Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Field Researcher
#76 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lemon&Lime
It's kinda getting to the point now where you have to prove that celibacy can lead to paedophilia (because you're implying that it can sometimes happen) or just back off

No. He isn't claiming that celibacy directly leads to pedophilia. He's arguing that a sexually repressed person in a position of authority is more likely to become a pedophile than someone who is not sexually repressed and is not in a position of authority. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with him -- I haven't read up on this topic at all so I don't know if there is (statistically significant) evidence to back up his claims -- but what he's arguing is actually way less severe/damning than how you're interpreting it.

Quote:
Only mating with one mate exists in nature.

...yes, monogamous species exist. So do promiscuous species. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Care to explain?

Quote: Originally posted by Purity4
I think it's simply caused by someone being evil, plain and simple.

Define evil. Are you implying that there's an evil gene? What causes this !!!EVILNESS!!! you speak of? Did they not learn all three of their toddler skills?
Advertisement
Inventor
#77 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 11:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Princess Leia
Define evil. Are you implying that there's an evil gene? What causes this !!!EVILNESS!!! you speak of? Did they not learn all three of their toddler skills?


Morally reprehensible would be the dictionary definition, but what I mean is lacking compassion, empathy, sociopathic, so yes, definitely a gene for it. It's not so much toddler skills as it it not learning to give a damn about anyone else and/or not being properly wired to feel.
Test Subject
#78 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 12:52 AM
I never post, but I thought I'd chime in with some things I remember reading (and will find some links to them if asked)

Purity4: I don't believe that Nekowolf is implying that sexual assault is in any way excusable or acceptable, merely that there are (usually) events, situations or circumstances that explains how/why the behavior happened. From my understanding, he's not saying it's permissible under one set of conditions or another.

That said, there are two examples of what I think Nekowolf is trying to describe that comes to mind. Two different behaviors (that seem to run into each other in the situation with the priests perhaps but I'm no psychologist, so that's not my call to make) on two different scenarios. The first one is the position of authority and how, even if you're not very high up on the chain it can still warp your perceptions of your own actions. In a study done by a university, they had two groups. Both groups were given a poll of what they considered morally/ethically for prison guards, this was for a baseline reading. For example if it was ok to beat a prisoner who didn't follow your instructions the first time or something like that. Both groups gave very similar responses to the questions. Then they gave one group a set of uniforms and told them they were guards. One group were the 'prisoners'. It didn't take long before the group designated as the 'guards' were abusing their position of authority and getting carried away with 'being in charge'. The point of the study is, when you know that you are in a position of power (like a priest is over it's parish or an adult is over children) it's easy to cross a line without realizing it. (I'm not excusing anything, but the point of the study was to show how even normal people can be 'corrupted by power')

The second thing was there have been several studies that show that humans are sexual creatures (like nekowolf said) but not only that, but we instinctively seek out relationships with other people. We have several studies (societies of mostly women; prisons, etc) that show "normal" people will seek out companionship with others they would not have considered to be a choice (at all, in some cases) in less skewed circumstances.

Forgive me, Nekowolf if I'm taking too many liberties, but I think what he was trying to say above, is that for a priest who is to remain celibate, their options are limited. Limited to who? To those he knows are able to keep quiet. That rules out nearly all adults, male and female, because while a clandestine affair may be more fulfilling it's too risky. That's off the table. A child, however, cannot (or at least is less likely) able to speak out against him. And a child is less likely to be able to turn away any advances. I honestly don't think, in their minds by that point, they see them as children any more more as Option C. As in, Option A would be ideal, Option B- Not as good as A, but good enough. Option C- Only thing left, this will have to do.

