That exception is just wrong. It defeats the purpose of protecting children’s privacy.
Critically analyzing these actions in terms of their stated goals makes it clear that Punishing Deviants is in fact the overriding goal to which all others take a back seat.
The thought process then for allowing these exceptions is something like “We are law enforcement and so we are not deviants, ergo, we should not be subject to laws written to punish deviants ”.
It’s a bias they have. Makes sense when they say cops have IQs below 110.
You do realize the average IQ is 100?
Yes, but they don’t hire above that range I cited. I read that somewhere. Here is an example: Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News
“New London had ‘shown a rational basis for the policy.’”
Provides zero elaboration
I am familiar with this idea. The prevailing attitude is that very smart individuals will not do well with the lack of stimulation of a regular patrol officer’s beat. Which is fine, until you promote them to detective. Then they are bloody useless. They are still “above average.” Of course, anyone with an IQ of 120 or more will run rings around them.
We should stigmatize cp viewers behaviors and attractions and try to cure them. This is the companionate approach. This works.
The article you’re replying to provides numerous sources of evidence that stigma and the resulting lack of support causes CSAM viewers to continue engaging in harmful behavior. Do you have a source refuting this?
Of what and how?
According to what reputable source?
No, it doesn’t. Here are some sources that point to the contrary:
Stigmatizing people creates the problems, I was talking about stigmatizing their “attractions” as a necessity.
Cure them of pedophilia. Romania tried that in the late 1999s, unfortunately it resulted in the convicted csam possessors getting additional mental problems like ptsd, which doesn’t help produce happy and productive citizens. We are trying it again as of 2020s, but without nonsense like electricity shocks, etc. we are going through a much more compassionate route this time.
You want a source? I don’t need to provide one. There isn’t enough data that it doesn’t work
You automatically stigmatize people when you stigmatize something innate. Stigma enables abuse.
There’s no compassionate way to forcibly change someone’s sexuality. Conversion therapy is torture. That is established. If you’re claiming otherwise, you need strong sources to back it up.
Then why on earth should I take you seriously? You obviously have no interest in protecting children if you think following your emotional response is an acceptable approach to making decisions that could put millions of kids at an increased risk.
You want a debate? You want to protect children? Put in the work. Several people here would be more than happy to help you find research on all these topics. You can’t hope to prevent abuse when you know nothing about how and why it occurs and what works to reduce the risk.
Your source only proves stigma towards researchers, or treating mental illness like being a pedo with active assaulters causes harm. It does NOT prove that disapproval of a persons “sexuality” as immoral causes harm.
Conversion therapy is a reference to lgbt people being forced to give up their gender identity of trying to change sexuality in terms of attraction based on gender. It says nothing on changing someone’s attractions to LITERAL CHILDREN.
This ‘charity” has been called out by the likes of shoeinhead and many others. I will think I will trust the medical community of my country that wants to experiment on convicted csam possessors than a rogue group like prostasia as to whether the attraction to children can be modified or dampened humanely and safely. Hopefully we can get some results before the eu shuts us down (again).
Are these “experiments” being done with or without their consent? Because if it’s without that is HIGHLY unethical and immoral
“In some cases, stigma can even increase a MAP’s risk of offending.” Not sure how it could be any more clear.
Call it whatever you want; attempting to change someone’s attractions is proven to be harmful and ineffective, no matter who the victim is. I believe someone already gave you a source for this, so I’ll let you go read that.
If you trust YouTube personalities over published studies in reputable journals, your opinion carries no weight to anyone involved in prevention.
Do you even have a single study to back up your claims? Even a newspaper article? Anything besides your imagination?
I think you know they don’t care. People like this would rather use children as pawns to “purge the world of degenerates” than actually protect anyone.
the only thing that comes out of that nazi’s mouth is word vomit and nothing of any factual substance. Goodbye troll. If you decide that you actually give a shit about doing something to prevent CSA, feel free to come back
edit: I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re one of those “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd, and ironically the only thing you give a shit about is your feelings. LOL
For possessors? It’s done with their consent. As a suspended sentence condition. If they don’t want the treatment they can always go to jail instead.
This experiment is more of a trial and they randomly select offenders to have participation as a probation requirement.
This charity has been called out by many other professional orgs. Not just personalities. Exposing the Dangerous Movement to Normalize Pedophilia as a Sexual Orientation - Exodus Cry