Man gets brain tumor, becomes paedophile

[blanc]

at the moment yesferatu, so few of those offending against children are brought to justice that there is no significant sample. what happened to one man, why impulse controlling suppression led him to paedophilia, when for example the impulse controlling suppression of plenty of alcohol flowing at a wedding reception doesn't routinely cause grave danger for bridesmaids and pages, when thousands of tumour patients don't suffer this particular character change - even if we knew and understood perfectly, would not of itself be enough to throw out the concept of free will. <br><br>you are suggesting that everyone who wants to separate paedophiles from children, to bring them to justice, is motivated by a personal desire to do harm, disguised as righteousness. Hasn't that put your 'no free will' argument in a bit of a hole? if paedophiles can't control their vile behaviour, because of chemistry, can justice seekers be held responsible for their penchant for seeing paedophiles banged up? Either both paedophiles and justice seekers are victims of their brain chemistry or neither one is.<br><br>Actually offenders banged up is my preference, but I'm quite happy for them to be in secure institutions where brain chemistry can be altered with a view to making them more sociable, SUBJECT to their consent. To consent to this, they would of course, have to have free will. And if they have free will, child rape has been their choice and I feel ok about not liking them for it.<br><br>Would you be proposing treatment without consent? if so, for what aberrations? How would you envisage arriving at a concensus as to what was an offence and what wasn't? In the event of a major event (cancer causing agent in environment creating brain tumours, overuse of cell phones fr'instance) shifting the brain chemistry of the majority towards a propensity to child rape, what outcomes for the developing brains of the abused children do you envisage, and have you bothered to look at the research into the effects of violence on the developing brain? Would child victims have any rights, or are rights a concept too closely linked to free will to exist any more - I'm confused by the drift of your thinking. <br><br>What actually is your problem?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[yesferatu]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>you are suggesting that everyone who wants to separate paedophiles from children, to bring them to justice, is motivated by a personal desire to do harm, disguised as righteousness.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>sorry. didn't suggest that. Maybe the last paragraph in my last post needed a <sarcasm> but I don't think it needed that. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Either both paedophiles and justice seekers are victims of their brain chemistry or neither one is.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>"Justice seekers" are different from self-righteous pricks, unless you equate the two. I would not. But if you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>are</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> talking about the religous self-righteous pricks in our socirety, then, yes, I would say their uncontrollable zealotry to satisfy some chemical need in their head to get off by seeing others punished is on par with the pedophilia problem. I do not consider religous wackos "justice seekers". <br>Seeking justice is not about penal retribution. Justice as a human concept is impossible anyway. Seeking the kingdom within is justice. Quite different than the justice which Bush, for instance, seeks. <br><br>Pedophiles should be kept from children. Duh. Don't frame this for me. Ask what I mean if you are unclear. But don't frame it in black and white BS. But don't tell me what I am saying...like here: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Hasn't that put your 'no free will' argument in a bit of a hole?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>When did I make this a free will argument and how do you get off putting words I never typed in quote marks as if I did??<br><br>Regarding the questions about what I would do in your half-dozen theoretical situations, I would just say lock up pedophiles. Keep them away from kids. Again....Duh. <br><br>Maybe research thru ungodly science can isolate chemicals like they isolated the polio virus and do pre-emptive bio-engineering for future generations. I see no difference between polio and brain chemicals that cause social aberrations like pedophiles. If you think I am equating the polio virus and certain brain chemicals, then you are correct. It is puritanism to say it is ok to deal with viruses, but then say we are playing God when we bio-engineer the brain to pre-empt destructive behaviors. Polio is destructive and we had no problem in stopping it at all costs. But once we talk about behavior then we have this idea we are playing God. Well, we played God when we stopped polio. Besides, I have no problem with us playing God in an effort to "seek justice".<br><br>Slippery slope? Getting born is a slippery slope.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

ok yesf. what did your 2nd post mean? what people did you have in mind whom you like to force into uncomfortable ....etc what views were you attributing to those 'people'?<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

should have asked what beliefs rather than what views, since that was how you framed this. (computer not up to cut and paste work) <p></p><i></i>