Anyways, I know this reply was long but I just wanted to add that.
Scholar
#79 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 1:07 AM
No forgiveness necessary; you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I heard of that study of "guards" and "prisoners," but I cannot remember who held it, though.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#80 Old 29th Sep 2010 at 1:26 AM
I believe a person would not choose to violate a child or prisoner (anyone under their authority) unless there was the inclination in the first place. I don't think your average, normal person has such inclinations.
Mad Poster
#81 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 3:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
No forgiveness necessary; you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I heard of that study of "guards" and "prisoners," but I cannot remember who held it, though.
Are you thinking of the Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo? If so there are a lot of problems with that study so the findings aren't really generalisable or replicable.
Scholar
#82 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 5:48 PM
Yeah, I think that's the one. I didn't pay much attention to it though, and didn't base anything I said around it. Just clearing that up.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Mad Poster
#83 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 6:10 PM
I didn't think you had, that sentence was a bit badly worded and more aimed at anyone who wants to take that as firm proof of how humans will behave!
Scholar
Original Poster
#84 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 7:48 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Princess Leia
No. He isn't claiming that celibacy directly leads to pedophilia. He's arguing that a sexually repressed person in a position of authority is more likely to become a pedophile than someone who is not sexually repressed and is not in a position of authority. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with him -- I haven't read up on this topic at all so I don't know if there is (statistically significant) evidence to back up his claims -- but what he's arguing is actually way less severe/damning than how you're interpreting it.


Saying that celibacy is more likely to lead to paedophilia is exactly the same as saying that celibacy leads directly to paedophilia. One however is referring to a statistic/percentage chance, while the other is referring to a yes/no question. I speak English too you know.


Quote:
...yes, monogamous species exist. So do promiscuous species. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Care to explain?


Its simples *squeak*. Proves that celibacy and monogamous-ness can exist in nature. Penguins do not mate after their mate dies, for example. So they remain celibate. They do not however then go on to rape baby penguins.


Quote:
Define evil. Are you implying that there's an evil gene? What causes this !!!EVILNESS!!! you speak of? Did they not learn all three of their toddler skills?


Well if we're defining paedophilia as evil... there is proof that it's a naturally-occuring sexual orientation, so why not an "evil" gene?

Also can the people saying that celibacy can lead/increase the chances of (or whichever term you like for political correctness reason or "dressing up" what you're saying) please prove what you are saying as stated in the debate rules or back off. That means linking to sources on the internet.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Inventor
#85 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 8:27 PM
There is a large difference between sexual 'repression' and the choice to be celibate. I don't know why they were suddenly linked as the same thing over the course of this debate.

Besides, lack of sex is not unnatural.
Scholar
#86 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 8:38 PM
Quote:
Well if we're defining paedophilia as evil... there is proof that it's a naturally-occuring sexual orientation, so why not an "evil" gene?


Because we KNOW the human genome. We have it mapped out. There is no "evil" gene in there. "Evil" is an entirely human concept.

No. More than anything, it may well be psychological, as well as partly natural. Both nature and nurture, if you will. I think that applies to all sexual orientation.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Field Researcher
#87 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 9:00 PM Last edited by Princess Leia : 1st Oct 2010 at 12:53 AM.
Quote:
Saying that celibacy is more likely to lead to paedophilia is exactly the same as saying that celibacy leads directly to paedophilia. One however is referring to a statistic/percentage chance, while the other is referring to a yes/no question. I speak English too you know.

They're really not. If you are saying that celibacy leads directly to pedophilia, you are saying that celibacy is the direct cause of pedophilia. Celibacy equals pedophilia. Logging is a direct cause of deforestation. If I chuck red paint at my walls, my walls will be red.

If you are saying that people who are celibate are more likely to become pedophiles, you are only suggesting that there is a positive correlation between the two. It may not be a direct cause. Maybe celibacy leads to depression and depression results in impaired judgment and people with impaired judgment cannot evaluate their actions properly and that allows them to justify pedophilia in their minds. Again, I'm not saying I endorse this view, I'm just explaining the difference.

It's not "dressing up" my argument, it's just interpreting statistics properly.

Quote:
Its simples *squeak*. Proves that celibacy and monogamous-ness can exist in nature. Penguins do not mate after their mate dies, for example. So they remain celibate. They do not however then go on to rape baby penguins.

Penguins are serially monogamous; they mate with one female per breeding season but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will pair up again next year. Actually, most birds that are socially monogamous are not sexually monogamous.

Besides, how is this even a valid argument? Yes, monogamy exists in nature. You know what else exists in nature? Promiscuity (far more prevalent than monogamy), rape, cannibalism, predation, parasitism, infanticide, siblicide... how is this related to what we're talking about...

Quote:
Well if we're defining paedophilia as evil... there is proof that it's a naturally-occuring sexual orientation, so why not an "evil" gene?

