The Paedophile Next Door

looking_around · 02-12-2014 07:36PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Actually we only have statistics on reported crimes/convictions ........ not actual crimes committed

same difference.

We have no numbers of those who do nothing, and therefore are of no risk.

We have biased results, and we're using them to paint the entire group.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 07:37PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Why don't you just say "liar liar pants on fire" at this stage ........ pathetic.

I would not reduce myself to your level. I have not thus far. I am not about to start now. Pathetic.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Would you like to substantiate this claim with recognised hard evidence ......... please???

You have substantiated NOTHING you have claimed so far in ANY way. Pathetic. You do not get to make demands of me. Pathetic.

You are just dodging my questions by asking some of your own. Pathetic. So I repeat:

By all means tell us what parts are malfunctioning and how that malfunction affects other parts of the brain specifically, such as making them likely to harm or rape anyone.

Also you said one has lead to the other. Substantiate this too please. Perhaps they are two entirely seperate things, neither leading to the other, but when both are present in the one brain, you have an issue.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 07:42PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would not reduce myself to your level. I have not thus far. I am not about to start now. Pathetic.

You have substantiated NOTHING you have claimed so far in ANY way. Pathetic. You do not get to make demands of me. Pathetic.

You are just dodging my questions by asking some of your own. Pathetic. So I repeat:

By all means tell us what parts are malfunctioning and how that malfunction affects other parts of the brain specifically, such as making them likely to harm or rape anyone.

Also you said one has lead to the other. Substantiate this too please. Perhaps they are two entirely seperate things, neither leading to the other, but when both are present in the one brain, you have an issue.

Ditto .........

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 07:43PM

looking_around wrote: »

same difference.

We have no numbers of those who do nothing, and therefore are of no risk.

We have biased results, and we're using them to paint the entire group.

Same difference???
I think you might want to re-think that logic ........

looking_around · 02-12-2014 07:44PM

Article from the guardian, highlights just how little we know. Anyone interested should read, and also read the various reference links with an open mind.
We know next to nothing about paedophilia and this has to change. And it will only change with discussion, with rational talk, not reactionary talk. (which is understandably difficult for many people, but is nonetheless, a bad way to debate something, nevermind understand it.)

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 07:46PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ditto .........

Nope. Also simply not true.

Can you answer either of the two questions I just asked or not?

looking_around · 02-12-2014 07:49PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Same difference???
I think you might want to re-think that logic ........

It;s a saying, you've never heard it?
Let me rephrase, since you like to pick at things, even if you understand it well.

It's the same thing, statistics on convicted criminals vs statistics on non-convictions vs statistics on those who haven't and won't do anything.

We only have one set, we can't compare that to all, it's biased.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 07:49PM

looking_around wrote: »

Article from the guardian, highlights just how little we know. Anyone interested should read, and also read the various reference links with an open mind.
We know next to nothing about paedophilia and this has to change. And it will only change with discussion, with rational talk, not reactionary talk. (which is understandably difficult for many people, but is nonetheless, a bad way to debate something, nevermind understand it.)

I don't disagree with research, study, treatment etc. ........... I just wouldn't risk my children being alone with a paedophile which as a parent is quite a reasonable stance to take no??

As you said, we know next to nothing about paedophilia so why take a chance and experiment with your own children ......... does that sound logical to you??

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 07:50PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. Also simply not true.

Can you answer either of the two questions I just asked or not?

You first ........ I'm not your child so you don't get to make me do things against my will.

Earl Turner · 02-12-2014 07:50PM

Has Eddie been lynched yet?

looking_around · 02-12-2014 07:51PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I don't disagree with research, study, treatment etc. ........... I just wouldn't risk my children being alone with a paedophile which as a parent is quite a reasonable stance to take no??

As you said, we know next to nothing about paedophilia so why take a chance and experiment with your own children ......... does that sound logical to you??

I never said you had to, nor do I care.

I've only picked at your posts where you've claimed paedophilia =want to rape.

floggg · 02-12-2014 07:53PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

And what are you??? Considering you openly admit that you would put your children in harms way ..........

Seriously?

His whole point, which has been repeatedly stated in very clear terms, is that he would know the person well enough to know they are no risk to the child even if they admitted they were attracted to children.

It's that knowledge which is the basis of his position.

Yet you repeatedly ignored that point and decided they definitely would be a risk in all circumstances.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:00PM

looking_around wrote: »

I never said you had to, nor do I care.

I've only picked at your posts where you've claimed paedophilia =want to rape.

I believe I've only said paedophilia = potential child rape/abuse ........ I'm not willing to take a chance on the "potential" and I'm shocked that any parent is willing to take that chance.

