"I'm a paedophile, not a monster"

This thread isn't about whether paedophilia is a good or bad thing, which I think we all know the answer for, it's about this vanguard Salon writer Todd Nickerson is making for paedohphile's, which is pushing for acceptance in society for paedophiles, and whether such an idea should even be given consideration and if it's a good idea.

A man has confessed that he is a "paedophile, not a monster" and is creating a vanguard for fellow paedophile's to become more open about their orientation, which can be visited here: http://www.virped.org/

You can watch a video of him talking about his orientation here:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6nskqfy5k[/ame]

Todd Nickerson makes a clear difference between the terms "paedophile" and "child abuser," and thinks the two are wrongly used interchangeably. Todd wants to "educate" people on this difference and wants people to become more open to his orientation.


What do people think of this? I think progressives have gone too far this time. I find it repulsive, regardless of what he says. Attraction to children isn't something that should be branded about or something that we should be more open about. Due to there being no cure for paedophilia as of yet, I think the only alternative is capital punishment, to save both the children and the paedophiles.

No matter how adamant this man is that he'll never abuse children I think the fact he needs to go to the bathroom to * when he's babysitting for a 5 year old girl says it all. He'll also never be able to meet up with or have a relationship with the people he's attracted to so he'll only become more and more frustrated as the years go on, there's no outlet for him, with pornographic images of the sort also being off limits. It's a ticking time bomb. They can and should not be ever assimilated into our society.

 

I like how you casually link being a Sanders supporter with being a paedo. Very Daily Mail.

Sexual attraction to children is sick, its disgusting but the man hasn't committed a crime. He most likely never will. Its thought as many as one in 100 men are paedophiles. If thats true then only a small percentage of them actually offend. Just like only a small per cent of men attracted to women would ever commit rape. I think people like this guy should be offered chemical castration to suppress their paedophilia and be allowed to get on with life.

The moment anyone crosses the line and abuses a child though, then there should be no mercy when it comes to their punishment.

 

This thread is a waste of time. We know no proper discussion can be had.

However, i will give it a go. How do you propose finding the 3-5% of men that are paedophiles? When should we start executing them? Should we make every man go through a lie detector to prove his innocence? What age does their attraction to youngsters should be the cut off point for the death penalty? I could go on!

Lets cut to the chase mate, no one likes them, but they are a fact of life, however repulsive to the ordinary person in the street. A lot of them are themselves victims of paedophiles, so should we just kill all the kiddie victims to save time?

It is hard to pity such a wretched person, but one thing is for sure, they didnt choose to be attracted to weans, they just are.

Personally i would offer voluntary and private castration for anyone who fears unable to control himself.

For what its worth, (and i havent watched the video)if he has only confessed to an attraction and not an actual action or incident involving a child, then i think he is incredibly brave, and probably foolish. He will have the angry mob now for the rest of his life.....whether he is innocent or guilty of any crime, or not.

 

You're going to save someone by killing them? Ok. You try too hard to be controversial. Kind of sad but sort of amusing.

 

I had never thought about chemical castration, which I think could work, given that the men are willing to have it. I wonder how many would come forward though?

 

My thread is more about paedophiles in society, the guy in the video makes it sure that there's a clear difference between the definitions of 'paedophile' and 'child molester,' which he thinks are wrongly used interchangeably. He's also set up a forum for paedophiles to talk about their sexual desires. http://www.virped.org/

Here's a quote from the site.

 

It's not controversial at all. His sexual desires are nothing short of monstrous and if he acted upon them he would be imprisoned - and rightly so. I know nobody makes the choice to be a paedophile but would you trust him around children knowing his orientation, even if he has given you his word? As much as I think this man wants to abstain from acting upon his desires, how long will he last? Nobody knows, probably not even him.

 

You're just as bad as him because you want to kill folk. Both of you are potential dangers.

 

Not necessarily. Chemical castration appeals to me more and I hadn't thought about it when writing the OP. Capital punishment doesn't come from wanting to kill people, it's more of a societal necessity.

 

You support capital punishment, you support killing. You want to kill people. Plain and simple. You are a potential murderer.

I honestly don't care about this article or anything. I just wanted to point out that you try too hard with your Trump/Sanders comment and your announced support for killing folk. You just intentionally weave these little things into everything you post and it's starting to look desperate.

 

Unfortunately for you this thread is about the article. Take your * elsewhere.

 

Denmark use it and lots of men have come forward voluntarily for it

 

You are like a playboy magazine. You have loads of articles but you are known for a *.

 

You being a socially inept mongo might've just saved you the embarrassment of splurting that joke in public, something to thank it for at least.

 

Quit the insults and debate sensibly or the the thread will be closed / removed.

 

He's not an editor of Salon. I hate that website but do some basic research before you say something. I have a friend, very working-class from East London, who did his Masters in Criminology on what to do with pedos. His idea is that our drive for vengeance is actually putting kids in danger, as it makes it more unlikely for guys like this to come out and seek help. Wouldn't call him "progressive" or "PC" in a million years, but once you do actual research on something it tends to make you think about it more subtly.

 

http://www.salon.com/writer/todd_nickerson/

salon.com - writer - Todd Nickerson.

Same difference.

 

Sick, creepy * *. What is he trying to achieve here?

I honestly wouldn't bat an eyelid if someone met him in a dark alley one night.

Who is to say he will be able to control these urges his whole life?

Would chemical castration even work, he could still abuse a child?

I know he hasn't technically committed a crime but surely there is enough evidence to check his computers, phone etc... And also to get him on the register and keep a closer eye on him.

I hate the fact that you need to wait until he ruins a childs life before the * nonce can be locked up.

 

It's actually a pretty good theory.

It's kind of messed up to kill people that were either born with that condition or were themselves victims of pedophilia when they were younger.

Sometimes I'll read something in the paper that sickens me and my first instinct is that we should fry the * but when u take a step back and think about it , u realise it's kind of wrong.

 

Must be a weird and awkward existence for these people who don't act on it. They know it's wrong yet their attraction is out of their control.

Strange.