'Pedophilia is a disorder, not a crime...

[AUDub 11,158]

Still not buying that you believe that crap, not even for a second.

That you dismiss it because it doesn't align with your slanted worldview makes no difference to me.

Free speech is an example of an evenly applied theorem. It should never matter, like it does with the whackadoodles, what your political opinion is on whether you get free speech or get shouted down. The jeweler in Canada could have been anything, the point was that he disagreed with the momentary zeitgeist (brainfart) of the PC Nazis.

You still seem to have trouble grasping the concept of free speech. You really should find a more informative source on the subject.

Otherwise, please stick to the topic at hand.

This ridiculous new slant on a 'disorder.' Hell it has always been a disorder. But suddenly, OMG! some nitwit prof has decided to proclaim her Leftwing PhD in Whackadoodleness. Suddenly, sane people are to have some epiphanal karmic shift because some nutjob has now decided to move the ball down the court in declaring a well known 'disorder...(duh duh duh...) A DISORDER!'.

She points out a salient point that you have missed in your oddball zeal. Pedophile does not necessarily equal child sex offender. The comments of your article alone (and you) show just how many miss that important distinction. The fact that we can treat these people in an attempt to keep them from offending is not an attempt to normalize pedophilia.

Didn't anyone ever tell you an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (or punishment, as is generally the case)? Punishment after the fact, while necessary, does not make a difference. There is no deterrent effect.

Compare it to trying to put out a fire after it's already a massive conflagration when you could have simply smothered it when it was a tiny spark.

Excuse me, i have to go cry over puppies or something and get my Liberal Cred back...

Yeah. You do that.

[homersapien 11,396]

Wow...i am at a loss for words.

Why you guys are really falling right in line.

Well, you certainly got that right. You are certainly having trouble understanding them.

[homersapien 11,396]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

[homersapien 11,396]

Try this:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia

[aujeff11 6,243]

SCOTUS ruled in Robinson v. California that mental disorders cannot be criminalized, including ADDICTION to narcotics. The crime is not the addiction but the illegal usage and abuse of narcotics, molesting children, etc. So, if a pedophile asks for help without committing any crimes, he should receive the same treatment that any other citizen receives. If the pedo needs help give him help. Throwing stones at him is just making the matters worse than they should be. Que the Bible verse....

[Mims44 1,882]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

[DKW 86 7,431]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

People are excused from their crimes all the time using the Diminished Capacity or even Insanity Defenses. Books, they are to be read.

Jeff, et al, please dont bother. They have entered into their lil "we deny all that has passed before so we can cognitively dissonate(?) away from reality."

How many hundreds of outrageous crimes have been excused with Mental Disorders/Mental Defect/Mental Anguish/Diminished Capacity, etc etc etc Defenses?

When you think about it, it is odd that child molesters havent been winning cases on this "Disorder" already.

Anything or anyone that tries to "normalize" pedophilia or child molestation needs help. It is an aberrant psychosis that has caused more human suffering than we can ponder. The last thing on earth we need to do is "normalize" it.

[AUDub 11,158]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

[Mims44 1,882]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

[AUDub 11,158]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

[Mims44 1,882]

Looks like he turned 14 the month it happened.

Also makes me think the girls were his age since the wording was "breast fondling". Again, seems derpy to call it pedophilia, children are attracted to children.

[Mims44 1,882]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

Yeah I saw that, so incest of course. I just don't see where all this pedophile talk is coming from.

And why are they taking the show off the air? LMAO. Jackson raped little kids as an adult and still booked shows constantly, and was always on the radio.

[AUDub 11,158]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

Yeah I saw that, so incest of course. I just don't see where all this pedophile talk is coming from.

And why are they taking the show off the air? LMAO. Jackson raped little kids as an adult and still booked shows constantly, and was always on the radio.

Incest and pedphilia aren't mutually exclusive. As for pedophilia talk, it kind of comes with the territory when someone gets caught fondling children. Even at 15, there was a significant developmental difference.

[Mims44 1,882]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

Yeah I saw that, so incest of course. I just don't see where all this pedophile talk is coming from.

And why are they taking the show off the air? LMAO. Jackson raped little kids as an adult and still booked shows constantly, and was always on the radio.

Incest and pedphilia aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm gonna put this in simple folk terms to make it easier.

First my understanding of the words.

