would we do with fetuses/children who carry the pedo gene? Treat them like normal people until they turn 18, and then kill them?

Food for thought, discussion and drama.

*Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.


----------



## Hir (Oct 29, 2010)

how about we give them disabled kids :B


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

Amputate their genitals and/or fingers. that way they wont be able to fuck or touch a child again, problem solved.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Oct 29, 2010)

They can be used for cheap labour/slavery. :V

They still have potential to be useful. Just keep them separate from children.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> They can be used for cheap labour/slavery. :V
> 
> They still have potential to be useful. Just keep them separate from children.



This can be said for all criminals. Perhaps chain gangs should be brought back?


----------



## PATROL (Oct 29, 2010)

Even though it would be better if something was done before they strike, you cant really punish them for something they've never done. I guess they'd all have their sick bonus to use before losing their balls.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Oct 29, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This can be said for all criminals. Perhaps chain gangs should be brought back?


Oh yes, I believe so.


----------



## Enwon (Oct 29, 2010)

Well, if there was a 100% certain way of identifying pedophiles, the best thing to do would be to put them in a completely separate community isolated from anybody under the age of 21.  Seal off the community with military.  Also, make sure the community has no internet access or any way for pedophiles to come into contact with children.  Let them build their own society there, where nobody can get hurt.


----------



## Willow (Oct 29, 2010)

Make a special island for them.


----------



## JadeFire (Oct 29, 2010)

I say we burn them with fire. But then again, I say that about a lot of things.


----------



## Nyloc (Oct 29, 2010)

Shave their bellies with a rusty razor? Ear-ly in the morning?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

PATROL said:


> Even though it would be better if something was done before they strike, you cant really punish them for something they've never done. I guess they'd all have their sick bonus to use before losing their balls.



Agreed. Can't punish people unless they actually do a crime.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 29, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Shave their bellies with a rusty razor? Ear-ly in the morning?


 
I want to sing drinking songs now.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Oct 29, 2010)

The idea of killing people en-masse and/or marking them out screams NAZI to me. I suppose y'all know now how the Nazis felt with the Jews.

It's just so so wrong in so many ways to kill people or make them less then human based on their beliefs, is it not? If you do that, you're so much worse then they are.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 29, 2010)

Pedophiles, as in having an attraction, as opposed to child molestors, people who have already acted on that attraction and hurt a child?  I don't know, but the idea of punishing thoughtcrime is reprehensible to me.


----------



## Willow (Oct 29, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Pedophiles, as in having an attraction, as opposed to child molestors, people who have already acted on that attraction and hurt a child?  I don't know, but the idea of punishing thoughtcrime is reprehensible to me.


 I didn't know possessing child porn was thoughtcrime.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Oct 29, 2010)

In the UK at least you can go to jail for even having a copy of a clean pic of a child that has been photoshopped to look NSFW.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> I didn't know possessing child porn was thoughtcrime.


 
I'm taking "pedophile" to mean simply "someone with a sexual attraction to children".  You don't have to be in possession of child pornography to be a pedophile.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> The idea of killing people en-masse and/or marking them out screams NAZI to me. I suppose y'all know now how the Nazis felt with the Jews.
> 
> It's just so so wrong in so many ways to kill people or make them less then human based on their *beliefs*, is it not? If you do that, you're so much worse then they are.



Dude, firstly why the fuck are you bringing something completely irrelevant into the conversation? Secondly since when is being a pedophile a fucking belief?


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Oct 29, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Dude, firstly why the fuck are you bringing something completely irrelevant into the conversation? Secondly since when is being a pedophile a fucking belief?


 
I'm sorry, well I take it back then. In that case we are persecuting people for what they're born as.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> In the UK at least you can go to jail for even having a copy of a clean pic of a child that has been photoshopped to look NSFW.



Proof or it didn't happen. Considering I'm from the UK |I have never heard of such an incident.

Perhaps I just don't watch enough news. :/


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 29, 2010)

Well, you know, you kind of actually have to _commit a crime_ before you can be punished for one, so...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> Well, you know, you kind of actually have to _commit a crime_ before you can be punished for one, so...



This is what I said earlier. Thoughts are one thing, acting upon those thoughts is something else.


----------



## Aden (Oct 29, 2010)

So what are you counting as a "pedophile" here? Someone who has actually gone out and harmed a child or someone who is attracted to children but hasn't done anything wrong?

If the latter, rehabilitation. If the former, imprisonment.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Oct 29, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Proof or it didn't happen. Considering I'm from the UK |I have never heard of such an incident.
> 
> Perhaps I just don't watch enough news. :/


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/02/whenispaedophilianotpaedop


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 29, 2010)

Aden said:


> If the latter, rehabilitation.


 
There will be no undesirable thoughts in _my_ society, let me tell you.


----------



## Random_Observer (Oct 29, 2010)

There already *is* an easy way to find pedophiles.

Just look for FA accounts with cub porn.


----------



## Aden (Oct 29, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> There will be no undesirable thoughts in _my_ society, let me tell you.


 
Well I mean, I don't want to lock people up for thought crime, but there has to be something to do so people don't get those kind of potentially harmful urges. Now that I look at it from that way though it does seem pretty overcontrolling


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 29, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> There already *is* an easy way to find pedophiles.
> 
> Just look for FA accounts with cub porn.



Just because they have such stuff on their account does not mean they are a pedophile. By that logic you may aswell label all furries as zoophiles for liking animal/human creatures depicted in porn.



Aden said:


> Well I mean, I don't want to lock people up for  thought crime, but there has to be something to do so people don't get  those kind of potentially harmful urges. Now that I look at it from that  way though it does seem pretty overcontrolling


 
The only time I'd lock someone up is if they actually commit a crime. Also I don't think it is possible to stop someone from having such urges unless you kept them under heavy sedation 24/7.



Kommodore said:


> There will be no undesirable thoughts in _my_ society, let me tell you.



This is all well and good, but tell me, how wdo you plan to find out what someone is thinking? Can you read minds? You can only know someones thoughts if they tell you what they are thinking.


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 29, 2010)

Mulefa Zalif said:


> Suppose we had a fast, cheap and 100% correct way of identifying pedophiles.
> No false positives, no false negatives.
> 
> What would we do with them?




Not a damn thing.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 29, 2010)

Aden said:


> Well I mean, I don't want to lock people up for thought crime, but there has to be something to do so people don't get those kind of potentially harmful urges. Now that I look at it from that way though it does seem pretty overcontrolling


 You just don't "rehabilitate" people because they do not think in ways you approve of. You don't "cure" people of bad thoughts. If people find little children attractive it may understandably be gross to you, but so long as that person does not go around abusing children, it just isn't your business. It implies that there are "good" and "bad" thoughts and that society has some kind of obligation to make sure only certain types of thinking are allowed to exist. I personally find it one of the most hateful ideas I have ever heard. It just brings up so many problems. 

Stick with punishing or "rehabilitating" people who actually act to hurt others, there should be no thoughtcrime. But that's just me. 




RandyDarkshade said:


> This is all well and good, but tell me, how wdo you plan to find out what someone is thinking? Can you read minds? You can only know someones thoughts if they tell you what they are thinking.


 It was a joke.


----------



## Saintversa (Oct 29, 2010)

prison bo. give it to em cell block D style


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Oct 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Make a special island out of them.



Fixed.


----------



## slydude851 (Oct 29, 2010)

That's a lot of people...  Only in America would the government be forced to defend them, what with equal rights and no more segregation.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Oct 29, 2010)

Mulefa Zalif said:


> *Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.


My, what a disappointment.



RedFoxTwo said:


> In the UK at least you can go to jail for even having a copy of a clean pic of a child that has been photoshopped to look NSFW.


 Indeed. We do have a beautiful country, don't we?


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Oct 29, 2010)

THE IRONY IN THE HATEFUL POSTS IS that pedophiles are more likely to act out and harm children when oppressed and treated like monsters. This is why I condone cub and drawn child pornography, not for my own use, but for the safety of irl children.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Just because they have such stuff on their account does not mean they are a pedophile. By that logic you may aswell label all furries as zoophiles for liking animal/human creatures depicted in porn.


All furries into furry pornography _are_ zoophiles though. It doesn't matter what kind of dick they have, or what shape their body is. Fucking an ape is still zoophilia, and they have very hominid bodies, and a penis not tethered to their abdomen (or vagina, whatever you choose).


