NAMBA is another issue entirely. If an adult male acts on a desire to have sexual contact with a little boy, or even an adolescent, they are harming another person. The very act is harmful. The same thing goes for all pedofiles and rapists. This would also include psychological and physical abusers, cleptomaniacs, arsonists and any others whose differences involve directly harming others. These differences, whether neurological or the product of mental illness, harm others. To include them in diversity without qualification is to deny others the right to exist without harm. For me, that’s unacceptable.

However, we have a tendency as a society to de-humanize these individuals. That is problematic to a diversity-conscious view. Whatever they’ve done, they’re still people. They’re subject to the laws and punishments of society after they’ve committed a crime; but they should not be subject to such actions prior to committing a crime.

For example, if a man rapes or attempts to rape a child (girl or boy, doesn’t matter), that men should be tried and if convicted he should be put in jail. (Hopefully for a very long time.) When that man is up for parole, the parole board should consider the likelihood of him committing such an act in the future. If it is deemed likely, then he should not be let out of state or federal custody.

On the other hand, if we get a test (genetic, brain scan, whatever) that says 90% of the people with a specific result commit pedofilia, it is not ethical to take all people with that result into custody and keep them off the streets. It is not ethical for those results to become public knowledge. The reasons would be: 1) the test does not indicate what has been done but a tendency, so the people are being jailed for who they are; 2) if the results are accurate 10% do nothing wrong, and are thus innocent; 3) science is inherently imperfect and any such test would be misused and the results may be highly biased/inaccurate in the first place.

Thus, it is a balancing act. While society has a need to and a right to protect the people therein from those who do harm, it does not have a right to do so by harming those who have done nothing wrong. At the same time, all people deserve to be treated as human beings, even those who have committed heinous criminal acts. This is not an argument against capital punishment or imprisonment, but argument against de-humanizing people and saying their rights do not matter because of who they are or who we think they might be.

That, at least, is my take on the issue.

This is where I am conflicted and confused. This needs to be discussed alot more. This man says he and his mind configuration should be in neurodiversity. http://www.sociopathworld.com/ I believe the ABFH said yes. What if nambla claims the same thing? Where is the stopping point? Should someone’s terrible moral behavior and criminal activity be a valid mindset that is a part of ND that should be acceptable in society?