Greece Recognizes Pedophilia, Pyromania, Kleptomania As Disabilities

[Martinus]

Also, I find it offensive that fetishism is considered a disability. Fucking Greeks.

I find it offensive that you seem to think that the compulsion to commit criminal acts is simply a "fetish".

The article mentions fetishism as another of the disabilities listed, you human turd.

[Martinus]

This must be a mistake. 

That's what the EU said when they saw Greece's budget.

[Razgovory]

Also, I find it offensive that fetishism is considered a disability. Fucking Greeks.

I find it offensive that you seem to think that the compulsion to commit criminal acts is simply a "fetish".

The article mentions fetishism as another of the disabilities listed, you human turd.

You'd support any crime or moral depravity so long it kept you rolling in toes and heels.

[garbon]

I don't see such an issue. Pedophiles can't help their desires. Its just unlike more savoury fetishes their quirk happens to be very harmful. Hence it is a disability.

Though Greece really should have more important things to be worrying about...

Disabled means that you lack the ability or are limited in your ability. These individuals are disabled because they lack the ability to obey the law?

[jimmy olsen]

What about people who light shit on fire, or steal things?

Pyromania is in the topic title.
I have certainly heard of people who are compulsive stealers.

Pyromania while listed in the article as one of the disabilities added, was put in the title by me.

[Admiral Yi]

The tax evaders lobby needs to get to work.  Once that compulsion is recognized the Greek saga will be complete.

[Josquius]

Disabled means that you lack the ability or are limited in your ability. These individuals are disabled because they lack the ability to obey the law?

Yes.
They have compulsions to break the law. I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent for dealing with such people. e.g. as I've said folk who can't help but steal even though they don't need to.
Really, paedophillia does perfectly well fit the definition of a disability in my book. It is a deviation from the norm which is undesirable and leads the law breaking and other nastyness. Paedophiles can't help what they're attracted to, they certainly can control to an extent whether they act on their desires of course but..well just imagine you're in a country where being gay is deemed undesirable (not saying its the same thing of course, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm wherin nobody gets hurt and fun is had by all so its not a disability), it would be pretty hard to repress yourself your whole life. With state support though you would stand a better chance.

[11B4V]

 

The tax evaders lobby needs to get to work.  Once that compulsion is recognized the Greek saga will be complete.

[garbon]

Yes.
They have compulsions to break the law. I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent for dealing with such people. e.g. as I've said folk who can't help but steal even though they don't need to.
Really, paedophillia does perfectly well fit the definition of a disability in my book. It is a deviation from the norm which is undesirable and leads the law breaking and other nastyness. Paedophiles can't help what they're attracted to, they certainly can control to an extent whether they act on their desires of course but..well just imagine you're in a country where being gay is deemed undesirable (not saying its the same thing of course, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm wherin nobody gets hurt and fun is had by all so its not a disability), it would be pretty hard to repress yourself your whole life. With state support though you would stand a better chance.

That's exactly where I hoped you weren't going with that gay bit.  However, you seem to draw a weird line. In a country where being gay is illegal, how is that not a disability? Make it more broad - being a woman from a western culture, how is that not a disability when visiting a country that expects women to bundle up and stay separate from men?

Also, why should people who break crimes qualify for benefits? Not to mention that by labeling it a disability, you are basically giving them a cop out as to they they committed a crime. It is not the case that everyone who falls into the camps labelled in the news article can't help themselves from committing crimes.

[Josquius]

Historically when homosexuality was illegal in the UK I believe it was counted as a disability. I certainly recall the story of Turing and the 'treatment' he received.

Why should people who commit crimes get benefits?
Well, two points.
1: Not everyone who is attracted to kids necessarily acts on it. Many I would imagine actively fight it. Giving these people support to avoid breaking the law could only have good results.
2: Helping crooks who have compulsions to re-offend to fight said compulsions reduces the chance of them breaking the law again.

And I don't believe "My disability made me do it" ever gets people totally off the hook. It does however get them help in addition to their prison sentence.

[garbon]

Historically when homosexuality was illegal in the UK I believe it was counted as a disability. I certainly recall the story of Turing and the 'treatment' he received.

WTF? Why are you citing that as a positive thing? That's a prime example of ridiculousness.

Why should people who commit crimes get benefits?
Well, two points.
1: Not everyone who is attracted to kids necessarily acts on it. Many I would imagine actively fight it. Giving these people support to avoid breaking the law could only have good results.
2: Helping crooks who have compulsions to re-offend to fight said compulsions reduces the chance of them breaking the law again.

That's a matter of simply providing a support system for those who need it - and doesn't require the false label that one is disabled. Battered women or rape victims can seek out assistance but you wouldn't say they suffer from a disability on that basis alone.