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 29, 2010)

we should beat them and kill them, because pedophiles aren't people. they're inhuman fucks, even when they don't do anything to children and hate themselves for being attracted to minors. it's disgusting.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Oct 29, 2010)

I'm willing to bet most people who hate pedophiles for being pedophiles are just upset because they were abused as a child or think they were abused as a child.

Or they had their parents or the media's opinions beat into their heads.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 30, 2010)

I don't know, lock 'em up?


----------



## Random_Observer (Oct 30, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Just because they have such stuff on their account does not mean they are a pedophile. By that logic you may aswell label all furries as zoophiles for liking animal/human creatures depicted in porn.


 
Your own logic is flawed. It's not "furry sex" or "animal sex", it's furries who happen to like anthros as well as sex.

Furries are not into "furry bondage", but they are furries who happen to _also_ be into bondage. Furries don't like "furry watersports", but both furries and watersports.

And just like the above, It's not being into "baby animals", but being into both furries and sexual depictions of children.


----------



## Neiun (Oct 30, 2010)

Imprisonment by some form with rehabilitation if they have already committed the crime. You'd have to probably build more prisons since the ones in America are pretty full.

Rehabilitation if it is just them thinking about delicious flat chest.

Possession of child porn should lead to someone being arrested and tried. Possession of pictures depicting nonreal children should not. i.e, Lolicon, Shotacon, Cub, due to the fact that it is not a real child being sexually abused.


----------



## BlackRabbit of Inle (Oct 30, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> I'm willing to bet most people who hate pedophiles for being pedophiles are just upset because they were abused as a child or think they were abused as a child.
> 
> Or they had their parents or the media's opinions beat into their heads.


 
You'd lose that bet. Most people fucking hate pedophiles because people think using little kids as sex toys is a disgusting act worthy of being beaten to death for. I've never been abused or ever thought that I was abused. The media's opinions (how media can have an opinion is beyond me) don't mean shit to me and my parents have been gone for a long time. I don't particularly even like kids, but I still think that using one for sexual purposes, in any way shape or form, is depraved.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> They can be used for cheap labour:V


 


RandyDarkshade said:


> This can be said for all criminals. Perhaps chain gangs should be brought back?


 That's fucking brilliant.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 30, 2010)

Whatever you do, DONT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS!!!  The pedo will just come back with dream powers and kill you and your kids


----------



## Carenath (Oct 30, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> It's not "furry sex" or "animal sex", it's furries who happen to like anthros as well as sex *with anthros*.
> It's not being into "furry animals", but being into both furries and sexual depictions of (anthropomorphic) animals


Now it actually makes logical sense. See what I did thar?


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> That's fucking brilliant.


 
However, the last prison with a chain gang has the same (even somewhat worse) return rate than normal prison. 

I also go along with the idea with rehabilitation so long as they haven't actually committed a crime yet. As soon as they start to mess with kids, they should be institutionalized. Throwing them into prison has a decent chance of making them much, much worse.


----------



## Mulefa Zalif (Oct 30, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Not a damn thing.


What about not letting them work as elementary school teachers?
Or would that be discrimination and therefore unconstitutional? (i.e. we wait for the time bomb to explode before we try to defuse it)


----------



## Charrio (Oct 30, 2010)

Make them a website where they can freely post and view child porn, only drawn as animal babies or Cubs. 
Then post the site where the world of can see it, and draw all the pedophiles here hiding under the "It's just art or Not a human defense" 

Wait..... That's FA lol


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 30, 2010)

Pedophilia is a mental illness. When a person's mental illness makes them a threat to society society is well within it's rights to react in any way it sees fit. 

I say if they haven't acted on it yet, segregation in humane work camps. 

If they have, use them for medical testing. The kind of stuff they use animals for now. The ones that committed to most heinous crimes suffer the most painful testing.

The only way a member of either group leaves the facility they're placed in is in a pine box.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 30, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> If they have, use them for medical testing. The kind of stuff they use animals for now. The ones that committed to most heinous crimes suffer the most painful testing


 
I'm seconding this, why does a rabbit have to test human shampoo or a mouse/rat on vaccines or medication? They are innocent and haven't done anything wrong... Besides if they started testing on Pedos and murders, it would speed up the rate research.

My other ideas however are to make them sterile by neutering, give them a simple mark that's tattooed on their forehead and hands, so everyone knows who they are, make them in slaves and to put braces on their wrists that are sensitive to actions like typing, and deliver pain.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 30, 2010)

Of course, anything different is a threat to society... If people aren't acting on those urges then they are fine, and even if they are acting on them they might still make some amazing contributions to humanity. (Michael Jackson? Or Alan Turing who was also considered a 'threat to society') Not to mention every person is a threat to society. People are not static entities, their beliefs and actions change over time. A sweet nurse could suddenly decide it's better to kill patients than spend money healing them to less than 100% when that money could be used for raising new, healthy people.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 30, 2010)

That's quite a good point...


----------



## Tally (Oct 30, 2010)

Charrio said:


> Make them a website where they can freely post and view child porn, only drawn as animal babies or Cubs.
> Then post the site where the world of can see it, and draw all the pedophiles here hiding under the "It's just art or Not a human defense"
> 
> Wait..... That's FA lol


 
Or then just make a website where they can freely post and view child porn, and name it 4chan.

Wait dammit someone took my idea.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> (Michael Jackson



...


----------



## Mayonnaise (Oct 30, 2010)

Rufus said:


> I'm seconding this, why does a rabbit have to test human shampoo or a mouse/rat on vaccines or medication? They are innocent and haven't done anything wrong... Besides if they started testing on Pedos and murders, it would speed up the rate research.


It is because their reactions to those substances is almost analogous to humans. They are easier too produce, easier to maintain, less expensive and reach maturity really fast. I support the motion to use them as test subjects though.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> It is because their reactions to those substances is almost analogous to humans. They are easier too produce, easier to maintain, less expensive and reach maturity really fast. I support the motion to use them as test subjects though.


 
You forgot to mention the ethics of testing it on people.

Inb4 PEDOPHILES AREN'T PEOPLE


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 30, 2010)

Tally said:
			
		

> ...



If he wasn't actually a paedophile he was sooooo close yet he was an amazing performer. If he had been a janitor and faced those charges I bet it would have gone very differently, in terms of public opinion of him.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 30, 2010)

Come to think of it though, when I did my animal care course at college we had a massive debate over animal testing and I was towards testing. Don't know why but now my view seams to have changed... maybe due to the fandom?


----------



## Tally (Oct 30, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If he wasn't actually a paedophile he was sooooo close yet he was an amazing performer. If he had been a janitor and faced those charges I bet it would have gone very differently, in terms of public opinion of him.


 
He might have been psychologically unstable, wanting to relive the childhood he missed and all, but I am certain that he never wanted to molest any of the kids he played (dammit) with. After watching that documentary about his life I am defiantly siding with the "fucked up but not a pedo" group.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:


> You forgot to mention the ethics of testing it on people.
> 
> Inb4 PEDOPHILES AREN'T PEOPLE


Ah yes, that too.


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 30, 2010)

Mulefa Zalif said:


> What about not letting them work as elementary school teachers?
> Or would that be discrimination and therefore unconstitutional? (i.e. we wait for the time bomb to explode before we try to defuse it)


 

The question comes down to whose rights do you end up protecting, the children or the innocents who get lumped together with the criminals. Protecting the children starts to move you towards thought police. Protecting the innocents means you have to sacrifice some number of kids (in a realistic world). Denying a pedophile's ability to work directly with children is about as far I would let it go, as that could say 1) we don't trust you enough to control yourself regardless of how good of a citizen/person you are 2) we care about you and don't want you to do something stupid and/or 3) we believe it to be less "evil" to deny a few jobs than to risk having some kids molested.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 30, 2010)

And remember paedophiles are not just men, but women too...


----------



## Tally (Oct 30, 2010)

Rufus said:


> And remember paedophiles are not just men, but women too...


 
Who cares about women?


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Oct 30, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> I say if they haven't acted on it yet, segregation in humane work camps.


No such thing. 



Liar said:


> Inb4 PEDOPHILES AREN'T PEOPLE


Too late.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Too late.


 
I was too late to this thread in general. All the "KILL THEM THEY ARE NOT HUMAN" posts have come and gone, so now I left defending a single line from a single post.

I'm like Leonidas, except with with more whiteknighting and child molestation. >:U

...I should...probably go to bed.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:


> However, the last prison with a chain gang has the same (even somewhat worse) return rate than normal prison.


 But at least they are earning their stay.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> But at least they are earning their stay.


