yes
Since we’re talking hypothetical, I don’t care if the guy fantasizes about fornicating with goats. Provided that in your hypothetical situation we can somehow guarantee he does not act upon these impulses, I cannot find any reason, either philisophical and practical, not to vote for him.
However, in reality, with what the APA seems to be saying in those cites, I think I’d have to err on the side of caution.
If I knew that he could control his urges, yes,
If I only had his word for it, I would probably vote for someone else.
Absolutely NO WAY, NO HOW!! Also, I would do everything in my power to have this “person” completely censured. Additionally, I would form a “watch” type of organization (theoretically, because they already exist) and would personally stomp the life out of this pervert at the first opportunity. Thanks for giving reasonable people the chance to vent. You must be out of your skull!! ANYONE that attempts to defend the argument on constitutional grounds is a PIECE OF SHIT! signed - your sworn enemy!
Would someone please enlightn me how the APA can sample the thoughts of the population at large and determine that there are no people who think pedophilic thoughts but don’t draw attention to themselves?
Except, how many people do they find through means other than those who have taken action? Door-to-door polling? What robertliguori said. Chances are, if someone does feel such urges, they’re probably not going to be very up-front about it due to the natural reaction of people to such thoughts. The ones who voluntarily go to therapy are most likely the ones who are most drawn to it, and are therefor seeking out therapy in an attempt to prevent such from happening. But if there are people who have it firmly under controll, and know it, it doesn’t seem too likely they’ll be going to therapy for it. That’s the main reason that I find the above a little suspect, because it has the potential to be leaving out an entire sub-group of people that could potentially change the results dramatically.
Not really. But go around and ask a bunch of people you know if they consider recurrant violent thoughts to be a sign of a possible mental disorder. Seems reasonable that at least a fair percentage of them will.
First off, if the guy -were- to be in public office, there’s going to be a lot more scrutiny of his actions than if he were just another average person. And second, I know many people who have what most people would consider sick and/or disturbing fantasies, who would never indulge in them. All things considered, it seems reasonable to me that pedophilic thoughs would likely be quite similar.
Oh, and japatlgt? So nice of you to condemn someone for something they havn’t done. We tend to punish people for what they do, not what they have the potential to do. But then, I guess I’m just a “piece of shit” for expecting the constitution to protect everyone like it says, instead of just the people you like. “Reasonable people,” hah…
Uh, no. Not chance. I don’t think I’ve been conditioned to think anything. I think the pedophile is the lowest of the low. I believe this because children do not have the capacity to defend themselves against these individuals. Say what you want contrary, but you are not changing my mind on that. I do not much care if the candidate has sworn to have never followed through on his “fantasies”. I’m not voting for someone who claims to fantasize about exterminating large numbers of people, either. I want my laws very tight AGAINST pedophilia, and I do not want to elect someone who may have a hand in loosening those laws.
Hmm… I’m writing a war story right now. It’s rather fun, too. And lots of people die in it, even a couple main characters. Guess that blows my chance at running for public office.
Oh, hey, I was also playing Grant Theft Auto 3, too. Searching around for all those kill frenzies, you get lots of money for those. Or just hopping in a police cruiser, turning on the siren, and getting people to drive off the road and hit pedestrians. Or summoning the tank, rolling around, and causing some massive carnage. Does that count?
No. I want to respect the people I choose to represent me. Irrational as it may be, I can’t respect someone who has sexual fantasies about children.
Different context, Phoenix. If you are writing a book, you should be skilled enough to understand differences in context.
I believe the APA cited the large market for child pornograph that exists, the appearance of it on the internet, etc. as indicating that in addition to those who have been caught, or admitted taking some action in response to their pedophilia, there seem to be many others who are candidates. I suppose the act of participating in child pornography would be an indication that molestation now or in the future is also not all that unlikely. I would guess that most mental defects like this have a progression and don’t remain static.
A homemade poll like this really wouldn’t prove much, would it?
I still wouldn’t vote for an admitted pedophile for what I think are good reasons.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a book… More like a bunch of scribblings that seem to resemble a story in appearance 
And actually, I recognize the first example is fairly different, which is why I included the second, which seems a good deal closer (Part of the game’s appeal is in going around killing random pedestrians and blowing up cars). And actually, while the first might not be too good of a comparison, the background behind it might be; Part of the reason I’m writting a war-style story is that I’ve frequently day-dreamed/fantasized about combat and war and fighting, even though A: I also find war and the like to be a fairly bad thing, not exactly something to be glorified as a “good thing,” or something to be hoped for (As an asside, I rather hope that also shows in the story…), and B: Combat and the like really isn’t my thing, wouldn’t want to be a soldier, and definatly don’t want to be getting involved in such if I can help it (Though it seems for some “fantasies”, that doesn’t seem to work as a defence).
Soooo… Given the vaguness of that statement (There “seem” to be people out there who “might”…), I get the impression that no, they’re only dealing with those who have either acted out on their impulses or have voluntarily seeked out therapy. And it still doesn’t address people who feel such an action would be wrong, don’t act upon it, and don’t need or seek out therapy to controll themselves.
Of course, there’s more than one conclusion that can be made off that example, too. Another conclusion could be that, since the APA points out that there’s such a large market for child porn, and a much, much smaller number of people actually molest children, the ratio between people who think pedophilic thoughts and those who actually take action should be very steep. And I’m sure there are many other conclusions that could be drawn from it. The main problem is with the vagueness of that example; It doesn’t give enough to get a fully reasoned and solid conclusion.
So you’re saying there isn’t a fair number of people out there who consider rucurring violent thoughts to be a sign of a mental disorder? A large number of people I’ve run into do. I havn’t looked into it to see if psychologists generally follow this also, but it really wouldn’t surprise me (Maybe you know the APA’s opinion on this?). Personally, I don’t believe it is (Not -that- simple, at least), but many people seem to.
Of course, it seems like many people believe all sorts of stuff is a sign of a mental disorder. If all the things I’ve been told were signs of mental disorders, I should be so mentally damaged as to probably not even be able to breath, much less post messages here (As would most people I know). Then again, I’m sure some of the people who have told me so would be pretty pleased if that were true…
Phoenix-
Given your statement about fantasy, I should clarify. When I said I wouldn’t vote for someone who fantasizes about killing large numbers of people, I’m talking in the genocide range. The scenario you described I personally do not find out of the ordinary, although I am sure that their are those who are much more conservative than I who would. Now, if you tell me that you fantasize about gassing millions to death, I’m not buying your book, and I’m not voting for you either.
Ahhhhh, okay, that makes more sense. Genocide is a bit more than just “killing lots of people,” and in that circumstance, I can agree with that Thoughts of genocide would indicate a pretty significant bias against that group, so that would probably kill my vote, too.
(Well, actually, the story’s background involves the death of a significant percentage of the population of the earth. Like about 2-3 billion. Not exactly genocide, more the result of a previous war getting a little out of hand… And it’s really not a book, honest, just some story I’m scribbling for my friends )