Incest: banging your mom/dad/brother/sister/cousin etc

pedophilia: An adult either givin the old flesh pickle or wanting to give it to children.

I realize they are not mutually exclusive, that wasn't what I was getting at. An adult who molests their child is of course both of those above definitions.

But if they are both considered minors, how can it be pedophilia?

[AUDub 11,158]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

Yeah I saw that, so incest of course. I just don't see where all this pedophile talk is coming from.

And why are they taking the show off the air? LMAO. Jackson raped little kids as an adult and still booked shows constantly, and was always on the radio.

Incest and pedphilia aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm gonna put this in simple folk terms to make it easier.

First my understanding of the words.

Incest: banging your mom/dad/brother/sister/cousin etc

pedophilia: An adult either givin the old flesh pickle or wanting to give it to children.

I realize they are not mutually exclusive, that wasn't what I was getting at. An adult who molests their child is of course both of those above definitions.

But if they are both considered minors, how can it be pedophilia?

I edited the quoted post, but the bolded passage needs to be questioned.

The developmental difference is significant.

If a 17 year old is attracted a 9 year old, you wouldn't consider that attraction pedophilia by nature? They're both minors, after all.

Your definition of pedophilia needs to be adjusted. Teenagers are to be included and pedophilia shouldn't be used to describe the act itself. That's child sexual abuse.

[Mims44 1,882]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

Yeah I saw that, so incest of course. I just don't see where all this pedophile talk is coming from.

And why are they taking the show off the air? LMAO. Jackson raped little kids as an adult and still booked shows constantly, and was always on the radio.

Incest and pedphilia aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm gonna put this in simple folk terms to make it easier.

First my understanding of the words.

Incest: banging your mom/dad/brother/sister/cousin etc

pedophilia: An adult either givin the old flesh pickle or wanting to give it to children.

I realize they are not mutually exclusive, that wasn't what I was getting at. An adult who molests their child is of course both of those above definitions.

But if they are both considered minors, how can it be pedophilia?

I edited the quoted post, but the bolded passage needs to be questioned.

The developmental difference is significant.

If a 17 year old is attracted a 9 year old, you wouldn't consider that attraction pedophilia by nature? They're both minors, after all.

Your definition of pedophilia needs to be adjusted. Teenagers are to be included and pedophilia shouldn't be used to describe the act itself. That's child sexual abuse.

17 and 9 are going to be in vastly different stages of development. 17 year olds are also tried as adults much more so than 13-14 year olds.

And if he was 14 and "breast fondling" a girl between 12-16, I wouldn't see that as a pedophiles actions.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quick question, wasn't the Duggar guy like 13 when he did it? Can you call it pedophilia when it's kid on kid crime?

15 at the time of one of them. In Arkansas he could have been charged as an adult.

I couldn't find how old the girls were. If he's 15 and they're 15 I don't see why it would be called pedophilia. Now, if he was 15 and they were 5 or something like that I could see it.

The victims were apparently his (in some cases) prepubescent little sisters and a friend.

Yeah I saw that, so incest of course. I just don't see where all this pedophile talk is coming from.

And why are they taking the show off the air? LMAO. Jackson raped little kids as an adult and still booked shows constantly, and was always on the radio.

Incest and pedphilia aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm gonna put this in simple folk terms to make it easier.

First my understanding of the words.

Incest: banging your mom/dad/brother/sister/cousin etc

pedophilia: An adult either givin the old flesh pickle or wanting to give it to children.

I realize they are not mutually exclusive, that wasn't what I was getting at. An adult who molests their child is of course both of those above definitions.

But if they are both considered minors, how can it be pedophilia?

I edited the quoted post, but the bolded passage needs to be questioned.

The developmental difference is significant.

If a 17 year old is attracted a 9 year old, you wouldn't consider that attraction pedophilia by nature? They're both minors, after all.

Your definition of pedophilia needs to be adjusted. Teenagers are to be included and pedophilia shouldn't be used to describe the act itself. That's child sexual abuse.

17 and 9 are going to be in vastly different stages of development. 17 year olds are also tried as adults much more so than 13-14 year olds.

And if he was 14 and "breast fondling" a girl between 12-16, I wouldn't see that as a pedophiles actions.

If a 14 year old was fondling the breast of a girl his age and it was consensual, I'd call that normal. lol

[AUDub 11,158]

17 and 9 are going to be in vastly different stages of development. 17 year olds are also tried as adults much more so than 13-14 year olds.

And if he was 14 and "breast fondling" a girl between 12-16, I wouldn't see that as a pedophiles actions.

And what if he was 14 then 15 and fondling the breasts of a 9 year old (they can develop that early)?

[cptau 169]

Duggars problem is that HE is a Conservative/Christian.

If he was an Atheist Pedophile...He would just need help...

Roman Polanksi was and is still defended by many in Hollywood for much worse crimes against a 13 years old girl.

And he continued to make movies that were distributed by the major studios. He even won an academy award.

In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?

http://articles.lati...nt/et-polanski1

From Michael Moore's politics to on-screen sex and violence, the movie business is constantly being assailed for not sharing the country's values. Rarely has the morality argument been as rancorous as with the Roman Polanski case.

Hollywood is rallying behind the fugitive filmmaker. Top filmmakers are signing a pro-Polanski petition, Whoopi Goldberg says the director didn't really commit rape, and Debra Winger complains "the whole art world suffers" in such arrests.

The rest of the nation seems to hold a dramatically different perspective on Polanski's weekend capture. Even if decades have passed since he fled Los Angeles before his 1978 sentencing, Polanski must be extradited and serve his time, the thinking goes. There's no excuse for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl. People who defend him have no principles.

In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski -- and the industry's support of the 76-year-old "Pianist" Oscar winner.

How can Hollywood (where it's almost impossible to find anyone publicly condemning Polanski) and almost everyone else see the same story in an opposite light? Is it proof that the movie business is amoral, or just that it believes that Polanski has suffered in his personal and professional life and paid his debt to society? Is Hollywood's position that we're-better-than-you elitist while the rest of the country's is everybody-obeys-the-law populist?

"The split between what the rest of the world thinks about Polanski and what Hollywood thinks about Polanski is quite remarkable," said film historian David Thomson. "It proves what an old-fashioned and provincial club Hollywood is. People look after their own."

When Mel Gibson launched into an anti-Semitic screed following his 2006 arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, hardly any Hollywood leaders -- agent Ari Emanuel and Sony studio chief Amy Pascal among the few exceptions -- publicly rebuked the actor. The criticism of Hollywood at the time was that in a business contingent on relationships and currying favor with the powerful, no one was willing to denounce such a prominent artist.

Melissa Silverstein, who runs the feminist movie blog Women & Hollywoodanti-Semitic screed and does online marketing for films aimed at women, was angered by the industry's reaction to Polanski's arrest and found the silence of disapproval "deafening."

"I think people are afraid to talk in Hollywood. They are afraid about their next job," she said. "I don't know where the women of Hollywood are. This is an opportunity for them to stand up for their daughters."

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said. "And it touches on a question that's been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law."

Some of the industry's most prominent women said they believe Polanski, who faces a sentence as low as probation and as high as 16 months in prison for pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, should be freed. "My personal thoughts are let the guy go," said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who reached a private settlement with Polanski, has said the charges against the director should be dismissed.

[Weegle777 78]

It ALL has to do with what the "society" deems normal and acceptable. It has always been that way throughout history.

[cooltigger21 0]

One day it won't even be considered a disorder. It will be considered ok and no big deal.

[AUDub 11,158]

One day it won't even be considered a disorder. It will be considered ok and no big deal.

Only in your fevered dreams.

[DKW 86 7,431]

Duggars problem is that HE is a Conservative/Christian.

If he was an Atheist Pedophile...He would just need help...

Roman Polanksi was and is still defended by many in Hollywood for much worse crimes against a 13 years old girl.

And he continued to make movies that were distributed by the major studios. He even won an academy award.

In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?

http://articles.lati...nt/et-polanski1

From Michael Moore's politics to on-screen sex and violence, the movie business is constantly being assailed for not sharing the country's values. Rarely has the morality argument been as rancorous as with the Roman Polanski case.

Hollywood is rallying behind the fugitive filmmaker. Top filmmakers are signing a pro-Polanski petition, Whoopi Goldberg says the director didn't really commit rape, and Debra Winger complains "the whole art world suffers" in such arrests.

The rest of the nation seems to hold a dramatically different perspective on Polanski's weekend capture. Even if decades have passed since he fled Los Angeles before his 1978 sentencing, Polanski must be extradited and serve his time, the thinking goes. There's no excuse for forcing sex on a 13-year-old girl. People who defend him have no principles.