 
But the point is to make them not molest children.


----------



## Willow (Oct 30, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> I'm willing to bet most people who hate pedophiles for being pedophiles are just upset because they were abused as a child or think they were abused as a child.


I love this assumption because it's complete bullshit. That's like saying people who hate murderers have been murdered or have had someone close to them murdered. You don't have to be a victim to hate something or someone. 



Airborne_Piggy said:


> THE IRONY IN THE HATEFUL POSTS IS that pedophiles are more likely to act out and harm children when oppressed and treated like monsters. This is why I condone cub and drawn child pornography, not for my own use, but for the safety of irl children.


So let's treat it like it's perfectly fine, because it's drawn and therefore doesn't count of anything. Yea. 

I could make another murder analogy but I'm way too lazy, but there's a few I could make.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:


> But the point is to make them not molest children.


So we just keep them caged like a pet while we try to rehabilitate them? That's like wasting manpower.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:
			
		

> But the point is to make them not molest children.



It's sometimes easier to just change the environment than struggle to modify behaviour. So if everyone just stopped having children the problem would go away completely without anyone having to suffer.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> So we just keep them caged like a pet while we try to rehabilitate them? That's like wasting manpower.


 
Depends upon their stay, yes, put them to work. But not if they're likely to get out. Because they're likely to repeat their actions.

The return rate to that prison was around _50 percent_. That means _every other criminal_ is going to go back into the world, committing another crime, and coming right the hell back.




Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It's sometimes easier to just change the environment than struggle to modify behaviour. So if everyone just stopped having children the problem would go away completely without anyone having to suffer.


If you're trying to tell me something, say it up front.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:
			
		

> If you're trying to tell me something, say it up front.



It's my non-serious post. Incidentally it probably would be the easiest and most effective solution.


----------



## Enwon (Oct 30, 2010)

I think the best solution is to isolate the pedos from the rest of society and let them build their own little society in an area with no kids.  It's humane, it protects the kids, and it doesn't discriminate against and turn the pedos into monsters.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 30, 2010)

Enwon said:
			
		

> isolate the pedos



Treating a group differently from others. How is this not discrimination?


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It's my non-serious post. Incidentally it probably would be the easiest and most effective solution.


 Sorry, got defensive. I need to stop assuming things.

And indeed it would. But the fundies would flip. :<


Enwon said:


> build their own little society in an area with no kids.


 
Pedophiles are now apparently incapable of breeding.


----------



## Willow (Oct 30, 2010)

Enwon said:


> I think the best solution is to isolate the pedos from the rest of society and let them build their own little society in an area with no kids.  It's humane, it protects the kids, and it doesn't discriminate against and turn the pedos into monsters.


So basically...



Willow said:


> Make a special island for them.


----------



## Enwon (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:


> Pedophiles are now apparently incapable of breeding.


 
Separate the men from the women.  Men in one community, women in another.




			
				Rauken Growlithe said:
			
		

> Treating a group differently from others. How is this not discrimination?



All laws "discriminate" against someone somehow.  A society where nobody can be discriminated against no matter what they do or are is impossible, not to mention that it'd be a form of anarchy.  Assholes are discriminated against when people don't like them for being assholes.  How is throwing a murderer in jail not discriminating against someone because they killed someone else?  Sending children to school is discrimination against children because they are not working like the rest of us.  The reality is that the forms of discrimination worth fighting against (racism, homophobia, sexism) are now being conquered, and "discriminating" against pedophiles is more of a punishing for crimes.  Besides, this solution is more humane than most of what has been suggested- I'm not advocating murder, I'm not advocating harsh punishment.


----------



## Tally (Oct 30, 2010)

Liar said:


> Pedophiles are now apparently incapable of breeding.


 
I can see it now...

"MUST FUCK MORE TO MAKE MORE KIDS! 9 MONTHS TO GO!"


----------



## Tycho (Oct 30, 2010)

We want to find a way to treat it, to diagnose it early and to nip it in the bud.  We want to prevent the chain of abuse from continuing.  We don't want to strip a person of some of their basic rights as a human being because they have the POTENTIAL to molest or cause harm either directly or indirectly (through porn possession for example).  Prosecute offenders, not POTENTIAL offenders.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 30, 2010)

Why not simply kill the problem? Kill the kids.

Am I seriously saying things like this?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 30, 2010)

Depends on how you define "pedophile". A lot of people arrested aren't technically pedophiles.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

Enwon said:


> Separate the men from the women.  Men in one community, women in another.


 Oh, because treating them like a leper colony totally isn't going to have repercussions. No way. 

Rape is usually a crime of power, people. And what happens when you piss off and belittle someone enough? That's right, they crave power over something, anything.
Totally not harmful at all.


Tally said:


> I can see it now...
> 
> "MUST FUCK MORE TO MAKE MORE KIDS! 9 MONTHS TO GO!"


 "FUCK I'M AN HEBEPHILE I HAVE TO WAIT 12 MORE YEARS."




Tycho said:


> We want to find a way to treat it, to diagnose it early and to nip it in the bud.  We want to prevent the chain of abuse from continuing.  We don't want to strip a person of some of their basic rights as a human being because they have the POTENTIAL to molest or cause harm either directly or indirectly (through porn possession for example).  Prosecute offenders, not POTENTIAL offenders.


 
That's why I suggested all of them be given immediate psychiatric care, and if need be, put in a long-term mental institution. 

At least THEN we can keep track and record of all potential offenders. Actual offenders, prison, of course.




AleutheWolf said:


> Depends on how you define "pedophile". A lot of people arrested aren't technically pedophiles.


 
This too. Pedophilia, according to the psychologists, means attraction to prepubescent children, not the 14-17 year olds they bait them with in stings.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Oct 30, 2010)

Willow said:


> I love this assumption because it's complete bullshit. That's like saying people who hate murderers have been murdered or have had someone close to them murdered. You don't have to be a victim to hate something or someone.


Yeah okay I lost that bet pretty easily.



Willow said:


> So let's treat it like it's perfectly fine, because it's drawn and therefore doesn't count of anything. Yea.
> 
> I could make another murder analogy but I'm way too lazy, but there's a few I could make.


No, treat child molestation as a monstrous act. Repetitively reminding/telling someone he/she is a monster for something they can't control is only going to have negative effects on the person, and the society they may lash out on.



Enwon said:


> All laws "discriminate" against someone somehow.  A society where nobody can be discriminated against no matter what they do or are is impossible, not to mention that it'd be a form of anarchy.  Assholes are discriminated against when people don't like them for being assholes.  How is throwing a murderer in jail not discriminating against someone because they killed someone else?  Sending children to school is discrimination against children because they are not working like the rest of us.  The reality is that the forms of discrimination worth fighting against (racism, homophobia, sexism) are now being conquered, and "discriminating" against pedophiles is more of a punishing for crimes.  Besides, this solution is more humane than most of what has been suggested- I'm not advocating murder, I'm not advocating harsh punishment.


Assholes make conscious decisions to act like assholes, that's what makes them assholes. There are no laws against being an asshole.
Murder is a conscious choice and the murderer has no right to take a life from someone else.
Your examples are poor, you don't decide if you're a pedophile. Child molesters should be punished, but you don't have to touch a child to be a pedophile. Pedophilia isn't an action.

You guys want to know what else is a good idea? Teaching kids not to be retards.


----------



## Kendrubbin (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm just going with what everyone else says, stick them on their own secluded island / planet then nuke it from orbit, as it's the only way to be sure. *Shot*


----------



## Willow (Oct 30, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> No, treat child molestation as a monstrous act. Repetitively reminding/telling someone he/she is a monster for something they can't control is only going to have negative effects on the person, and the society they may lash out on.


 Yea, but there's a difference between telling them that their feelings are considered wrong or inappropriate and blatantly saying "your thoughts are bad and you're a terrible person for thinking this way". 

On a side note, there's a registered sex offender living down the street from my aunt. He's really creepy and likes to stand on his porch without a shirt on. Apparently he was in possession of child porn **Edit: before he was arrested.


----------



## Enwon (Oct 30, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Your examples are poor, you don't decide if you're a pedophile. Child molesters should be punished, but you don't have to touch a child to be a pedophile.
> 
> You guys want to know what else is a good idea? Teaching kids not to be retards.


 
If someone is known to be a pedophile, then they would have likely done some form of action to make it known.  Like child molestation, for example.  And child molestation is a choice.  If a pedophile is capable of controlling his urges, has no photographic or video pornography on his computer, and is functioning in society, then let them free.