I definitely agree that mutations in some genes can make a person more prone to aggressive behaviour (e.g. Brunner syndrome) or more susceptible to certain mental illnesses. But environment plays a factor too. For you to be able to say that there is an evil gene that cannot be restrained (which is what Purity4 was suggesting -- that people with this gene are just plain bad, no matter what, and it makes no difference whether or not they are in a position of authority because !!evil!! will manifest itself eventually), you have to prove that everyone with this defective hypothetical "evil" gene end up becoming criminals no matter what environment they're raised in.

Funny how you ask people for proof and don't provide it yourself. If you can definitively prove that there is an "evil" gene, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize.

Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Because we KNOW the human genome. We have it mapped out. There is no "evil" gene in there. "Evil" is an entirely human concept.

Just to clarify: we have the human genome mapped out -- that is, we know the sequence of the nucleotides and whatnot -- but we actually have no idea what most of those genes do (a point that my profs love to reiterate over and over again) or if they even do anything at all... so there could well may be genes that make people more likely to act aggressively or genes that affect people's cognitive abilities to the extent that they are able to justify pedophilia. I'm not trying to argue with you because I do agree that "evil" is a human concept. I'm just, uh, sharing trivia?
Scholar
#88 Old 30th Sep 2010 at 10:03 PM
Well then, thank you for sharing; I honestly had not realized. I guess we haven't progressed as far as I thought.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
Original Poster
#89 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 9:57 PM
I didn't even read the reply to my last post. I read the first part, but to be honest you're now just arguing over the semantics and nit-picking at my points rather than actually...

LINKING TO A SOURCE WHICH PROVES OR PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT CELIBACY CAN LEAD (or however you want to say it) TO PAEDOPHILIA!

Either link to something which can prove it/provide evidence for it (in other words, back up what you're saying) or drop the point.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Field Researcher
#90 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 10:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lemon&Lime
I didn't even read the reply to my last post. I read the first part, but to be honest you're now just arguing over the semantics and nit-picking at my points rather than actually...

I wouldn't be "nitpicking" if you had interpreted NekoWolf's argument correctly. But you didn't, so you were attacking a giant stinkin' straw man.

I don't care too much about the topic of this debate. If you had actually bothered to read my post, you would've realized that...

I DIDN'T EVEN SAY I AGREED WITH THE VIEW THAT CELIBACY CAN LEAD TO PEDOPHILIA SO HOLY CRAP WHAT'S WITH THE CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!1!1one

I just value logical correctness and since you made a very significant error in your interpretation, I felt the need to point that out.
Scholar
Original Poster
#91 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 10:26 PM
Error in my interpretation? Just because yours was different does not mean that mine was wrong.

I stand by my previous points. How you interpreted what Nekowolf said was barely different to what I said (just interpreting the words differently) so yes, it was nitpicking, thank you very much.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Scholar
#92 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 10:34 PM
I will drop it. But not because I cannot support it. But because you refuse to change the very important semantics of what YOU are saying.

I never said celibacy leads to or causes pedophilia. Not once. I said it is among various factors, it is a variable in the equation among others, it is a+b+c+x+y = z, not x = y. And that is a huge significance, semantics, perhaps, but a highly important distinguishment of semantics, just as much as correlation v. causation.

In light of such lack of definition, it would be impossible for me to argue against as I cannot argue against a position that was never expressed and survives only as fallacy. So I will not continue as apparently, I am expected to argue against something I agree with; that celibacy does not cause pedophilia. I agree. It is, indeed, not a sole cause, and on its own may likely sustain as such. But when mixed in with other variables can link them, as a partial cause, which is enough that is necessary as when factored in with other variables, it may become much stronger than it would have otherwise. Much like how, say, a loss of a job may not cause someone to hold up a convenience store; but combined with desperation from a poor economy, crumbling job market, declining neighborhood value, lack of a safety net, etc. can drive someone to do something they otherwise would not consider. That the pressure from other factors mount onto each other until they weigh a person down into a position that they would normally not be consider to be in.

With that, I'll leave with this:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130473&page=1

Quote:
"Many young men at a very early age were recruited into it before they understood themselves or their own sexual identity," Kennedy says. "Their psycho-sexual maturation has been put on hold, so to speak, when they go in. So as a result they tend to act out with young people who were more or less the age they were when their maturation process stopped."


I would have posted more, but most of what I turned up linked it to, guess what? Homosexuality. As was stated by a Vatican official.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Mad Poster
#93 Old 2nd Oct 2010 at 10:57 PM
A case of reductio ad absurdum, perhaps?
Inventor
#94 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 2:17 AM
Nekowolf, I understand that you are saying celibacy, among other factors, can lead to someone being a pedophile, but I still disagree. Either a person has the tendencies or they do not. Environmental influences cannot possibly be the reason someone decides to sexually molest a child. For example, if you experiment with me, start me out with a troubled childhood, have me suffer sexual abuse and other abuse, make me celibate, cause me poverty and no way to get out of it, add in death of loved ones and other stressful encounters, then put me in a place of authority over young children, with all of these hypothetical factors, I will still never be a pedophile. Unpleasant environmental factors do not change a person's fundamental values, morals and integrity.
Mad Poster
#95 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 2:30 AM
Except, clearly there is some environmental influence over this as evidenced by the fact that many people who are sexually abused as children grow up and become sexual abusers themselves. Saying that environment has no effect simply isn't true. It might not be true in all cases but it sure is in others.
Inventor
#96 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 2:33 AM
My reasoning there, is that the few who were sexually abused, were already the type of person who would abuse, so naturally, if there are some people born that way, then some who are sexually abused would go on to abuse, not because of the abuse they suffered, but because they would have anyway.
Mad Poster
#97 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 2:43 AM Last edited by el_flel : 3rd Oct 2010 at 3:28 AM.
Except research shows that people who are sexually abused are at a higher risk of being a perpetrator themselves, and you have no way of knowing whether those people in a cycle of abuse would have been an abuser without those prior experiences.

ETA: "Unpleasant environmental factors do not change a person's fundamental values, morals and integrity." - Morality and integrity aren't innate; they're completely constructed by the society you live in, and are highly subjective. Anything like that can be subject to change.
Scholar
Original Poster
#98 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 3:51 PM
Saying that celibacy is one of the factors which leads to paedophilia is exactly the same as saying that it can cause it. You are implying that multiple factors can contribute, but celibacy may well be the tipping point therefore the CAUSE. So you are saying celibacy causes it.

You should drop the point not because you're fed up with arguing, but because what you are saying is opinion only and has no basis in fact other than "factual" predjudices and beliefs.

As to people who are sexually abused becoming abuses themselves - maybe the rate is higher purely because their head becomes so messed up it becomes normal to them? The same way that witnesses of murder as children can lead them to become murderers themselves. Not everyone who is abused goes on to abuse, therefore that suggests there is a pre-disposing factor which can be "activated" by certain events but isn't present in everyone, or that perhaps their mind is at a fluid stage - i.e child development. Or maybe, those who are "born paedophiles" get enjoyment out of it, whereas those who were abused themselves are simply replicating behaviour which they think is normal. But that does not explain for people who are born paedophiles and have no exposure to abuse themselves. Therefore the only rational explanation is that their mind was pre-disposed to paedophilia, the same way people are pre-disposed to "normal" sexual orientations.

Anyway, can we get back on topic sometime in the near future please?

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Scholar
#99 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 5:11 PM
I will decide how and when I should drop an argument I am participating in.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Mad Poster
#100 Old 3rd Oct 2010 at 6:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Lemon&Lime
As to people who are sexually abused becoming abuses themselves - maybe the rate is higher purely because their head becomes so messed up it becomes normal to them? <snip> those who were abused themselves are simply replicating behaviour which they think is normal.
Yes, which suggests that in some cases there is environmental influence; there's a difference between 'influence' and 'cause'. Perhaps previous experience of sexual abuse is a direct cause of growing up to be an abuser in some cases. Perhaps it acts as a trigger for a biological predisposition in other cases. Whichever one, the person's environment still had some kind of effect over the situation. Ultimately, unless neuroscience advances to the point where we can look into someone's brain and say, "based on x I can see that this person is a paedophile" you have no way of knowing how someone would have turned out had they not been sexually abused themselves.

And yes, I know previous abuse isn't prevalent in all cases of child sexual abuse, as I already stated, but to ignore environment completely and say it never plays a role is just silly really. Not all child molesterers are paedophiles, and vice versa. Sometimes it's not about being sexually attracted to children but is about other factors, such as control, so in these cases you're dealing with something different than paedophilia as a biological sexual orientation.

ETA: I would say that the only rational conclusion here is to not to try and attribute one theory - all child molesterers are biologically programmed to be that way - to something so complex. Doing that wouldn't be rational.
 
Page 4 of 4
Back to top