Jaws1387 comments

I work for a food delivery service. Some of the restaurant staff can be quite chatty, so I usually take those opportunities to study Japanese, especially if it's really noisy. Helps me stay calm, as I have Asperger's and can be overloaded by the noise, interactions, lights, and other sensory stuff easily. With people I know, I tend to just say something.

So, those of you that think it's rude, try harder at understanding other people.

Being invaded, certainly, but what about a situation like North Korea, except real action and violence instead of just rhetoric? I think there are multiple reasons that justify going to war. However, how that war is conducted strategically makes a huge difference. You can't just waltz in and start fighting, cough Iraq cough cough.

I'm not a history expert. But a demonstration on a visible but unoccupied island would have sufficed, and after that if no surrender, a demonstration on a military target. Instead, we targeted two civilian cities and claimed they were military targets, three days apart. I've heard that some Japanese think WWII was a fair defeat and don't hold a grudge. I'm American, I'm appalled that we dropped those bombs in the first place, and I'm still appalled that after the fact, we still house and store nuclear weapons that could be used again.

www.nuclearsecrecy.com has plenty to say about it, plus a fun little tool to get an idea of what would happen if a bomb hit, say, NY, NY. It's not pretty and really makes you think.

ARIGATO, sensei. But please, don't you dare give us a sequel until you're well rested! I can be patient.

People keep saying 'as long as no one gets hurt', yet it's the sexualization of children, among other things, that lead some people to the conclusion that child pornography, sex abuse don't cause any harm. Children are people, not objects. Manga should reflect that.

That is awesome.

It depends on whether she did it because she's got a personality flaw, or because she's insane. If it's a personality flaw, then she should be locked up for a period of time. If she's insane, she needs help.

Funny, when it comes to physical injury to a child, that this is the response. Yet if someone sexually abused a child, they automatically should be locked up. It's never because they needed help in the first place. People who hurt other people generally do so out of desperation, not maliciousness. Treat the problem: Poor mental health. Not the symptom: The crime.

Except that it's the same thing America tried with black people: Separate but 'equal' definitions of marriage. And look how that separate but equal thing worked.

I don't give a crap what the stats say.

Then you are putting your children in more danger. I was abused when I was three years old, by someone my parents trusted to watch me while they were at work. He was a child care worker. Years later, someone I know abused someone they had befriended because they both shared similar mental illness under the guise of mentoring the young man. A very, very small percentage of child abusers are unknown to the family or victim.

Myth #1: Child sexual abuse occurs only among strangers. If children stay away from strangers, they will not be sexually abused. Fact: National statistics indicate that in approximately 88 percent of the cases, the offender is known to the victim. He/she is usually a relative, family member, family friend, baby-sitter or older friend of the child.

https://www.childadvocacycenter.org/about-child-abuse.php

Because you absolutely CAN convict a pedophile of pedophilia if they act on their urges.

How can you convict someone of having a mental disorder? Your words make no sense. Pedophilia is:

a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.[1][2] As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

Also:

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.[4][5] This use conflates the sexual attraction (pedophilia) with the act of abuse (child molestation), and does not distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[6][7] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder,[5][8] many child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles,[6][9][10] and not all pedophiles molest children.[4][5][11][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

And ask yourself why you are so against responsible parents knowing where danger is a possibility.

I'm not against parents protecting their children. I don't know or care what Megan's law is. I'm against people stigmatizing a disorder and in doing so minimizing those who actually rape children while allowing the stigma attached to the disorder preventing people from getting help before they rape children. I'd really rather society not inadvertently cause children to be raped, and I think most people would agree that it needs to be prevented from happening. My abuse didn't need to happen, and my friend didn't need to abuse the child he hurt. That could have been prevented. I'm surprised that you, having children, are arguing with that point. Again, as I stated before, straight from Wikipedia:

Pedophilia is one of the most stigmatized mental disorders.[56] One study reported high levels of anger, fear and social rejection even towards pedophiles who have not committed a crime.[127] The authors suggested such attitudes could negatively impact child sexual abuse prevention by reducing pedophiles' mental stability and discouraging them from seeking help.[56]

I now know exactly where the pedophiles convicted of crimes live, who they are and what they were convicted for. One of them, his house is very close to my youngest sons school, and I drive past his house every day.

You cannot convict a pedophile of being a pedophile any more than you can convict a schizophrenic of being schizophrenic. Further, look at the people who get arrested in child pornography sting operations: Anyone, from doctors and lawyers to teachers, priests, and law enforcement. Your concern should not be strangers, not according to the data. Not the guy living down the block you barely know, if at all. It's the people who get close to your children, close to you, and earn your trust. The majority of people who offend sexually against minors are people known to both the victim and the family- people they trust.

There are many other things that are much more accurate than the idea of tracking known criminals and stranger danger. Those who seek to spend time alone with your children, those who give them gifts with no apparent reason, the people you interact with that seem alright, but your gut tells you something's off. Those are much better predictors.

That just sends pedophiles underground where they are much harder to trace.

You can't trace pedophiles. You can create a system that keeps track of those who do sex offend. But what will keep track of the person who grew up having attractions to children and told no one about it, because they're scared of what people will think? No one, until you hear about them getting busted.

Sex offenses are preventable, and we need much more focus on getting people help than reacting when they hurt others. The more focus we put on the consequences, the less focus we put on what causes people to do these horrific things.

Pedophilia is not a crime. Sex offenses, child rape, child abuse, child sex abuse- those are crimes. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Should all those suffering from mental disorders have their communities aware of their disorder? No. Should communities be informed when a repeat criminal who victimizes people is released into their midst? Yes. Do all child rapists victimize multiple children? No. Do all those with pedophilia harm children? No.

Lumping all of them into one boat and one definition minimizes what was done to the child, and allows abuse to continue. It also drives pedophiles- those with the disorder- further from help by stigmatizing the disorder and making anyone think that if you have attraction to children, you automatically will offend against children.

It is very true that pedophiles will always have attractions to children. However, they can manage those attractions in a way that both recognizes it as a legitimate feeling (as opposed to pretending it isn't there and doing nothing), and prevent that feeling from going any further than just that. To manage them, they need support. To have support, they need people who understand and won't criticize them just for having feelings. Feelings are not the same as actually harming a child.

Both the Japanese and English Wikipedia pages on pedophilia discuss this same thing in more detail.