Your friend tells you they're a paedophile

[Excited Penguin]

It's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. The rest of the world sees Dr. Jekyll while his victim sees Mr. Hyde behind closed doors. People can be charming and charismatic one moment, shut the door, and slam someone up against a wall the next.

I still don't understand how this is relevant to the topic at hand. You see a discussion involving something highly upsetting for you and you proceed to throw your emotions at it. It makes it impossible to discuss the issue. We are not talking about child abuse. We aren't talking about a situation in which a child has reported abuse. We aren't suggesting allowing pedophiles to hang out with kids.

We are talking about human beings here. Who happen to be sick. Who haven't done anything wrong.

Being a child molestor doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a kid doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a man doesn't make a male rapist gay. Raping an old lady doesn't make someone whatever the term is for a person who is attracted to old people. Rape is almost never about sexual attraction and gratification. Rape is about power and control. Rapists dont typically pick their victims based on who they think is hottest. They pick their victims based on who they can get away with raping. I have no idea why being a pedophile would make someone any more likely to rape a kid than being a heterosexual would make you likely to rape a man if you couldn't get any to have sex with you. Peoples sexual desires are not the deciding factor in whether or not they're a rapist. If this logic doesn't apply in any other situation why would it apply here? It makes no sense.

How are they sick then? Lol. So they're attracted to kids. So fucking what? Let it be their dark little secret that never sees the light of day. I don't see the problem here. I have plenty of fantasies I won't reveal to most anyone in life. Likewise, do any of you feel the need to, for example, start talking about preferred sex positions during a business meeting? No, it's crazy and inappropriate. Now to make it into an analogy, let the world be your workplace. What changed? Nothing changed.


This is extremely similar to arguing we should sympathize with people who have constant murderous thoughts as long as they don't kill anyone, or claim to anyway. It's unthinkable that anyone would do this.

We are talking about, ultimately, a desire to hurt human beings, be it children by traumatizing them by having sex with them or one to rape, or to murder, and so on. Fantasies are fine, IMO. Roleplay them with your adult partner if you wish. Imagine them. But if you ever catch yourself considering acting them out in real life, as in actually planning to, then you are a moral monster, simple as that. And, in that scenario, since you understand what you're preparing to do, you are in control of your mental faculties.

[Edwardo Piet]

These are my own values and views. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification, don't debate them like they are purported facts instead, though. No non-sequitur is to be found in my statements, - I made no claims.

This was a non-sequitur:

If I truly trusted this person [then] my kids would have nothing to fear from them

Regardless of if it's your opinion or that you merely think or believe it: it's not true that if you truly trust any person then therefore anyone else has nothing to fear from that person.

Non-sequitur. Doesn't matter how much you trust someone it doesn't indicate that your kids have nothing to fear from them. It's just subjective trust and when in the face of expressed urges that could potentially lead to harmful behavior no amount of subjective trust is worth the risk of you being wrong about the person.

No, Ham, subjective is all anyone has. In any one instance you can't both trust someone and at the same time not trust them. It's one or the other. If your trust fails in face of adversity, that's fine, but it also means you never really trusted that person implicitly to begin with.

If that person then goes ahead and violates my trust, that's another thing altogether.

(my bold)

Exactly my point. It's just subjective trust. You don't know and it isn't worth the risk.

[Excited Penguin]

These are my own values and views. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification, don't debate them like they are purported facts instead, though. No non-sequitur is to be found in my statements, - I made no claims.

This was a non-sequitur:

If I truly trusted this person [then] my kids would have nothing to fear from them

Regardless of if it's your opinion or that you merely think or believe it: it's not true that if you truly trust any person then therefore anyone else has nothing to fear from that person.

No, Ham, subjective is all anyone has. In any one instance you can't both trust someone and at the same time not trust them. It's one or the other. If your trust fails in face of adversity, that's fine, but it also means you never really trusted that person implicitly to begin with.

If that person then goes ahead and violates my trust, that's another thing altogether.

(my bold)

Exactly my point. It's just subjective trust. You don't know and it isn't worth the risk.

