Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
It's a bit different with drunk persons because they chose to become drunk. Pedophiles did not choose to be pedophiles.

Now, before you go off on this irrelevant tangent again, please note that I was arguing about the mind-altering effect that alcohol has. Or any drug for that matter. Take PCP if you want a more serious example.

I mean, how would you look upon a person who became drunk/intoxicated not of his own choosing? Can be done by hiding alcoholic substances in other drinks, like vodka in apple juice. And who then caused an accident due to being drunk? Are those people really still responsible for what they did?
No, no, no. You are conflating action with for want of a better word disease.

An alcoholic probably didn't choose to become an alcoholic, a paedophile (by impulses) probably didn't choose to become a paedophile. But a drunk chose to drink. A child abuser chose to abuse the child.

I met an alcoholic once who hadn't had a drink in over 40 years! Sadly he's no longer with us, but he would still tell people he was an alcoholic - once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. An alcoholic doesn't need to drink, someone with paedophilic urges doesn't need to abuse children. As for your accident example, someone who causes one is responsible yes. The only time I'd view things differently is in a date-rape style scenario, where someone else has drugged another person against their will.

Being attracted to children but never acting on that impulse is not actually illegal. We don't have thoughtcrimes. Any criminal activity is an activity they chose to do.