			
				Liar said:
			
		

> Oh, because treating them like a leper colony totally isn't going to have repercussions. No way.
> 
> Rape is usually a crime of power, people. And what happens when you piss off and belittle someone enough? That's right, they crave power over something, anything.
> Totally not harmful at all.


It would certainly be better than the current treatment.  Where would you rather go if you were a pedophile?  A colony full of pedophiles, or a prison full of people who hate pedophiles?


----------



## NA3LKER (Oct 30, 2010)

we cant treat them badly cos of human rights. bollocks i say, if you are a paedophile, you dont get human rights


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Oct 30, 2010)

Posters need to define "pedophile" when they comment. Do they mean offenders or regular people who just have to have an affinity for children that's never acted upon? etc.

Assumptions = bad


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 30, 2010)

i absolutely adore the complete lack for human life in here. regardless on whether your close-minded brains can comprehend this or not, pedophiles are people as much as you are. the only difference? they're committing acts on children while you bash your face on the keyboard about killing people for being different than you. thank you, hitler, as i love a good laugh every now and then.

in the end, what are you helping? killing people in the name of children, big fucking deal. people get molested, raped, beaten, tortured every single day but that never bothers most of you. it even becomes a joke to a lot of you, especially rape. but god forbid an animal or a kid become involved, then we've got a big bad anonymous army up in here! your words are so much more confident behind the anonymity of the furry fandom and the internet.

sure, okay. let's kill pedophiles (even if they haven't committed a crime). and let's kill zoophiles. and let's kill the rapists and the murderers and so on, because we want a perfect society (hitler). what you're failing to realize is that a perfect society is hopeless and will never happen, so killing in the name of your fucked up justice isn't going to fix anything, but it will put us one step closer to a government where you're murdered for having a problem. all your adhd babies and ritalin rats? kill them too, as they'll never have a normal life. every child who has a disorder that won't function normally in society because of their handicap? kill them too.

the justice behind murder is useless. the concept is barbaric, and it's only barked by the idiots who can't comprehend a form of understanding. they'd be better hospitalized than killed because these things can be HELPED.

"but harley, they'll go right back to kids!" how about the drug addicts who have been sober for the rest of their life? people really can't change, huh?


----------



## Saintversa (Oct 30, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> we should beat them and kill them, because pedophiles aren't people. they're inhuman fucks, even when they don't do anything to children and hate themselves for being attracted to minors. it's disgusting.


 
let little kids beat them. tons and tons of little kids so that way he wont be able to protect himself.. then let a guy named bowling ball bob rape him. sideways


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 30, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> let little kids beat them. tons and tons of little kids so that way he wont be able to protect himself.. then let a guy named bowling ball bob rape him. sideways


 
loooool that's funny XD


----------



## Willow (Oct 30, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i absolutely adore the complete lack for human life in here. regardless on whether your close-minded brains can comprehend this or not, pedophiles are people as much as you are. the only difference? they're committing acts on children while you bash your face on the keyboard about killing people for being different than you. thank you, hitler, as i love a good laugh every now and then.


'kay Godwin. 



> in the end, what are you helping? killing people in the name of children, big fucking deal. people get molested, raped, beaten, tortured every single day but that never bothers most of you. it even becomes a joke to a lot of you, especially rape. but god forbid an animal or a kid become involved, then we've got a big bad anonymous army up in here! your words are so much more confident behind the anonymity of the furry fandom and the internet.


No not really, but whatever you say Harley. 




> sure, okay. let's kill pedophiles (even if they haven't committed a crime). and let's kill zoophiles. and let's kill the rapists and the murderers and so on, because we want a perfect society (hitler). what you're failing to realize is that a perfect society is hopeless and will never happen, so killing in the name of your fucked up justice isn't going to fix anything, but it will put us one step closer to a government where you're murdered for having a problem. all your adhd babies and ritalin rats? kill them too, as they'll never have a normal life. every child who has a disorder that won't function normally in society because of their handicap? kill them too.


Now I get the feeling you're speaking in hyperbole. 



> the justice behind murder is useless. the concept is barbaric, and it's only barked by the idiots who can't comprehend a form of understanding. they'd be better hospitalized than killed because these things can be HELPED.


Murder in the name of justice isn't new, just sayin'



> "but harley, they'll go right back to kids!" how about the drug addicts who have been sober for the rest of their life? people really can't change, huh?


People will only change as much as they allow themselves to. If they actually make a conscious effort to change themselves, then it will happen.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 30, 2010)

Enwon said:


> It would certainly be better than the current treatment.  Where would you rather go if you were a pedophile?  A colony full of pedophiles, or a prison full of people who hate pedophiles?


 
How about nowhere, considering that it's not pedophiles that need to be put in prison, it's people _that actually commit the crime._


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 30, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i absolutely adore the complete lack for human life in here. regardless on whether your close-minded brains can comprehend this or not, pedophiles are people as much as you are. the only difference? they're committing acts on children while you bash your face on the keyboard about killing people for being different than you. thank you, hitler, as i love a good laugh every now and then.
> 
> in the end, what are you helping? killing people in the name of children, big fucking deal. people get molested, raped, beaten, tortured every single day but that never bothers most of you. it even becomes a joke to a lot of you, especially rape. but god forbid an animal or a kid become involved, then we've got a big bad anonymous army up in here! your words are so much more confident behind the anonymity of the furry fandom and the internet.
> 
> ...


 
you are right. well, mostly.
they are human beings too, whether we like it or not.
you are also right about a so called "perfect society", its never going to happen. at least not in the way we are approaching the situation right now! as long as we dont create some sort of mutual understanding and tolerance among all people there is just no way to create such a society.
however, there are some people out there who you just cant fix like that. its not impossible in every case but some people will just turn right around and start all over again... and that really shouldnt be happening in my opinion. i mean, who is to blame if a serial killer who came out of a mental institute because you thought that you fixed him up kills 10 or so people again? i simply think that this risk cant be taken. im not a huge friend of the death sentence anymore, i have changed my mind on that a little but still... what are your options if you cant fix him or her mentally?


----------



## Trichloromethane (Oct 30, 2010)

I think "a clockwork orange" had the right idea.


----------



## Saintversa (Oct 30, 2010)

Trichloromethane said:


> I think "a clockwork orange" had the right idea.


 
egglewegs... i wanna smash em!


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 30, 2010)

Talking about rehabilitating pedophiles is pointless, attempting any sort of treatment is totally impractical. Not only does in require significant resources and manpower, refusing to segregate them presents an unjustifiable risk to the public. The only sure way to prevent them from molesting children is to permanently separate them from the rest of society.

Also human life has no inherent and irrevocable value, that is to say an individual's life is not valuable regardless of their actions. If a person molests a child, their life becomes worthless. I don't see any ethical dilemma in using a child molester for medical experimentation.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 30, 2010)

Aversion Therapy, Labour Camps, or Chemical Castration.

Those are my solutions.


Then again, they are my solutions to everything.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 30, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Talking about rehabilitating pedophiles is pointless, attempting any sort of treatment is totally impractical. Not only does in require significant resources and manpower, refusing to segregate them presents an unjustifiable risk to the public. The only sure way to prevent them from molesting children is to permanently separate them from the rest of society.
> 
> Also human life has no inherent and irrevocable value, that is to say an individual's life is not valuable regardless of their actions.* If a person molests a child, their life becomes worthless.* I don't see any ethical dilemma in using a child molester for medical experimentation.


 
i think you are right there. they act only by their most basic instincts and through away their humanity.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 30, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> Aversion Therapy, Labour Camps, or Chemical Castration.
> 
> Those are my solutions.
> 
> ...



Aversion therapy and chemical castration don't really work.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 30, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Aversion therapy and chemical castration don't really work.



You can't rape children if you don't have a dick.

I'm talking acid castration.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 30, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> You can't rape children if you don't have a dick.
> 
> I'm talking acid castration.


 
they still have other limbs that they can stick in the kids  do you want to turn them into quadruple amputees?


----------



## Saintversa (Oct 30, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> You can't rape children if you don't have a dick.
> 
> I'm talking acid castration.


 
hehe.. oh you. =]


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 30, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> You can't rape children if you don't have a dick.


