Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as much as they are

I think that paedophilia should be eradicated, yet the stigma has to exist so that it never becomes accepted. As for the point of the man in Brislington, you are using anecdotal evidence, and I have explained below why this point is not valid. You claim that around 76% of paedophiles suffer depression, I would believe that. However you must remember that correlation does not equals causation. Just because a high number of paedophiles suffer from depression does not mean that stigma causes the depression. Furthermore, those suffering from depression are at 25 times greater risk for suicidal than the general population, [1] so it would make sense for paedophiles to commit suicide at a higher rate than the general population. As for your third paragraphs, we obviously have different perceptions of 'wrong'. Your fourth paragraph holds no water for me, as I am arguing that paedophiles should be stigmatised. It doesn't matter if they haven't molested anyone, as it is the condition/feeling itself I feel should be stigmatised. (Obviously molestation should be stigmatised as well). Now, I'll address points made by MY opponent on my points. Paedophilia needs to be stigmatised, as if it isn't it moves closer to acceptance. If something is not stigmatised, it is accepted (perhaps not encouraged, but accepted) again, your definition of wrong differs from mine. They should be treated terribly, nothing else is acceptable as in my opinion paedophilia (or thoughts thereof) is too horrendous to be not treated as such. In my opinion, society should not care if a paedophile commits suicide, as even without action his thoughts represent incredible amounts of evil, and are a threat to society. Of course, that statement is subjective, but human emotions and thoughts (such as paedophilia) are subjective, so I deem it appropriate to have a subjective response. Objectivity can be used effectively on things like statistics, but when it comes to human thoughts, subjectivity is (in my opinion) much more effective. As for the Brislington, England example, you have used anecdotal evidence. Just because something happened somewhere, doesn't mean it is representative of the whole picture, and doesn't hold up in debate. If you had said something like "60% of paedophiles are murdered, even when their paedophilia is questionable" (made up statistic for an example) then your point would be valid. Strange and unpredictable things happen all the time everywhere, and using them as a point is useless, as they only tell one story. "Do you really think it"s fair to stigmatise someone that you don"t know with certainty is a paedophile?" Of course not. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I believe if you do not know for certain that someone is a paedophile, they should not be stigmatised. It"s not just me who finds it disgusting it"s society. I believe that harsh treatment of paedophiles is necessary, and as I have said before, correlation does not equals causation, meaning a whole host of things could have drove these paedophiles to suicide, and beside the point, if it did, I don"t care. [1] http://www.suicidology.org...