First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
How Can We Stop Pedophiles? Stop treating them like monsters.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/26/14

hinhata wrote:

Maybe as a mother myself but anyone or anything that touches a child mental illness or not is a monster. I don't give a rats ass if it's a mental problem anyone touches my kid they will die. That's my opinion


But a pedophile isn't necessarily a child-molester...
Child-molesters are scum, without a doubt. But someone who knows that what they like is messed up and doesn't act on their desires should not be treated as monsters or as scum.
Posted 6/28/14 , edited 6/28/14
My question: why are there children under the age of 16 online without parental supervision? Like, seriously? FFS
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/7/14

Shiroppu wrote:

My question: why are there children under the age of 16 online without parental supervision? Like, seriously? FFS


Well they're not really children... And how are the parents supposed to supervise? Beyond parental control locks, I don't see how that would be feasable. Unless the parents stare over their shoulders. And imagine the rage which that would result in...

Even parental locks pissed me off when I was that age. Blocked me from viewing precious porn. :(
Luckily I had friends who could download porn for me on their computer.
24568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Baltimore, MD
Offline
Posted 7/7/14

hinhata wrote:

Maybe as a mother myself but anyone or anything that touches a child mental illness or not is a monster. I don't give a rats ass if it's a mental problem anyone touches my kid they will die. That's my opinion

Yup.

Bottom line, though, people who sexually desire children need mental help. Period. You would think we should all be able to agree on that.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 7/7/14
stay away from the kids meals. They are for kids.

If anyone every touched my little sister, i would bring the wrath of the gods down upon them.

I think ones who seek help should be given it. As i believe anyone who seeks help, should be given it without prejudice

But the ones who are repeat offenders, should be given no mercy. They are ruining the lives of innocent children.
Posted 7/7/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Shiroppu wrote:

My question: why are there children under the age of 16 online without parental supervision? Like, seriously? FFS


Well they're not really children... And how are the parents supposed to supervise? Beyond parental control locks, I don't see how that would be feasable. Unless the parents stare over their shoulders. And imagine the rage which that would result in...

Even parental locks pissed me off when I was that age. Blocked me from viewing precious porn. :(
Luckily I had friends who could download porn for me on their computer. :P


Great idea! Let's let 6 year olds, 8 year olds, 12 year olds, and 14 year olds on the computer with barely any supervision! You just put the computer in the family room and only allow them on it when you're in the house.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/7/14

Shiroppu wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Shiroppu wrote:

My question: why are there children under the age of 16 online without parental supervision? Like, seriously? FFS


Well they're not really children... And how are the parents supposed to supervise? Beyond parental control locks, I don't see how that would be feasable. Unless the parents stare over their shoulders. And imagine the rage which that would result in...

Even parental locks pissed me off when I was that age. Blocked me from viewing precious porn. :(
Luckily I had friends who could download porn for me on their computer. :P


Great idea! Let's let 6 year olds, 8 year olds, 12 year olds, and 14 year olds on the computer with barely any supervision! You just put the computer in the family room and only allow them on it when you're in the house.


Well in case of 6-12 year olds, then no. I thought you were talking exclusively about teenagers. :P
14-year olds, though... Well, I see no problem with that. I was surfing unsupervised (mostly, aside from the parental lock) and I turned out fine.
Besides, today there are smartphones and tablets. Computers aren't needed for internet access anymore.
8156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Connecticut, USA
Offline
Posted 7/8/14 , edited 7/8/14


A very thoughtful response. People all too often over look new tech when discussing old rules.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/8/14

togussa wrote:



A very thoughtful response. People all too often over look new tech when discussing old rules.


Thanks. And yeah, that does seem to be a recurring trend I've noticed...
8425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Honnouji academy
Offline
Posted 7/8/14

Shiroppu wrote:

My question: why are there children under the age of 16 online without parental supervision? Like, seriously? FFS


You can't just sit behind your kid checking what website he's on, and if you straight up block internet, he'll just go to his friend's house and check out what he can't, the best you can do is be honest about it with your kids.
Posted 7/9/14 , edited 7/9/14

togussa wrote:



A very thoughtful response. People all too often over look new tech when discussing old rules.

How is that thoughtful? Not every parent is going to buy their kid a brand new iPhone with full internet on it. I know when I am a parent, I am not going to do that. All my kid needs to do is call and text. I've gotten myself into a lot of trouble on the internet, and I have seen a hundred other kids who have as well due to their parents neglect. Why would your kid be on the internet in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you didn't make enough time for your kid? I remember the only reason I got hooked on the computer was because my mom was always out and too busy to hang out with me. Kids don't NEED technology to have fun. Of course there are different cases, such as watching movies and what not on the computer and doing homework, but they don't need to be on the computer long enough to speak to strange, older men/women and they sure enough do not need a LAPTOP in their room when they're only 10.

What you're doing here is making excuses for why kids should be allowed to roam the internet freely. That's just asinine. Kids can be very naive when it comes to strangers, and they might do stupid crap because of it. Just because they can get internet on phones doesn't mean they shouldn't be supervised! It's like saying: well, they're going to hurt themselves somehow, so might as well let them hurt themselves.