 
I'd rather not explain why that isn't true, I'm sure the Wikipedia article on chemical castration will offer some insight. It's important to remember that this isn't about deterrence or revenge. The hypothetical scenario outlined in the OP allows for all pedophiles to be identified and contained so deterrence is unnecessary, and risking damage to something as valuable as a human medical test subject with unnecessary medical procedures is unjustifiable.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> I'd rather not explain why that isn't true, I'm sure the Wikipedia article on chemical castration will offer some insight. It's important to remember that this isn't about deterrence or revenge. The hypothetical scenario outlined in the OP allows for all pedophiles to be identified and contained so deterrence is unnecessary, and risking damage to something as valuable as a human medical test subject with unnecessary medical procedures is unjustifiable.



I think what JesusFish means is, that without the "tool" for the job a male can not perform a sexual act. I believe jesus means completely removing thye cock from a males body so the male has nothing downstairs.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 30, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I think what JesusFish means is, that without the "tool" for the job a male can not perform a sexual act. I believe jesus means completely removing thye cock from a males body so the male has nothing downstairs.


 
Removing the penis does not prevent the offender from raping again.  Rapists are known to use various inanimate objects to violate their victims.  Remember, it's not so much about sex and sexual gratification as it is about OVERPOWERING and HURTING someone.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Removing the penis does not prevent the offender from raping again. Rapists are known to use various inanimate objects to violate their victims. Remember, it's not so much about sex and sexual gratification as it is about OVERPOWERING and HURTING someone.


Then cut off all four limbs and use the rest for medical experiments?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Removing the penis does not prevent the offender from raping again. Rapists are known to use various inanimate objects to violate their victims. Remember, it's not so much about sex and sexual gratification as it is about OVERPOWERING and HURTING someone.



Then turn them on each other and let them eat one another or cut off each others' phalluses.


----------



## Tabasco (Oct 30, 2010)

Paedos who know better in one corner, disgusting freaks who'd scar a child to get their jollies in the snake pit.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 30, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Then cut off all four limbs and use the rest for medical experiments?


 


JesusFish said:


> Then turn them on each other and let them eat one another or cut off each others' phalluses.


 
At this point it'd be simpler to just lobotomize the rapist than lop appendages off willy-nilly.  The rapist's MIND is the problem.  Think about it, if someone went on a shooting rampage and you had to stop him, would you shoot the gun he was using to destroy or disable it, only to have him pick up a different gun and continue shooting? Or would you shoot the fucker in the head?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Removing the penis does not prevent the offender from raping again.  Rapists are known to use various inanimate objects to violate their victims.  Remember, it's not so much about sex and sexual gratification as it is about OVERPOWERING and HURTING someone.


 


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Then cut off all four limbs and use the rest for medical experiments?



I did say earlier in this thread cut off their dick n\balls and fingers/hands, then they can't do either.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Think about it, if someone went on a shooting rampage and you had to stop him, would you shoot the gun he was using to destroy or disable it, only to have him pick up a different gun and continue shooting? Or would you shoot the fucker in the head?



Welcome to the side of the conservative argument against Gun Control.

You see, if we lobotomize them, it would be considered "inhumane" on our part.
So we isolate them, and leave them to their own devices so that it is their "fault" for anything they might do to one another.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> At this point it'd be simpler to just lobotomize the rapist than lop appendages off willy-nilly. The rapist's MIND is the problem. Think about it, if someone went on a shooting rampage and you had to stop him, would you shoot the gun he was using to destroy or disable it, only to have him pick up a different gun and continue shooting? Or would you shoot the fucker in the head?


Because you can't do much with a corpse.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> At this point it'd be simpler to just lobotomize the rapist than lop appendages off willy-nilly.  The rapist's MIND is the problem.  Think about it, if someone went on a shooting rampage and you had to stop him, would you shoot the gun he was using to destroy or disable it, only to have him pick up a different gun and continue shooting? Or would you shoot the fucker in the head?



If someone was on a shooting rampage and I had authority to stop him, I'd shoot him, if he dies, he dies, if he lives he'd be a lucky fucker.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Because you can't do much with a corpse.



A corpse can't commit more crimes either.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 30, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If someone was on a shooting rampage and I had authority to stop him, I'd shoot him, if he dies, he dies, if he lives he'd be a lucky fucker.
> .



If it was me, he'd be lucky if he _died_.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 30, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> If it was me, he'd be lucky if he _died_.



Practice makes perfect, and familiarization eliminates fear.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 30, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If someone was on a shooting rampage and I had authority to stop him, I'd shoot him, if he dies, he dies, if he lives he'd be a lucky fucker


 
The point is, you'd target the man, not the gun.  Lopping off limbs is targeting the gun.  And making a mess.

Ideally, you'd want to be able to tell the shooter "Stop, put down your weapon and surrender" and have him comply, perhaps before he even started shooting at all.  Gunmen weren't always gunmen, sex offenders weren't always sex offenders.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The point is, you'd target the man, not the gun. Lopping off limbs is targeting the gun. And making a mess.



You can do both, you know.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The point is, you'd target the man, not the gun.  Lopping off limbs is targeting the gun.  And making a mess.



Hitting the man is a far easier target to hit than a gun in his hand unless you are one hell of a good sharpshooter. (sharpshooter is cop term for sniper) While we are on the subject I remember watching on a TV police show where a suicidal man sat in the middle of a street with a gun and a sniper shot the gun clean out of the suicidal mans hand, the gun ended up in three pieces.

As for shooting a rampaging man, I doubt even the best sniper in the world could hit a gun in someones hand while that person is moving around. The chances are if a man is rampaging with a gun he will aim at you aswell, so you wouldn't have time to think about shooting his gun, you will just shoot in his direction hoping to hit him before he shoots you.

I could sit here and pick out more variables in you comparison but I'd just be splitting hairs.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Oct 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> At this point it'd be simpler to just lobotomize the rapist than lop appendages off willy-nilly.  The rapist's MIND is the problem.  Think about it, if someone went on a shooting rampage and you had to stop him, would you shoot the gun he was using to destroy or disable it, only to have him pick up a different gun and continue shooting? Or would you shoot the fucker in the head?


 The only problem I see with that comparison is that people don't regenerate dicks and hands. p:

My apologies, I only read the first page of the thread and this one, but are we talking pedophiles who have raped or have the absolute intention to rape children, or pedophiles who wank to them at home but aren't moron enough to try?


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Oct 31, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> The only problem I see with that comparison is that people don't regenerate dicks and hands. p:
> 
> My apologies, I only read the first page of the thread and this one, but are we talking pedophiles who have raped or have the absolute intention to rape children, or pedophiles who wank to them at home but aren't moron enough to try?


Just pedophiles that haven't done anything wrong, but have been identified as pedophiles.



Enwon said:


> If someone is known to be a pedophile, then they would have likely done some form of action to make it known.  Like child molestation, for example.  And child molestation is a choice.  If a pedophile is capable of controlling his urges, has no photographic or video pornography on his computer, and is functioning in society, then let them free.


We're talking about a hypothetical, scientific way to identify pedophiles before having done anything wrong. Re-read the OP.


----------



## jcfynx (Oct 31, 2010)

Emmm pedofilia is not a crime,,,


----------



## Neiun (Oct 31, 2010)

jcfynx said:


> Emmm pedofilia is not a crime,,,


 
The feet kind isn't.

The raping children kind is.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 31, 2010)

Neiun said:


> The feet kind isn't.
> 
> The raping children kind is.


 pedophilia =/= raping children


----------



## Neiun (Oct 31, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> pedophilia =/= raping children


 
Pedophilia in action, i.e a pedophile molesting a child, is. ;v I see where you're coming from, though.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 31, 2010)

Neiun said:


> Pedophilia in action, i.e a pedophile molesting a child, is. ;v I see where you're coming from, though.


 Child molestation is child molestation and not always pedophilia.
Details are ever so important


----------



## Neiun (Oct 31, 2010)

Fuck details it's 3:20 AM and I'm relatively sure some people got what I meant. ;c


----------



## Doppio (Oct 31, 2010)

The scarey thing is female Pedophiles do exist two were reported earlier this year -.- 
I would give them all the chair it would save on prison space and tax payers money I don't really care if they are usefull I wouldnt want them back in society were they could harm another kid.


----------



## Neiun (Oct 31, 2010)

Doppio said:


> The scarey thing is female Pedophiles do exist two were reported earlier this year -.-


 
How is that scary from male paedophiles? o_.

Were they actually molesting children/had childporn? Or is it one of those DRAMATIC CASES OF A YOUNG HOT HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHER AND THE FORBIDDEN LOVE BETWEEN HER AND HER STUDENT bullshit?