Your children are not your property, they are your responsibility and depend on you to make the choices/decisions that they cannot make for themselves and if you make the wrong decisions those children suffer .........

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 08:03PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You first ........ I'm not your child so you don't get to make me do things against my will.

I asked first. You dodged by asking second.

You made the claim. Can you back it up? At all?

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:05PM

floggg wrote: »

Seriously?

His whole point, which has been repeatedly stated in very clear terms, is that he would know the person well enough to know they are no risk to the child even if they admitted they were attracted to children.

It's that knowledge which is the basis of his position.

Yet you repeatedly ignored that point and decided they definitely would be a risk in all circumstances.

You again :rolleyes:

I know what his point is ......... I disagree with his point

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:08PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I asked first. You dodged by asking second.

You made the claim. Can you back it up? At all?

As I've said (and will continue to say) you first ......... you can't force me to bend to your will, I'm not one of your children.

looking_around · 02-12-2014 08:13PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I believe I've only said paedophilia = potential child rape/abuse ........ I'm not willing to take a chance on the "potential" and I'm shocked that any parent is willing to take that chance.

Your children are not your property, they are your responsibility and depend on you to make the choices/decisions that they cannot make for themselves and if you make the wrong decisions those children suffer .........

The thing is, you do take that risk everyday.

Child abuse most commonly happens by people we know, by people we believed not to be child abusers.

You take that risk, whether they told you that or not. You take it based on them as a person.

Look I'm not saying if your wife told she was a paedophile to trust her. That's up to you.(picked a random person, who would be closest..clearly doesn't have to be true.)
The point is, if someone you loved told you this, how you react may not be as clear cut as you think, because you would know so much about them. Or maybe it will be and your friendship/relationship will be harmed. idk, you don't know, unless you're ever in that position.
Although it's more likely that anyone you know, if they do have child sexual fantasies, that they keep it to themselves.
Idk, about you, but I'd rather give off the vibe that a friend could tell me.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 08:19PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

As I've said (and will continue to say) you first ......... you can't force me to bend to your will, I'm not one of your children.

So you have made a claim you now refuse to back up? And you are implementing that refusal by asking later questions and demanding I answer them first.

Please evidence the defect you speak of and how it has "led" to the things you list.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:32PM

looking_around wrote: »

The thing is, you do take that risk everyday.

Child abuse most commonly happens by people we know, by people we believed not to be child abusers.

You take that risk, whether they told you that or not. You take it based on them as a person.

Look I'm not saying if your wife told she was a paedophile to trust her. That's up to you.(picked a random person, who would be closest..clearly doesn't have to be true.)
The point is, if someone you loved told you this, how you react may not be as clear cut as you think, because you would know so much about them. Or maybe it will be and your friendship/relationship will be harmed. idk, you don't know, unless you're ever in that position.
Although it's more likely that anyone you know, if they do have child sexual fantasies, that they keep it to themselves.
Idk, about you, but I'd rather give off the vibe that a friend could tell me.

I agree that I, like every parent, takes risks when it comes to trusting someone with your kids and you weigh up the risks based on the person etc. which is why if someone told me they were attracted to children then they would not be trusted with my children based solely on that fact alone ........

I'm glad you mentioned that most victims of child abuse are abused by somebody close to them and their family .......... so this theory of "I know him years, he's always been very good to us, we trust him" actually is likely to be the last person to trust if they admit to being attracted to children.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:34PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you have made a claim you now refuse to back up? And you are implementing that refusal by asking later questions and demanding I answer them first.

Please evidence the defect you speak of and how it has "led" to the things you list.

You also have made a claim that you won't (can't?) back up .............

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:39PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

By all means tell us what parts are malfunctioning and how that malfunction affects other parts of the brain specifically, such as making them likely to harm or rape anyone.

Also you said one has lead to the other. Substantiate this too please. Perhaps they are two entirely seperate things, neither leading to the other, but when both are present in the one brain, you have an issue.

Which would explain why the majority of pedophiles likely are unknown, harm no one, are not a risk to anyone, and will not rape or harm a single person.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you have made a claim you now refuse to back up? And you are implementing that refusal by asking later questions and demanding I answer them first.

Please evidence the defect you speak of and how it has "led" to the things you list.

Any evidence to back up this claim????

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 08:46PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You also have made a claim that you won't (can't?) back up .............

I can but I can tell you are dodging backing up your claim by, as usual, making it about me, and I am not biting.

