iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

Poll:

• Murderers
• Paedophiles (they fuck kids BTW. KIDS!)

Let the jury decide.

This arguement causes me to think about top trumps

Er - the vote doesn't show on the Snow theme =[

Dont even start bringing up categories for the top trump cards.

Hehe!
Violence Penchant
Max Prison Time
Reoffending percentage

There is no option for both.

Thats because its a who's worse poll.

That's because theyre competing against eachother. They cant both be worse.

Well, I don't know. Murderers are ending a life, yeah. No chance for the murder victim to do anything afterwards. Full Stop, yes.

But now I sound like I'm some kind of apologist for Paedophiles. Seems almost (reading the other thread) that some people on here reckon that there is occasionally justification to kill someone, but there's never justification to screw some kid. But is there ever really justification to kill someone?

The Doc says no. But hey. Is Michael Jackson worse than Phil Spector? (Allegedly).

Paedophiles leave the kids to spend the rest of their lives totally fucked in the head, sometimes trying to kill themselves throughout their lives and being depressed, at least with murder the victims do not have to live with it.

Yeah the actual victims that is, but their family and friends it would have that kind of effect on. Yes both crimes are hideous, it is just that the paedophilia has become a crime whereas murder has always been a crime.
Also the paedo thing is much better for the press, the actual incident rate has barely increased whereas murders are a 'common' crime so the press has a field day with such things and therefore sells more papers and hence makes more money...

Either way neither crime is justifyable

It might be nice to have the choice, though.

That was @ Cruelemort, BTW.

wow yeah nice one cruelemort, you just discovered the upside of being murdered. :/

murder is worse. they're both horrific, but victims of paedophiles at least have a chance of leading a life. victims or murder don't tend to...

They could have gone to a better place. Muderers could be doing them a favour.

But I don't think so.

</religious>

Mr Nishi..

I don't think for a second that paedophilia has become a crime at all. It's always been wrong, it's just no-one realised it is as widespread as it is...

it's just no-one realised it is as widespread as it is...

It isnt widespread!
thats the point that someone made earlier.
there are more REPORTS of it, that doesnt make it more widespread, just means that the papers have taken it on as their new thing that sells papers.

ERRR IT IS WIDESPREAD, CHECK OUT THE SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER.

not widespread compared to murder.

widespread is only one step away from rife

stories about kiddy fiddling sell papers - FACT
murder doesn't make the killing that it used to

Definition of widespread:

existing or happening in many places and/or among many people

Source Cambridge on-line dictionary. It is, therefore, MORE widespread than people realised, as a comparative description to things such as 'isolated incidents'.

As I said, I'm a picky bastard.

define many.
if there were 10,000 cases in a town that would be many people
if there were 10,000 in the 6,000,000,000ish population of the world you couldnt describe that as many people

fact is it isnt that common.

traaa laalala

PLACES and/OR among many people.

Clean eyes, and try again....

There is no definition of the number of people required to pass the decription of 'many'

clean between ears and try to comprehend:

there are more REPORTS of it, that doesnt make it more widespread, just means that the papers have taken it on as their new thing that sells papers.

There is no definition of the number of people required to pass the decription of 'many'

so two or three people could be described as many?

Is there a definition of the number of people required to pass the description of 'few'?

interesting point :)
i know a couple is two
but not sure about a few

True Grim... it would be nice to have a choice.

I agree with Chay about this one though, more reports of it happening does not mean it is happening more. The words "more widespread" were just used to show that it is more common than just "widespread" i dont thinking looking into the word too literally is gonna help.

Paedophilia is socially constructed

That would depend if you were using the word in a literal sense.

I said that it was "more widespread than people realise", I didn't say it has become more widespread. The increase in the number of reported incidences points to it actually being more common than the previous public perception. I didn't suggest that the number of occurences had changed at any point. But yes, it sells papers, and is one of the 'hot topics' for the rags.

I have checked my ears, and between. No ear-bogies or nuffin. Clean as a shiny whistle.

:)
ok then
sorry bout that

Well that argument fell flat on it's arse at the end, didn't it?

So after all that, we've decided that Paedophilia and Murder is bad, am I right?

Well. That's that cleared up in a mere 35 posts! Nothing gets past us, eh?

lol
yeah
oh and drugs are bad m'kay?

Oh.

What about Beechams cold and flu? Or doesn't that count?

Or Penicillin?

What about Coulorinin?

I used to love that as a kid... is that bad too?

At the risk of sounding like a paedophile-apologist: there is (and should be) nothing legally wrong with paedophilia unless some action takes place. You can't punish someone just for thinking "It would be nice to have sex with someone under sixteen". You can't punish someone for thinking "It would be nice to have sex with that person over there and they happen to be under sixteen". Youu can't punish someone for thinking "I'd love to take photographs of such-and-such naked and trade them on the Internet". It's when they do these things that they are a problem.

And as such, I don't think paedophilia is the problem (legally speaking - I'm pretty sure it's a psychological problem!) any more than having a "rape fantasy" or "murder fantasy" is a problem - they are thoughts, and you shouldn't punish people simply for thought. Nazism and Orwellian '1984' serve as a perfect example of punishing for simply being, thinking or believing. Paedophilia isn't the problem, it's the effects of paedophilia - child abuse, child pornography, exploitation etc.

While that's psychologically and phsyiologically harming, at least the child is still alive at the end of it. So I have to say murderers are worse as they leave no method of recovery in their victims.

Both child abuse and murder are evil acts and need to be punished appropriately.

Well, if I was to give both crimes some kind of score for their badness, I think they'd work out like this.

Murder; 89% bad
Paedophilia (Child abuse); 77% bad
Stealing Money; 32% bad

So, therefore, murder is the most bad. This is based on ten different criterions that I have made up, all of which I choose a mark out of ten for.

A bit like Sul's top trumps then.

I claim them as my top trumps. You merely came up with some categories. :p

I don't want to be a "pedophile apologist" either but pedophilia is socially constructed. In some countries you are married off at 13 (usually to an older man) and expected to start producing babies. In their culture it's seen as the right thing to do.

Ok fucking 5 year old is, in my opinion, far grosser than shagging a 13 year old but both are still kids according to the law of this land.