----------



## Charrio (Oct 31, 2010)

As a serious answer, 

If you have already identified all the pedophiles, just make them enroll into like a probation where they are monitored daily. 
Also make areas of cities where they can live more or less together for easier observation. 
With the probation program give them lots of hobbies or crafts or jobs to keep them busy, fill envelopes or anything away from kids. 

If one was found that had molested or raped a child, destroy them.
No second chance, he acted on his wants, he's dead now. 

Making it a no second chance policy, you have already given them more chance then they should have. 

That's about all i can think of rather than just grind them up for catfood, without a probation, just eradicate that part of the genepool


----------



## ConkerTheSquirrel (Oct 31, 2010)

Why do people still care about this subject?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2010)

ConkerTheSquirrel said:


> Why do people still care about this subject?


 Because we are running out of literal space for inmates, if this doesn't get fixed in the next 10 years we're going to end up having to let prisoners out.
tl;dr we have to fix it fucking now.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 31, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Because we are running out of literal space for inmates, if this doesn't get fixed in the next 10 years we're going to end up having to let prisoners out.
> tl;dr we have to fix it fucking now.


 you know, if they legalize pot and enforce the death sentence more often we would have more room. Just a thought :V


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 31, 2010)

Well, all you would have to do is go door to door on Halloween, looking for signs on the door saying _"this guy touches chilluns"_, bang on the door and rip them out

Throw em in in the ocean to fend for themselves.
Problem solved.

or if you wanna get creative you could kill them in neat ways. Kinda like those Saw movies. _[I do not believe in imprisonment for people like this. only death]_



Neiun said:


> How is that scary from male paedophiles? o_.
> 
> Were they actually molesting children/had childporn? Or is it one of those DRAMATIC CASES OF A YOUNG HOT HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHER AND THE FORBIDDEN LOVE BETWEEN HER AND HER STUDENT bullshit?


 It doesn't fucking matter what gender a pedophile is.


----------



## jcfynx (Oct 31, 2010)

Clayton said:


> _[I do not believe in imprisonment for people like this. only death]_


 
Excuse me sorry if I am being rude but didn't you bag a 14-year-old???


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 31, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This can be said for all criminals. Perhaps chain gangs should be brought back?


 
I miss chain gangs.  They kept our city beautiful.  v_v


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 31, 2010)

We can send jcfynx to "help" the "poor, suffering, misunderstood" child-molesters.


----------



## Neiun (Oct 31, 2010)

Clayton said:


> It doesn't fucking matter what gender a pedophile is.


 
It doesn't. But I always laugh at the cases of a sixteen year old bangin' his high-school teacher. Mostly because I believe the AOC in America is stupidly high and should be lowered a couple of years.


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 31, 2010)

edit: that wasn't very nice of me.


----------



## Kibou (Oct 31, 2010)

Well it depends

There are two kinds of pedophiles

Ones that act on their urges and ones that don't

The ones that DO give into their urges and molest kid's should be put on an Island where the Soil is composed of HIV+ Needles

The ones that don't act on their urges should just be monitored


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 31, 2010)

Kibou said:


> The ones that DO give into their urges and molest kid's should be put on an Island where the Soil is composed of HIV+ Needles


 
HIV dies after a while, even in a needle. jussayin'.


----------



## Kibou (Oct 31, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> HIV dies after a while, even in a needle. jussayin'.


 
On my Island nothing dies

Its like Neverland...only with HIV+ Needles


----------



## foxmusk (Nov 1, 2010)

Kibou said:


> On my Island nothing dies
> 
> Its like Neverland...only with HIV+ Needles


 
okay, you got me. i lol'd. A+ for a good response.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Nov 1, 2010)

Kibou said:


> On my Island nothing dies
> 
> Its like Neverland...only with HIV+ Needles


Then what's the point of HIV if nothing dies?


----------



## Telnac (Nov 1, 2010)

Wow, I'm going to go out in a limb here and say: do nothing.

If someone commits a sex crime against a child, use the test as evidence against them.  But the fact is, not all pedophiles will commit crimes against kids.  In fact, I'd say very, very few of them will.

I want to kill everyone who cuts me off in traffic.  Even if I had a fully loaded uzi in the passenger seat, I wouldn't use it.  There's a BIG difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it.

Those who cross that line, punish them SAVAGELY.  Those who don't, don't.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 1, 2010)

I'm going to have to agree with Telnac. You can't control what makes you pop one (NOT saying I think pedophilia is acceptable, it's pretty disgusting), but you can absolutely control your actions. It's people who let themselves act upon their unacceptable interests that need to be put out of their misery.
Additionally, for the record, foot fetishism is podophilia, not pedophilia. ^^


----------



## Carenath (Nov 1, 2010)

jcfynx said:


> Excuse me sorry if I am being rude but didn't you bag a 14-year-old???


Ah yes, you see it too right?


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 2, 2010)

GODDAMN PEDOPHILE AGENDA.

DEPORT THEM BACK TO HONDURAS OR WHEREVER THEY ILLEGALLY IMMIGRATED FROM. :V

You can be a pedophile and not actively want children just as an average person may opt not to have sex. So, to answer OP's question, help them.


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 2, 2010)

Feed them to a snake monster :3


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 2, 2010)

I read the first page and I couldn't stomache any more.

The inability of so many of you to recognise satire astounds me.

'BURN ALL PEDOS LOL' Man you guys are great.


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 2, 2010)

you had to say it op...now look what you made


----------



## jcfynx (Nov 2, 2010)

You made you're bed,,,now yiff in it ^_~


----------



## Squeak (Nov 3, 2010)

Pedophiles? Nothing, thoughtcrime sucks.
Child Molesters? Jail until such time as they are rehabilitated.
Prison Population? Release all non-violent drug offenders and legalise all drugs.

Sorry if that isn't harsh enough but in my opinion: There is no point at which justice and vengeance overlap.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Nov 3, 2010)

We should abort more babies, then we'll have less children to worry about being molested.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 3, 2010)

Squeak said:


> Pedophiles? Nothing, thoughtcrime sucks.
> Child Molesters? Jail until such time as they are rehabilitated.
> Prison Population? Release all non-violent drug offenders and legalise all drugs.
> 
> Sorry if that isn't harsh enough but in my opinion: There is no point at which justice and vengeance overlap.



IMO you have no idea of what justice is if you idea is to let criminals go free and legalize everything (particularly drugs). I was watching something on TV last night where some bloke was tripping on magic shrooms so much that he believed he WAS god and was telling everyone to pray to him. Then believing he was god and totally like invincible he stabbed himself in the neck and leg and almost killed himself because he was tripping on illegal drugs. THIS IS WHY SUCH DRUGS ARE FUCKING ILLEGAL PEOPLE! Because when people are tripping out like that they not only become a danger to themselves but to everyone else aswell. 

Also, child molesters and pedophiles are the same thing, duh.


----------



## arisfelis (Nov 3, 2010)

So many replies! @_@

There are those who are just ehfd in the head and need to be done away with.

Then there are those who need help. Simply being taken away from kids isn't going to do anything, but the kids will most certainly be safe. The person needs help. He knows it, but who is he going to ask? Who is he going to tell? 
It'll ruin his/her life.
Ya get me?

@Airborne_Piggy  XD  wow.


----------



## Squeak (Nov 3, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> IMO you have no idea of what justice is if you idea is to let criminals go free and legalize everything (particularly drugs). I was watching something on TV last night where some bloke was tripping on magic shrooms so much that he believed he WAS god and was telling everyone to pray to him. Then believing he was god and totally like invincible he stabbed himself in the neck and leg and almost killed himself because he was tripping on illegal drugs. THIS IS WHY SUCH DRUGS ARE FUCKING ILLEGAL PEOPLE!



I really fail to see the problem here. The only one he hurt was himself. What? I am meant to feel sorry for the moron?



> Because when people are tripping out like that they not only become a danger to themselves but to everyone else aswell.



Same goes for alcohol but that is perfectly legal and has been for quite some time now. In fact prohibition of most drugs is a pretty recent phenomena. Not that it stops people using them, harmlessly for the most part. Almost all the harm done by drugs is due to the involvement of organised crime in the production of said drugs and they are only involved because it is illegal for legit businesses to meet the demand. Not to mention that drug prohibition stops people from seeking help for drug problem for fear of punishment and make it much harder to educate people about how to use drugs safely.

If you are curious btw, I don't use illict drugs myself, or even drink alcohol.