Once again: You just claimed a defect and that that defect leads to things. Can you support either contention and discuss your evidence and the nature of the defect exactly? Is it a lack of something the rest of us have, for example, or a presence of something the rest of us do not have?

MadDog76 wrote: »

Any evidence to back up this claim????

Still refusing to back up your claim by making it about my LATER claim then?

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm glad you mentioned that most victims of child abuse are abused by somebody close to them and their family

Actually a significant number of them are abused by people IN the family, not close to it.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:48PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can but I can tell you are dodging backing up your claim by, as usual, making it about me, and I am not biting.

Once again: You just claimed a defect and that that defect leads to things. Can you support either contention and discuss your evidence and the nature of the defect exactly? Is it a lack of something the rest of us have, for example, or a presence of something the rest of us do not have?

Still refusing to back up your claim by making it about my LATER claim then?

I believe I am replicating your behaviour so if you don't like it then change your ways ............

And those paedophiles IN the family would not even be invited around for Sunday lunch never mind being left alone with my children .........

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 08:50PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I believe I am replicating your behaviour so if you don't like it then change your ways ............

Nope because I have never dodged a question by ignoring it and then demanding people answer SUBSEQUENT questions of my own.

Never. Once. Ever. Have I engaged in such blatant and underhand dodging of a challenge. Nor have I engaged in the consistent and constant misrepresentations of the position of another user as you have, dodged posts like you have, resorted to ad hominem like you have. And more.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 08:52PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope because I have never dodged a question by ignoring it and then demanding people answer SUBSEQUENT questions of my own.

Never. Once. Ever. Have I engaged in such blatant and underhand dodging of a challenge. Nor have I engaged in the consistent and constant misrepresentations of the position of another user as you have, dodged posts like you have, resorted to ad hominem like you have. And more.

Ok calm down!!

You've made an unsubstantiated claim that you can't back up when challenged on it .......... no biggie

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 08:53PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok calm down!!

You've made an unsubstantiated claim that you can't back up when challenged on it .......... no biggie

Nope thats you. You made two claims actually and are refusing to back them up, and pretending that it is me doing so. Double fail.

Sauve · 02-12-2014 09:48PM

Mod

Cut out the bickering lads. Let's get back on topic now please and thank you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 09:58PM

Certainly. I think the topic was if there is any way to treat the people that works.

Well the first way to establish a treatment is to understand the cause. Or in this case causes as I think both attraction to children, and abuse of children (different things oft conflated) each have numerous causes and roots.

The best way, not just a bit better but by FAR better, is to open dialogue and understanding with paedophiles themselves. The way to do this is foster either or both: An environment for them to enter into discourse with us safely and anonymously.... and a society more cognisant of the distinction between desire and intent, attraction and action, in which merely having an attraction is not seen as an instant conviction.

These are people we need to talk with, understand, and even where possible stick under brain scanners and other measurements to see if we can identify trends in them that will clue us in. For example I read briefly some article recently that paedophiles appear to be shorter. If that were true.... what would it tell us? Only more data can answer this.

We also need to be more open to ways of treatment that might make us uncomfortable. For example recent material I have read has suggested that urges towards paedophilia are reduced if people with it are supplied with simulated child porn. That is to say: Artwork, drawings and the like. If true.... some intense ethical discourse is before us on how to implement that knowledge. Also what LONG term subjection to that treatment would do needs to be evaluated carefully. The effect might be a curved graph that starts off positive but then goes ALL wrong.

One wonders how much actual interPERSONAL contact such people have with children. Much? Any? Little? With more data on who turns to such attractions we might find a certain detachment from children from lack of any meaningful contact with them. We might find a treatment method is actual (clearly supervised) interpersonal contact where their humanity, individuality is established and children suddenly reinstate themselves as people, not sex object, in the mind of such a person.

But clearly the motif of my point is simple: Data. Data. Data.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 10:34PM

There is no known cure for paedophilia however there are treatments available to help reduce the urges paedophiles feel to sexually abuse children ......... the success rates of these treatments has been unfortunately very very low.

Behavioural treatment, relapse prevention and medication have all been tried with very limited success ............. castration (both physical and chemical) have achieved more success but only in cases where the driving factor for the paedophile was libido .......... it doesn't work when the paedophile is sadistic in nature and is driven by anger, the need to control, dominate and hurt a child sexually.

Although the cause of being born a paedophile is not yet known, studies of paedophiles have shown a link between a low IQ, personality disorders and a propensity for substance abuse suggesting paedophiles are born not bred making it highly unlikely that there will ever be a cure for paedophilia.

Holsten · 02-12-2014 10:35PM

Good post.

Logical thinking is best in this situation.

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments