The same way people find out everything else to do with murders and all that stuff? Forensics? Etc...

Debatable, depending on there actions. But if you want to offer help to someone who murders and abuses kids, then you are a very strange person.

The easy way is almost always killing people, stomping or rights we westeners consider the most important thing when treating with a human, but if you go by this instead of promoting sexual education and education as a whole, even if you stop AIDS(which is highly unlikely), another problem will still be present.

That's  an absurd thing to say. You can't just say that anyone who legitimately feels different than you on remediation is a very strange person.

Do I feel like they should be punished? Yes, with every fibre of my being. Believe me, I do. Are they likely to have something seriously wrong with themselves? Probably. I mean, we don't know the lives these people have had. Perhaps if, in some cases, we had had the same life we possibly could have turned out the same?

But I do agree with you to some extent. To a degree it may depend on their actions, though I'd put far more weight into their reasons.

Anyhow, on topic: I'm with Kasz on this one; BBC has every right to debate this... though I certainly don't think it'd much of a debate...

As much as I detest violent homophobia, I'm with the BBC on this one. What Uganda is doing is horrific and deplorable, but that doesn't mean the BBC aren't entitled to start a debate about this. The debate will hopefully be one sided against Uganda on an open forum anyway. The only issue I would have is the BBC potentially breaking OFCOM guidelines on political neutrality, but even that issue is remote.

...

This reminds me of a situation that occurred at Oxford University a few years back. The Oxford University debating society decided to have a debate about the whether the holocaust happened. Obviously the holocaust did happen, the evidence is abundant. But they invited a holocaust denier to chair the side who were debating the notion that the holocaust never happened.

This story caused an outrage in the media, many papers and TV networks condemned the debate. But the thing is it was a perfectly acceptable topic to debate about, regardless of how morbid it is. The papers were condemning the fact that they had allowed a holocaust denier to argue the notion that the holocaust never happened. But again, this is the idea of the debate; without an opposing argument it's not a debate, it's just people agreeing.

I agree with what you say...but where are you gonna find someone that can defend with a straight face in the Western world that executing homosexuals is OK?

Nick Griffin. The man is scum, he has said many times that he thinks homosexuals are unnatural and their behaviour is "socially deviant". I reckon I could guarantee that Nick Griffin would support executing homosexuals based on his rather notorious views. There are always bound to be the 0.1% of people which just have skewed views of the world like he does. Luckily though the vast majority of people see homosexuality in a clear light.

Anyway, that statement I wrote was to highlight how people think that some topics are too "taboo" for debate, like the holocaust denial like the example I gave, or Uganda executing homosexuals like in this thread.

I ask the question, can a debate be too taboo?

No it isn't and yes he can. If you want to help a pedo fix their 'daddy issues' that's fine but you can do it while they await a lethal injection.

OT: BBC Uganda should debate the issue if it's relevant in Uganda. No, homosexuals shouldn't be executed.

I've always wondered what people think gives them the right to just pass judgement on others like this.  People feel better about themselves by making others look worse. In fact, if someone else is so bad they have to die, and you are different from them, well that's the ultimate justification for your existence. It goes like this, because they deserve to die and you are different from them, you deserve to live. The pedophiles imperfection, and your lack of that imperfection makes you look closer to perfect. It's a question of mental survival, if you allow yourself to believe that you have anything in common with them, then your right to live could also be brought into question. I guess old Joshua himself said it best "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Of course these days there would be plenty of people chucking rocks in that scenario. . .

By the by, I am not in favor of pedophilia. I am in favor of chemical castration as the last chance effort.

Well that was a constructive retort...

What gives me the right to pass judgement on baby rapists? Erm, let's see, what about the fact that they RAPE BABIES!!!

Chemical castration as last chance effort? No, let's make execution a last effort and castration the first.