> Also, child molesters and pedophiles are the same thing, duh.



peÂ·doÂ·phile
â€‚ â€‚/ËˆpidÉ™ËŒfaÉªl/ 
â€“noun Psychiatry.
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

sexually attracted to children != having sex with children.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 4, 2010)

Randy u trollin' bro?


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Nov 4, 2010)

Squeak said:


> I really fail to see the problem here. The only one he hurt was himself. What? I am meant to feel sorry for the moron?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd like to add that close to 50% of all drug (that includes alcohol) abusers already have at least one preexisting mental condition.


----------



## jcfynx (Nov 4, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> Randy u trollin' bro?


 
I'm never sure whether he's an elaborate hoax or just really, really English.


----------



## mitchau (Nov 4, 2010)

Well if there was a way to know if someone was a pedo so easily as to perform such said tasks in the thread, that'd be enough alone for society to shun them into the shadows.


----------



## foxmusk (Nov 4, 2010)

Squeak said:


> Pedophiles? Nothing, thoughtcrime sucks.
> Child Molesters? Jail until such time as they are rehabilitated.
> Prison Population? Release all non-violent drug offenders and legalise all drugs.
> 
> Sorry if that isn't harsh enough but in my opinion: There is no point at which justice and vengeance overlap.


 
FINALLY,SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY OUTLOOK. FUCK YES.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 4, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> FINALLY,SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY OUTLOOK. FUCK YES.



then what you and squeak are basically saying, no one should be locked up.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 4, 2010)

Squeak said:


> I really fail to see the problem here. The only one he hurt was himself. What? I am meant to feel sorry for the moron?



Wut? are you seriously saying pedophiles only hurt themselves? Seriously man? If they are fucked up in the head to even have such desires then there is a very large chance they will act out said desires.



> Same goes for alcohol but that is perfectly legal and has been for quite some time now. In fact prohibition of most drugs is a pretty recent phenomena. Not that it stops people using them, harmlessly for the most part. Almost all the harm done by drugs is due to the involvement of organised crime in the production of said drugs and they are only involved because it is illegal for legit businesses to meet the demand. Not to mention that drug prohibition stops people from seeking help for drug problem for fear of punishment and make it much harder to educate people about how to use drugs safely.



Right, drug users use them harmlessly. did you even READ my last post? I do not think someone stabbing themselves in the neck and leg to be using the drug harmlessly. People who trip out on drugs are a hazard to themselves and to others, are you too fucking dumb to see that? You can not use hard drugs sensibly. Also, I have never seen a drunk man stab himself in the neck, leg or any other body part on purpose. The most I ever see a drunk do is start a fight, fall over more times than I'd care to count, or just pass out.

Not only that, our government here gets 70% of the earnings from the sale of alcohol, with a percentage like that do you really think they'd ever ban alcohol? Getting countries to ban alcohol would be like trying to get America to ban all members of public from owning firearms, it ain't gonna happen.





> peÂ·doÂ·phile
> â€‚ â€‚/ËˆpidÉ™ËŒfaÉªl/
> â€“noun Psychiatry.
> an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
> ...



People can only suppress urges for so long. In my book, a child molestor is a pedophile, after all, a child molester IS sexually attracted to children. If they weren't. they wouldn't rape kids. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 4, 2010)

You're right, drunk people never do things that are dangerously violent.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20091231/157427916.html
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091230/157422258.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/10/23/15801466.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295332

But it's better if they're attacking others because of their inebriation, rather than hurting themselves, right? :V



RandyDarkshade said:


> If they are fucked up in the head  to even have such desires then there is a very large chance they will  act out said desires.
> People  can only suppress urges for so long. In my book, a child molestor is a  pedophile, after all, a child molester IS sexually attracted to  children. If they weren't. they wouldn't rape kids. Put that in your  pipe and smoke it.


 
First of all, to the first sentence I quoted here: No. Bullshit. Having the desire to do something and acting upon your desires are two different things. Ask anyone who has ever dealt with an angry customer if they have ever wanted to beat the shit out of the guy instead of sitting there, taking their order, and carrying on with life.
People can only suppress urges for so long? The fact that you said that only brings up the fact that you must have little to no self control. If everyone went out acting on things that they felt were wrong, but still wanted to do, the world would be a lot more fucked up than it is. One of the things that separates humans from animals is that we can sit down and reason with ourselves before acting.
You should swap the words "pedophile" and "child molester" in the second sentence of your last paragraph.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 4, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> You're right, drunk people never do things that are dangerously violent.
> http://en.rian.ru/world/20091231/157427916.html
> http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091230/157422258.html
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/10/23/15801466.html
> ...



Hey look, another guy putting words in my mouth. I actually said they don't do it to themselves on PURPOSE like the guy did who was tripping out on shrooms. I also DID say they start fights. Please read a whole post before replying as I really hate dumb dumbs  putting words in my mouth.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 4, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Hey look, another guy putting words in my mouth. I actually said they don't do it to themselves on PURPOSE like the guy did who was tripping out on shrooms. I also DID say they start fights. Please read a whole post before replying as I really hate dumb dumbs  putting words in my mouth.


 You're right, they don't do things to "themselves" on purpose. The point of my post was not to say that drunk people don't do things to themselves, it was to bring up the point that whether or not you're being violent towards yourself or another person, it's not something you should be fucking doing.
Dumb dumbs? Really? Are you serious here? I thought we were having a debate, not calling names. But I guess I would expect that from someone who doesn't even respond to the points I brought up, instead deciding to defend their paper thin argument.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 4, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> You're right, they don't do things to "themselves" on purpose. The point of my post was not to say that drunk people don't do things to themselves, it was to bring up the point that whether or not you're being violent towards yourself or another person, it's not something you should be fucking doing.
> Dumb dumbs? Really? Are you serious here? I thought we were having a debate, not calling names. But I guess I would expect that from someone who doesn't even respond to the points I brought up, instead deciding to defend their paper thin argument.



Fuck everything I just typed, I never saw your edit. 




> First of all, to the first sentence I quoted here: No. Bullshit.  Having the desire to do something and acting upon your desires are two  different things. Ask anyone who has ever dealt with an angry customer  if they have ever wanted to beat the shit out of the guy instead of  sitting there, taking their order, and carrying on with life.



I do believe sexual urges are much harder to control. If they were easy to control I doubt anyone would be able to cheat on their partners.



> People  can only suppress urges for so long? The fact that you said that only  brings up the fact that you must have little to no self control.



Quite the contrary, I have a lot of self control. 



> If  everyone went out acting on things that they felt were wrong, but still  wanted to do, the world would be a lot more fucked up than it is. One of  the things that separates humans from animals is that we can sit down  and reason with ourselves before acting.
> You should swap the words "pedophile" and "child molester" in the second sentence of your last paragraph.



I do believe that a child molester can be classified as a pedophile due to the fact a child molester is sexually attracted to children. Even if someone was a pedophile who only had thoughts about them, they most likely view indecent imagery of children via the internet. So even if most pedophiles do not directly cause harm to children, their viewing of such material online means they are indirectly causing harm because the photographers of such material will need to meet the demand. 

Prevention is better than cure. Get to the pedophile early, stop a potential future molester. Even though some pedophiles may have enough self control to suppress their urges, no doubt some will act upon them. Note I said some, not all.


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 4, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I did respond to your points.
> 
> Perhaps I should go into detail then.
> 
> ...


 Reality TV shows...maybe that's your problem.
How can you guarantee that everyone robbing a gas station is doing it for drug money? You've got to be kidding. What about the people that are behind on their bills, trying to get money for groceries so their family can eat that week? What about the punk ass teenagers doing it for a rush, or to prove something to their friends? Oh, and my apologies, I forgot to address this part: "I have never heard of anyone drinking who steals to get money for booze." Do you live in a hole? That's what it's beginning to sound like to me.
I didn't miss the point about the government making money from alcohol sales. I didn't bring it up because I didn't disagree with it. But you know what? I bet they'd make a hell of a lot of money legalizing some of the other drugs out there. 
With anything that they try to ban, prohibition will _not _work because there's always going to be someone going behind the rule of the law to sell it anyways. You might as well legalize things so you can have at least some form of control over it. Regardless of whether drugs are legal or illegal, there will _always _be idiots out there who use things in a way that it was not intended to be used. And guess what? That goes for _anything_. Not just drugs and alcohol. _The point is not to ban everything you don't feel is safe. The point is to try to have control over it._ That, is why alcohol is legal, it's why weapons are legal, it's why anything that could potentially be dangerous to a person that's legal, is legal.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Fuck everything I just typed, I never saw your edit.
> 
> I do believe sexual urges are much harder to control. If they were easy  to control I doubt anyone would be able to cheat on their partners.
> 
> ...