Porn is a totally different thing, kiddo. I'm saying kids should not be on websites in which ADULTS could talk to them and try to get them to show them their bodies or what not. Her response was not thought out at all.



outerheaven139 wrote:


Shiroppu wrote:

My question: why are there children under the age of 16 online without parental supervision? Like, seriously? FFS


You can't just sit behind your kid checking what website he's on, and if you straight up block internet, he'll just go to his friend's house and check out what he can't, the best you can do is be honest about it with your kids.

And why would I let my child go to a friend's house without talking to the parent and making sure the computers and everything is safe before hand? Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Of course you can be honest with your kids, but look where that has got a lot of kids:
Tell kids it's bad to drink > they drink
Tell kids smoking causes cancer > they smoke anyway
Tell kids to use condoms and practice safe sex > they get pregnant anyway

This all pertains to the first comment you made: they could go to their friend's house and check out blahblahblahblah. I will be darn sure positive before my kid hangs out with anyone that they are safe, their parents are good people, and they're not too liberal with their child. If they let their kid go on omegle and look at people's genitalia, then why should I trust them with the safety of my kid?


All in all, children should be protected until they're old enough to protect themselves... which in my opinion is around 16-17. You should start gradually loosening the leash as they get older, but that does not mean you should let them go around doing whatever they want. They're children, they do not know better.
8156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Connecticut, USA
Offline
Posted 7/9/14
The problem that you're forgetting is that more and more schools are requiring online participation. When that happens you won't be able to keep an eye on them all the time. I agree with you that we need restrictions on the net and in life, but restriction is iron clad.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/9/14

Shiroppu wrote:
How is that thoughtful? Not every parent is going to buy their kid a brand new iPhone with full internet on it. I know when I am a parent, I am not going to do that. All my kid needs to do is call and text. I've gotten myself into a lot of trouble on the internet, and I have seen a hundred other kids who have as well due to their parents neglect. Why would your kid be on the internet in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you didn't make enough time for your kid? I remember the only reason I got hooked on the computer was because my mom was always out and too busy to hang out with me. Kids don't NEED technology to have fun. Of course there are different cases, such as watching movies and what not on the computer and doing homework, but they don't need to be on the computer long enough to speak to strange, older men/women and they sure enough do not need a LAPTOP in their room when they're only 10.

What you're doing here is making excuses for why kids should be allowed to roam the internet freely. That's just asinine. Kids can be very naive when it comes to strangers, and they might do stupid crap because of it. Just because they can get internet on phones doesn't mean they shouldn't be supervised! It's like saying: well, they're going to hurt themselves somehow, so might as well let them hurt themselves.

Porn is a totally different thing, kiddo. I'm saying kids should not be on websites in which ADULTS could talk to them and try to get them to show them their bodies or what not. Her response was not thought out at all.


I agree with this. I honestly used the net when I was a child for the same exact reason and I honestly regret it at this point. I think parents should definitely be more involved in what their children do on the internet. Cyber bullying is one of the most prominent threats on the internet and there's not much you can do about it since you don't have much control over the situation due to it being the internet and it can happen to many people and affect them very negatively.

And kids definitely do not need technology. It's entertaining, but so is life. It's just that it's harder in these days with how a lot of parents just don't care for their children enough to spend time with them.
Posted 7/9/14

togussa wrote:

The problem that you're forgetting is that more and more schools are requiring online participation. When that happens you won't be able to keep an eye on them all the time. I agree with you that we need restrictions on the net and in life, but restriction is iron clad.


I brought up the fact that children will use the computer to watch movies/videos/play video games and for homework. That does not mean they need to be on it for more than two hours at a time, or on websites in which they could be bullied or sexually assaulted via webcam.
Posted 7/9/14 , edited 7/9/14
Honestly speaking, pedophilia normally stems from being sexually assaulted as a child--or due to brain chemical imbalances. What does this mean? Pedophilia CAN be corrected by therapy in some cases, not in all. It should not be treated as something terrible, but if they act upon it in any way, they should be prosecuted and treated like monsters. Children under the age of 16 (in certain states) are not able to consent to sexual acts... and a lot of children are raped, sexually assaulted, or give their virginity up to older children because they're forced into it via peer pressure and manipulation. This is not okay.

Although pedophilia is considered liking children who have not undergone puberty, hebephilia is just as bad. Teenagers 11-14 are still undergoing puberty and their brains are still growing and changing. They're at a point in life in which what they do will effect them in the long run. Having sex with people could carry traumatic impacts such as abuse of drugs, addiction to sex, self-harm, and a plethora of other things. And this is especially common in teenagers who are forced into sex because their boyfriend/girlfriend said it's what people "in love" do.

Pedophilia on the other hand will cause traumatic harm on any of the children involved. It can make them feel dirty, used, wrong and cause suicide, abuse of drugs in later years, and even the rejection of sexual acts as an adult.

I do not believe that pedophiles are truly monsters, but what a lot of them do to children (rape, sexual pictures, molestation) is just wrong.

Lolicon =/= Pedophilia in all cases but it's just as creepy.

**This is not added to the previous conversation I was having, this is my over-all view of PEDOPHILES as a whole, rather than parents not being involved in their child's life enough/computer monitoring.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.