And I don't believe "My disability made me do it" ever gets people totally off the hook. It does however get them help in addition to their prison sentence.

Have you heard about clauses on the basis of heat of the moment? Not entirely off the hook, no, but it is a mitigating factor.  Besides, once again, you can establish that someone is a pedophile and give them assistance without classing them in with those with actual disabilities like learning disabilities, being unable to walk etc.

I wonder are gamblers, alcoholics, and unrequited lovers disabled? Though they don't necessarily involve crimes, all of them are stricken with urges that they can't control.

Are rapists disabled?

[Josquius]

WTF? Why are you citing that as a positive thing? That's a prime example of ridiculousness.

Where on earth did I say it was in any way a good thing?

That's a matter of simply providing a support system for those who need it - and doesn't require the false label that one is disabled. Battered women or rape victims can seek out assistance but you wouldn't say they suffer from a disability on that basis alone.

Because they need support on account of something that happened to them, not due to what they are.

Have you heard about clauses on the basis of heat of the moment? Not entirely off the hook, no, but it is a mitigating factor.  Besides, once again, you can establish that someone is a pedophile and give them assistance without classing them in with those with actual disabilities like learning disabilities, being unable to walk etc.

I wonder are gamblers, alcoholics, and unrequited lovers disabled? Though they don't necessarily involve crimes, all of them are stricken with urges that they can't control.

Yep, it can be a mitigating factor. But I believe only if they agree to get treatment? And of course the crime concerned is so bad that I doubt it would mitigate too much.

You could do it without classing them as disabled yes but it is much easier to do and is more likely to happen if they are classed as disabled. Leave it open for question and my guess is very few would get help and as a result there would be more of their crime of choice taking place.

Are rapists disabled?

Some may well be.

[garbon]

Where on earth did I say it was in any way a good thing?

I cited that line of thinking as a troubling place to go to and then you turn around and show that at one point gayness was counted as a disability. If you are suggesting that criminal identities should count as disabilities, you can't then be against that previous labeling of gayness as a disability and be consistent.

Because they need support on account of something that happened to them, not due to what they are.

Sounds like linguistic convenience. How is a rape victim any less of a rape victim now then a person who has been determined to enjoy arson is a pyromaniac. If you are going to identify a person as a category then rape victim is as much of an identity as pyromaniac. After all, both are aspects of a person's life - just as much as we can speak of a red headed person's identity.  Seems like it would be even better to label the rape victim as disabled over the pyromaniac - as the former is likely an innocent who was unduly harmed rather than the latter who was participatory in their crime.

You could do it without classing them as disabled yes but it is much easier to do and is more likely to happen if they are classed as disabled. Leave it open for question and my guess is very few would get help and as a result there would be more of their crime of choice taking place.

Has it been shown that the crimes that now get you the disability benefits actually are less likely to happen?  And even if that's the case, why are they a priority over batter woman, rape victims, etc.? Why are people complicit in their failings just as important or more important that innocents?

Some may well be.

What determines that?

[Josquius]

I cited that line of thinking as a troubling place to go to and then you turn around and show that at one point gayness was counted as a disability. If you are suggesting that criminal identities should count as disabilities, you can't then be against that previous labeling of gayness as a disability and be consistent.

Homosexuality was a crime because people in the past were ignorant fucktards..
I can't really see a future where pedophilia is accepted and they look back on us as barbarians for daring to suggest adults can't take advantage of kids whatsoever way they choose.

Sounds like linguistic convenience. How is a rape victim any less of a rape victim now then a person who has been determined to enjoy arson is a pyromaniac. If you are going to identify a person as a category then rape victim is as much of an identity as pyromaniac. After all, both are aspects of a person's life - just as much as we can speak of a red headed person's identity.  Seems like it would be even better to label the rape victim as disabled over the pyromaniac - as the former is likely an innocent who was unduly harmed rather than the latter who was participatory in their crime.

Except the victim is just someone who had something happen to them. As a result perhaps they are traumatised and have developed mental troubles but then they're classified as disabled under those, not purely for their victim status.
If someone is a pyromaniac though...well that is their mental trouble. Maybe it came about due to a childhood trauma, who knows. But it is the end result.

Has it been shown that the crimes that now get you the disability benefits actually are less likely to happen?  And even if that's the case, why are they a priority over batter woman, rape victims, etc.? Why are people complicit in their failings just as important or more important that innocents?

There are certainly standard treatments for pyromania. I doubt this would be so if they didn't at least sometimes work.
And who said they are a priority?- though prevention is always better than cure.

What determines that?

Shrinks.