 
The reason people cheat on their partners is because they get into situations where they're willing, and the other person is willing, and things get heated. Emotions come into play when both people are willing. Children do not have willing sex with adults, they get raped. Child rape is something planned, not something that happens when you get too close to your ex.
Yes, a child molester is a pedophile. There's really no reason to state that though, because it's kind of an obvious. That's like saying "Well yes, someone who sleeps with other people for money is a whore.". It's redundant.
The rest of that paragraph of yours actually makes sense, I'll give you that. But you still can't put someone away for something they haven't done, so marking someone with the "pedophile gene" is a ridiculous notion at best. If only some people are going to do something, all of them should not be punished for it. That's like saying everyone who has to go through anger management is automatically classified as a murderer and should be thrown in jail. While some of them may resort to that, not all of them will.


----------



## Kibou (Nov 4, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Then what's the point of HIV if nothing dies?


 
Its an Island of fucking needles

Don't go too far into detail


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 5, 2010)

rainingdarkness said:


> Reality TV shows...maybe that's your problem.
> How can you guarantee that everyone robbing a gas station is doing it for drug money? You've got to be kidding. What about the people that are behind on their bills, trying to get money for groceries so their family can eat that week? What about the punk ass teenagers doing it for a rush, or to prove something to their friends? Oh, and my apologies, I forgot to address this part: "I have never heard of anyone drinking who steals to get money for booze." Do you live in a hole? That's what it's beginning to sound like to me.



I don't live in hole, I just live in a very quiet British town where jack shite happens. The last big crime that happened in my town was about 20 years ago when a local shop was robbed by armed robbers (with bats I believe) and killed the shop assistant. So I kinda realy on shows like reality police shows and other reality shows, and people I meet online from other countries to learn about different places.



> I didn't miss the point about the government making money from alcohol sales. I didn't bring it up because I didn't disagree with it. But you know what? I bet they'd make a hell of a lot of money legalizing some of the other drugs out there.



I bought this subject up with bro earlier and we both came to this very conclusion. 




> With anything that they try to ban, prohibition will _not _work because there's always going to be someone going behind the rule of the law to sell it anyways. You might as well legalize things so you can have at least some form of control over it. Regardless of whether drugs are legal or illegal, there will _always _be idiots out there who use things in a way that it was not intended to be used. And guess what? That goes for _anything_. Not just drugs and alcohol. _The point is not to ban everything you don't feel is safe. The point is to try to have control over it._ That, is why alcohol is legal, it's why weapons are legal, it's why anything that could potentially be dangerous to a person that's legal, is legal.



Anyone can break a law. I'm sure many of us have broken a law from time to time, even if it was just a small law or a by-law that few know about. The thing I don't get is, why people do drugs anyway? Why do they choose to do heroin, crack, shrooms? Why do they choose to abuse their bodies like that? Actually I am not sure if magic mushrooms causes any physical damage, but when you look at long time crack or heroin users they look like a complete wreck. I mean sometimes it isn't hard to spot an addict just by looking at them. 





> Yes, a child molester is a pedophile. There's really no reason to state that though, because it's kind of an obvious.



I only brought it up because squeak was trying to say they are both different.




> The rest of that paragraph of yours actually makes sense, I'll give you that. But you still can't put someone away for something they haven't done, so marking someone with the "pedophile gene" is a ridiculous notion at best. If only some people are going to do something, all of them should not be punished for it. That's like saying everyone who has to go through anger management is automatically classified as a murderer and should be thrown in jail. While some of them may resort to that, not all of them will.



Well, they may not have done anything directly to a child, but like I said, looking at indecent photo's of children, and most likely saving them to their computer feeds the industry (so to speak) and persuades those taking the photos to put more children at risk and harm by making more images. 

If someone plainly had thoughts alone and owned no indecent imagery of any children at all, then I'd see no reason to lock them away. If however an inspection of their computer(s) revealed such indecent photo's then they should be locked up.

What the police should be concentrating on is putting away those who take the photo's and distribute them. Just like when cops target drug dealers rather than the users. They do more damage to the distribution of drugs by removing the dealers than they do by removing the drug runners or users. Same can apply to child porn distributers.


----------



## Sharpguard (Nov 5, 2010)

Why is it that pedophile and child molester seem to be used as synonyms when neither one guaranties the other?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 5, 2010)

Sharpguard said:


> Why is it that pedophile and child molester seem to be used as synonyms when neither one guaranties the other?


 
Laziness, occasional overlap and a contempt for both


----------



## rainingdarkness (Nov 5, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't live in hole, I just live in a very quiet British town where jack shite happens. The last big crime that happened in my town was about 20 years ago when a local shop was robbed by armed robbers (with bats I believe) and killed the shop assistant. So I kinda realy on shows like reality police shows and other reality shows, and people I meet online from other countries to learn about different places.



My apologies. I grew up in Battle Creek, Michigan.
http://www.idcide.com/citydata/mi/battle-creek.htm
http://battlecreek.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
I couldn't find any more recent records. Regardless, I'm pretty familiar with the reasons people commit crime. Compared to this, where you live might as well be a hole, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible.



RandyDarkshade said:


> I bought this subject up with bro earlier and we both came to this very conclusion.



Glad to hear it.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Anyone can break a law. I'm sure many of us have broken a law from time to time, even if it was just a small law or a by-law that few know about. The thing I don't get is, why people do drugs anyway? Why do they choose to do heroin, crack, shrooms? Why do they choose to abuse their bodies like that? Actually I am not sure if magic mushrooms causes any physical damage, but when you look at long time crack or heroin users they look like a complete wreck. I mean sometimes it isn't hard to spot an addict just by looking at them.


People don't just decide out of nowhere, "Hey, I'm going to do drugs today!". You can't look at it as a simple question and ask why people in general do drugs, because everyone is different, and everyone has different reasons for deciding to use them. Clearly they don't look at it and say "Oh, this hurts my body, so I'm not going to do that.". If you can get past thinking of everything so simply, you might stand some chance at seeing why people do anything, let alone drugs. Someone who punches their wife doesn't think, "Well, if I hit her, she's going to go tell her friend, and I'll lose my house and children in the divorce that follows.". Emotions are key in anything that people do, whether they try to think it through or not. Maybe a drug user is just trying to have a good time before they get physically addicted, and they figure, hey, if I do it once, it's not that bad. Maybe they're so depressed they literally cannot think with the same patterns a healthy person can, and the drug is a way out. Unless you've been there, it's impossible, or at the very least ignorant, to judge someone for doing anything.



RandyDarkshade said:


> I only brought it up because squeak was trying to say they are both different.


They are different, in the way that a square and a rectangle are different. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Following that, all child molesters are pedophiles, but not all pedophiles are or will be child molesters.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Well, they may not have done anything directly to a child, but like I said, looking at indecent photo's of children, and most likely saving them to their computer feeds the industry (so to speak) and persuades those taking the photos to put more children at risk and harm by making more images.
> 
> If someone plainly had thoughts alone and owned no indecent imagery of any children at all, then I'd see no reason to lock them away. If however an inspection of their computer(s) revealed such indecent photo's then they should be locked up.
> 
> What the police should be concentrating on is putting away those who take the photo's and distribute them. Just like when cops target drug dealers rather than the users. They do more damage to the distribution of drugs by removing the dealers than they do by removing the drug runners or users. Same can apply to child porn distributers.


While that is all true, the introductory post to this thread asked what should be done if there was a way to determine whether or not someone was a pedophile at birth, with a gene. If someone had thoughts about children, but never looked up child porn or molested a child, why should they be judged harshly, or get any sort of punishment? Nobody can force themselves to like or dislike something. As I said before, it's free will that separates the pedophiles from the child molesters.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 5, 2010)

Sharpguard said:


> Why is it that pedophile and child molester seem to be used as synonyms when neither one guaranties the other?


 
A child molester is a guaranteed pedophile. As I said earlier, a child molester must be sexually attracted to a child to commit such a crime. I certainly wouldn't want sex with something/some one unless I was sexually attracted to it/them. 

However pedophile does not guarantee a child molester.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Nov 5, 2010)

I move that we should arrest all people that fantasize/have fantasized about rape because they'll turn into rapists :V


----------