I don't care what you think it is. You seem incapable of comprehending what trust is. My kids would be my responsibility. What I would tell the rest of the world about my friend would be my choice. If I trusted my friend, then in my mind, my kids and other kids wouldn't have anything to fear from them. You can argue your point to death. I only ever made a hypothetical evaluation of character as it relates to their potential actions of a hypothetical very close friend whom I trust. I never made any claims about objective reality. We are not dealing with facts here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Trust is subjective, we agree on that, you demonstrated my point as indicated in bold text by myself. It's ridiculous to say I don't know what trust is, you're the one who on the one hand says trust is fully subjective because "subjective is all anyone has" and on the other hand suggest that because you "truly trust" someone that someone else therefore has nothing to fear from them, as indicated in underlined text by myself.

Hand-waving away your non-sequitur of an "if this then then therefore this" statement that was absolutely false with "oh it's just my opinion" doesn't make your statement related to your opinion any less incorrect.

I'm done. Your analysis is superficial. Throwing that analysis away immediately afterwards with "oh it's just my opinion" just shows how worthless and erroneous your opinion is.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
― Douglas Adams

[Catholic_Lady]

Let's pretend you have a friend, and you're a parent. You've known this friend a long time. You trust them, and you believe they are a good person.

One day they confide in you that they are a paedophile. They have sexual urges towards young children. They say they haven't ever acted on them, nor do they intend to, and you believe they are sincere. They just want your understanding and support, and they ask that you keep this confidential.

How do you react? For example:

1) Do you keep it confidential?

a) No, tell as many people as possible
b) No, tell a select few
c) No, tell a select few but ask them to be sympathetic
d) Yes

2) Will you still be their friend?

a) No, cut all contact
b) Yes, but distance yourself
c) Yes

3) If yes to the above, will it change the contact you allow with your children?

a) Yes, cut all contact
b) Yes, only supervised contact
c) No

4) Will you support them?

a) No, don't want to hear anything about it
b) Yes, as long as they keep it vague
c) Yes, let them say whatever they need to

D. yes

C. yes

3. yes, only supervised

4. Yes, let them say whatever they need to

Though I think the main thing I would do that is not listed on there is to always urge and encourage them to have regular therapy sessions with a psychologist and seek help in any way they can.

[robvalue]

We're pretending I have a friend?

Cool!

Finally someone commented on my little joke

[Edwardo Piet]

Having friends is good [emoji106]

Especially non-pedo friends.

[mlmooney89]

It's a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. The rest of the world sees Dr. Jekyll while his victim sees Mr. Hyde behind closed doors. People can be charming and charismatic one moment, shut the door, and slam someone up against a wall the next.

I still don't understand how this is relevant to the topic at hand. You see a discussion involving something highly upsetting for you and you proceed to throw your emotions at it. It makes it impossible to discuss the issue. We are not talking about child abuse. We aren't talking about a situation in which a child has reported abuse. We aren't suggesting allowing pedophiles to hang out with kids.

We are talking about human beings here. Who happen to be sick. Who haven't done anything wrong.

Being a child molestor doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a kid doesn't even make someone a pedophile. Raping a man doesn't make a male rapist gay. Raping an old lady doesn't make someone whatever the term is for a person who is attracted to old people. Rape is almost never about sexual attraction and gratification. Rape is about power and control. Rapists dont typically pick their victims based on who they think is hottest. They pick their victims based on who they can get away with raping. I have no idea why being a pedophile would make someone any more likely to rape a kid than being a heterosexual would make you likely to rape a man if you couldn't get any to have sex with you. Peoples sexual desires are not the deciding factor in whether or not they're a rapist. If this logic doesn't apply in any other situation why would it apply here? It makes no sense.

It really does make sense and my input is VERY relative.

I'm saying that just because they SEEM trustworthy does NOT make them trustworthy. If they are having thoughts about having sex with children this is far beyond just helping a friend. If they are THAT sick in the head trust as a friend goes out the window. I don't care how great they seem.

[Minimalist]

One day they confide in you that they are a paedophile.

I would say, "archbishop, I think you should resign your position immediatley."

[mlmooney89]

I'm wondering why anyone would think that a person that admits to wanting to fuck kids shouldn't have a mental evaluation right away. But that is the difference between us. I think there should be a death penalty and I think you don't just let people that want to have sex with kids walk around like it's nothing. You don't get to admit that and be told everything will be okay. That's like someone saying "I feel like I want to kill everyone but I won't act on it I swear..." ya just gunna leave that person alone with their thoughts?