Pedophilia

I'm glad my opponent came through in the last minute, although he seems to have missed a lot of what I wrote. To ask whether pedophilia should be accepted, we need to understand the nature of its rejection. Hence, I pointed out the fact that in the case of pedophilia, the mere DESIRE to perform the act is deplorable. This is a statement of fact, not an argument that pedophilia should be scorned. I pointed it out because it is important to the discussion, and I apologize if my opponent took it the wrong way. Describing the current state of the taboo was merely a lead in to my theory of the adult/child dichotomy being its source. Strangely, PRO considers this to be an example of "Argumentum ad populum". It is more accurate to say its an "Argumentum ad natural selectionum" as it provides a theory for the origins of the taboo by demonstrating how it might give one group an additional survival advantage. I will also revisit the distinction between an active and inactive pedophile. I did not ignore this point, it was actually part of the foundation of my argument. I began by asking the question: "Why do we scorn the mere desire to abuse a child almost as much as the actual abuse?" How should we classify the pedophiles who have not yet acted upon their urges? PRO wants us to classify them with the rest of the population, those who have no desire for sexual activity with children. Hence, he makes great effort to point out the difference between an "active pedophile" and a nonactive one. The general consensus of society is that a nonactive pedophile should be classified in the same group as active ones. Which classification makes more sense? The difference lies in the severity of the crime and the perceived likelihood that the crime will take place. Pedophilia is an extremely serious crime in modern society. (again, to avoid confusion, this is a statement of fact, not an argument) We know that sexual desire is one of the stronger biological drives we have, and we know that pedophiles can not control having these urges. A comparable action is making a threat against the President; it would be folly to make a strong distinction between an "active" presidential assassin and one who has not yet acted on his urges. Of course, all of this reasoning operates under the basis of the pedophilia taboo existing and being extremely strong. With all the background information in place, I can now go on to the main point of the debate, which is "Should society accept more pedophiles?" I pointed out that sex is considered to be strictly an adult thing in contemporary society. This was not true in some parts of Ancient Greece, however. According to my argument, the anti-pedophilia morals gain much of their power from the strong coupling between sex and adulthood. Without this coupling, the taboo loses its force. Ancient Greece thrived despite the lack of this taboo. Thus, we can rephrase the debate as this: "Should society eliminate the strong association between sex and adulthood?" To answer this, I will make some assumptions that I actually disagree with, just to make a point. We'll assume a society can thrive with no taboo on pedophilia. We'll also assume that in such a society, there would be less suffering, as not only would pedophiles not be prosecuted, but children would not be traumatized by the act. We'll even assume that the existing pedophilia taboo is completely baseless. Given this, why not transition to a society where pedophilia is accepted or even encouraged? There are some facts that can not be disputed: in modern society, sexual abuse of minors is highly traumatizing, and we react more strongly to infractions performed against children. It is also obvious that transitioning between an anti-pedophilic society and a pedophile-friendly society would be a massive undertaking that would take years to even partially implement. It would require the majority of the population to go against some of their most deeply held beliefs. Hence, if we were to seriously begin the transition, for a time we would be severely increasing the suffering of children. Can you imagine a parent, knowing their child is being hurt through sexual activity, doing nothing about it because "it will make society a better place in the future". This is absurd, parents would fight back against pedophilia even more strongly than they do now. Thus, a movement to make pedophilia more accepted would actually result in it being more opposed. To justify such an intense rise in suffering, the benefits of a pedophile friendly society would need to be tremendous. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is concluded, so the following will simply be a look into the origins of the pedophilia taboo. Greece did thrive for a time despite the lack of this taboo, but in the context of evolution it is possible for an entity to have a disadvantageous trait and still survive. There are advantages to delegating sex to adults and not children, advantages to treating children separately from adults, and advantages to giving more weight to crimes performed on children. There are even advantages to making sexual crimes carry more weight than other crimes. Rape is a poor model of reproduction in modern society, as it denies the woman control over who will father her offspring. However, unlike theft or murder, the effects of rape are not as immediately felt to anyone except the victim herself. Giving increased weight to sexual crimes helps counteract this trend. Coupled together with the "crimes against children" rule, this makes the sexual abuse of a child carry much more weight than any other crime. Footnote: Me fail English? Unpossible! Most rules of grammar are simply arbitrary conventions. For example, a preposition is a perfectly fine thing to end a sentence with. None of that has any bearing on either of our arguments. PRO would be wise to understand the difference between the appearance of competence and actual competence.