Another strike towards sanity

[Soulforged]

There's no difference between pedofilia and other cases of sexual tastes. The one action that is criminal, and reasonable so, is molesting and raping. As far as I'm concerned pedophiles are not sick. Conducts such as those can be seen on the natural world around us and they're pretty normal. People who socialize, at least a part of their lives, learn to control their basic instincts, people who don't socialize are no more than animals, they don't learn the way of man they simply live by instinct. Every pedophile, by instance, demostrates how much marginalization there's on society, and every case solved (and I mean by socializing the person), demostrates how responsable and devoloped a society is. Punishment is not a solution just an analgesic. You want a rapid solution to this, there isn't any, if you want a real solution then talk to that one that you never talked offer him help or treat him as an equal, that prevents this kind of behavior.

[Ja'chyra]

Boohoo, the poor defenceless paedo's are really the victims, we should do all we can to help them.

What utter bollocks, as is all the "Every society is judged by how it looks after those most vulnerable and sick" when applied to sexual predators. Society's, and every adults therein, duty is to look after the future, the children, and if that means that all paedophiles are locked away for life then I would say that is a bargain, and well worth it.

If counselling can help them before they commit crimes then, by all means, save two lives, this can only be a good thing, but, once the crime has been committed they should be excised like the cancer on society they are.

Conducts such as those can be seen on the natural world around us and they're pretty normal

So is cannabilism and killing the young of different fathers, hell some animals even eat their own young, should we be encouraging them too?

Once again, tree hugging taken to extremes You can't save everyone, and some don't even deserve the effort.

[Soulforged]

Boohoo, the poor defenceless paedo's are really the victims, we should do all we can to help them.

Needless to say that an emotional response don't make a sound arguement.

What utter bollocks, as is all the "Every society is judged by how it looks after those most vulnerable and sick" when applied to sexual predators. Society's, and every adults therein, duty is to look after the future, the children, and if that means that all paedophiles are locked away for life then I would say that is a bargain, and well worth it.

Pedophilia generally starts at an early age, puberty. If you're looking to the future then help that one that's being marginalized, that IN FACT demonstrates how much socialized everyone is.

If counselling can help them before they commit crimes then, by all means, save two lives, this can only be a good thing, but, once the crime has been committed they should be excised like the cancer on society they are.

So if the rest of society fails to provide the care they need to this mentally "deviated" man or woman you say "to hell with them". That's not even a solution, you cannot make scraps and rewrites with human life. I'm not sure of the next, but I think most pedophiles never commit crimes, they do however satisfy their sexual tastes by looking for naive (and not so naive) childs, if you're so worried.

So is cannabilism and killing the young of different fathers, hell some animals even eat their own young, should we be encouraging them too?

I don't remember using the word "encourage". My idea is exactly the opposite, but to do that you can't simply send them all to hell, you've to socialize with them and in turn they do the same with you. That's a perfect way to reduce canibalism too.

Once again, tree hugging taken to extremes You can't save everyone, and some don't even deserve the effort.

Is not tree hugging at all. Many people that take punishment as the first resolution before every subject that appears as morally regreatable primera facie forget to check reallity and logic from time to time. The problem here is untamed behavior, the charge of socialization is on society itself, the individual generally is too weak to face all society as one, so he needs friends, he needs people, he needs someone who can help him pass throughout his life and learn to be an human, if nobody is disposed to do that then I think that we've already lost a far better value than upright sexual tastes. Don't you believe the same?

[Soulforged]

People have a duty to society. It is not the other way around.

Pleople constitute society, therefore the duty is always reciprocal. Helping the little, the marginal, the poor is always a duty of society, a moral duty that's wich means that you're not forced to do so but it's the right thing to do.

[Divinus Arma]

Wrong. It is not society's duty to help the poor. Society is a tool with many uses, that can only be sustained through a common-will. A common-will which does not have to include raising everyone's standard of living.

Nice. Well put GC.

I also agree with enthusiasmon this comment:

People have a duty to society. It is not the other way around.

I think that some people misinterpret this idea as people have a duty to government, which is a very different concept.

Yes, we have a duty to government: To be mistrustful, to be ever vigilant, to challenge assumptions, and most importantly to be involved and engaged.

Some may think that duty to government and society means that we must be subservient and obediant- a grave but understandable misunderstanding.

[Soulforged]

Wrong. It is not society's duty to help the poor. Society is a tool with many uses, that can only be sustained through a common-will. A common-will which does not have to include raising everyone's standard of living.

And what is "common-will", is it the same as Rousseau's? If it's, then can you proove that such thing exists? If it exists can you proove that it's relevant? Many questions in your way. I never talk about "common-will" because I find the concept as superempirical, and I believe it's non-existent as god, for example.
Beyond that I fear that you're misunderstanding what I said. I talked about morality, therefore a moral duty, morality is subjective (there are others that argue the contrary, as always), so what you really have to answer is towards the moral value of raising the "standard of living" of everyone, not if it belongs to the common-will in a given time and a given place, that's totally irrelevant. If the good didn't exist then we should create it, as simple as that.

[A.Saturnus]

You look too deeply into something that is plain as day. The common-will is simply the desire to act as a group, as oppposed to many groups.

Things that are plain as day are usually very complex issues in disguise. Something as a "common-will" is philosophically highly problematic.

When you say that the individual has a duty to society that is a moral evaluation, yes? If that is the case then the fact that society is tool with many uses does not prevent it to have a duty to the individual as well. Society can only exist as a collective of individuals, how can it be the object of duty distinct of those to other individuals? Likewise, what would be the reason for the individual to create society if it doesn't expect something in return?

[A.Saturnus]

Society is not a big loving care-bear that a bunch of people get together and create in order to have it rain fluffy prosperity down on them. It is a tool, a force, that is only capable when you have many people working together as a group. It'd be hubris for me to say that I know what the definitive goal of society is, but here in america the tool that is society is used via the hand of the republic. The will of the people and the power of the government move it.

Not knowing the purpose of society must make living in it strange. I'm not saying society is a big loving care-bear, but it's purpose must be for those who create it. Society has a goal, it is not the goal. Therefore, the state is there for the people and not the people for the state.