In letters to the editor, comments on Internet blogs and remarks on talk radio and cable news channels, the national sentiment is running overwhelmingly against Polanski -- and the industry's support of the 76-year-old "Pianist" Oscar winner.

How can Hollywood (where it's almost impossible to find anyone publicly condemning Polanski) and almost everyone else see the same story in an opposite light? Is it proof that the movie business is amoral, or just that it believes that Polanski has suffered in his personal and professional life and paid his debt to society? Is Hollywood's position that we're-better-than-you elitist while the rest of the country's is everybody-obeys-the-law populist?

"The split between what the rest of the world thinks about Polanski and what Hollywood thinks about Polanski is quite remarkable," said film historian David Thomson. "It proves what an old-fashioned and provincial club Hollywood is. People look after their own."

When Mel Gibson launched into an anti-Semitic screed following his 2006 arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, hardly any Hollywood leaders -- agent Ari Emanuel and Sony studio chief Amy Pascal among the few exceptions -- publicly rebuked the actor. The criticism of Hollywood at the time was that in a business contingent on relationships and currying favor with the powerful, no one was willing to denounce such a prominent artist.

Melissa Silverstein, who runs the feminist movie blog Women & Hollywoodanti-Semitic screed and does online marketing for films aimed at women, was angered by the industry's reaction to Polanski's arrest and found the silence of disapproval "deafening."

"I think people are afraid to talk in Hollywood. They are afraid about their next job," she said. "I don't know where the women of Hollywood are. This is an opportunity for them to stand up for their daughters."

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said. "And it touches on a question that's been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law."

Some of the industry's most prominent women said they believe Polanski, who faces a sentence as low as probation and as high as 16 months in prison for pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, should be freed. "My personal thoughts are let the guy go," said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who reached a private settlement with Polanski, has said the charges against the director should be dismissed.

Thanks. I totally forgot about Polanski, the poster child for NORMALIZING Pedophilia. Hell he was defended by almost everyone in Hollyweird.They even gave him awards to shove it in the face of the normal folks out there.

[DKW 86 7,431]

One day it won't even be considered a disorder. It will be considered ok and no big deal.

Only in your fevered dreams.

Ben i respect you, but you are sssooo wrong it isnt even funny.

This has been actively supported like in the Polanski case for decades. Nambla has been around decades. It has been with us for all time. You can hear the defenders now. It wont be long until it will be accepted. It is inevitable. Ginsburg argued in 1976 for the reduction of the age of consent to 12. There have been some trying to go back and re-examine and re-invent what happened then, but she said it in a commentary on a very important case she worked on.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf

[homersapien 11,396]

Will wait until you come to your senses. This is totally about who the perp is associated with.

Lively-he is a reprehensible cretin-still has rights too.

Savage-loud mouth mouth breather-he gets free speech rights too.

Duggar, he is nothing more than a poor poor pitiful victim of a disorder, but omg, he appeared on THAT TV show!!!!! Off with his head!

If Duggar renounced Christianity tomorrow or blamed his parents, he would be the darling of the Left by noon.

Everything with the whackadoodles is all situational on whether the guy agrees with yall politically/culturally.

I dont like either Lively or Savage, but i would defend either's right of free speech.

SSSOOO, If you really believe that it is a disorder (NOT BUYING THAT FOR ONE SECOND) then the molester should not be held responsible for his actions and should just be sent for treatment. You dont get it both ways. If it is a disorder, then it is still a disorder even after the crime is committed.

What is it about the concept of a mental disorder that makes you think it necessarily excuses criminal action?

You are having a serious cognitive dissonance problem with the logic here. Try to set your emotional reaction aside and think about it conceptually.

People are excused from their crimes all the time using the Diminished Capacity or even Insanity Defenses. Books, they are to be read.

How many hundreds of outrageous crimes have been excused with Mental Disorders/Mental Defect/Mental Anguish/Diminished Capacity, etc etc etc Defenses?

Not true.

People are only very rarely found not-guilty due to insanity, and even when they are, they are typically remanded to a mental health clinic. This insanity defense is most often used with a guilty plea for the primary purpose of establish appropriate punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#Psychiatric_treatments

Usage and success rate

This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.^[3] Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.^[3]