Judge Approves "Big Brother" lawsuit against NBC's Predator

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I don't think death is a punishment, prison for life is, the death penalty is not a deterrent but you can't deny it saves money. I don't agree on the death penalty though.

Like I've said, the death penalty is NOT carried out right. That's why it's not the deterrent it should be. 20 years under protective custody and countless appeals, getting food, shelter and water, at OUR expense, while some veterans sleep in the street and eat out of dumpsters, is NOT the death penalty I refer to. They have a better chance of dying naturally before that. If somebody is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to death, it should be carried out that day, and in a very inhumane manner when a child is victimized. I give you Iraq as an example, where were all these Iraqi nationalists who are attacking our soldiers now, when Saddam was brutalizing them? They all hated him, but were scared, because of his brutality. They did not want their tongues cut out, or to be loaded in to paper shredders.

I end this post with a quote from Col. Kurtz (Brando) and the greatest movie of all time, Apocalypse Now...

I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Erm sorry did i hear that correctly? You think paedophiles can be rehabilitated? Next you will be saying you can make a gay person straight, paedophilia is a sexual drive just like being straight or gay. There is no current way of rehabilitating a paedophile that 'm aware of and i read a lot on this subject.

I agree that you can not change the sexuality of a paedophile any more than you can change the sexuality of a Gay or straight person, but it is not the desire that's the problem, it is the will to act upon that desire in ways that harm others, and that is what can be rehabilitated. If we were to punish everybody that had a desire that could potentially bring harm to somebody we would be punishing most people on earth including you and me. Luckily most people have the self-restraint or fear of reprisals that's required to prevent them from doing harm to others. That is what can be taught and trained, and that is where rehabilitation comes in. There are likely to be many paedophiles that simply do not act on their desire for whatever reason of morality or conscience, it is the ones that act that we hear about. Paedophiles aren't necessarily bad people, it is their actions that define that.

You can read all you like, unless you have the right perspective and creativity to innovate, you are not qualified.

I can't speak for him but i when talking about sex i define maturity as the law. An 18 year old may be utterly immature but the chances are they will handle sex in a very different way to a 12 year old. The reason is as you age your brain phsyically changes and stops at about age 22. At that age it is fully developed.

The law is not infallible, and when it comes to sex, it quite often causes more harm than good.

So maturity for me is about the ability of someone to handle the act of sex which very very few 12 year olds will be able to.

Granted that is generally the case, but I believe the individual is more important than the average, which is why I believe humanity needs to come up with a new way of measuring maturity.

Yes it is, and that's what law is, indiscriminate.

Indeed, I was simply explaining to 27jd how his views were classed as being indiscriminate. I value law's indiscrimination a great deal, however I believe sentencing must reflect the severity of the harm caused, in all cases, indiscriminately. To apply a blanket sentence to all cases regardless of circumstance and severity is effectively discrimination.

reply to post by 27jd

I can't seem to find any posts where that distinction is not understood, and it really seems like you're trying to justify something to yourself. We understand it's NOT pedophilia, however it IS still predatory IMO.

There are plenty of posts that imply that the severity of acts portrayed in this show are comparative to paedophilia. To clarify, most of the people I saw being humiliated on this show were people who needed help, not particularly evil people. I do not sympathise with any abuser (that is a person who has abused), however I do sympathise with people who genuinely need help who have been exploited for the sake of ratings and profit.

It is only as predatory as the creators of the show, predators are predators, I do not make distinction, two wrongs don't make a right. If you pray you pray, don't think you're any better simply because your victims are in your mind moral deviants.

It is very much a valid measure, and with certain rare exceptions, it offers a guideline that I feel must be respected. I don't agree with your explanation, and I get the feeling you are willing to give any "sexually fertile teenager" the benefit of the doubt, sorry if I've pegged you wrong.

I respect any individual's right to self-determination subject to that individual's ability to prove their competence and capacity to make that decision and subject to that decision not bringing any harm or suffering to non-consenting innocent parties.

And even if they are physically mature, there is NO WAY you can judge who is emotionally capable, and who will be damaged by sex with an older man at that young age. That's the age they are supposed to be fumbling around experimenting with boys their own age and experience level.

What if it's a woman and a (young) boy? Men aren't the only paedophiles or abusers.

Taking advantage of young girls who have emotional problems that cause them to seek out older men, is wrong, and again, is still predatory IMO.

Why is a young girl's desire to seek older men automatically an emotional problem? Whether or not it is socially acceptable, it is quite natural and prevalent in the mammalian kingdom, and we are mammals. That doesn't justify anybody's willingness to abuse, but your assumption that such a desire is an 'emotional problem' is quite ignorant. In case of sexual abuse or assault, emotional trauma is more a result of social conditioning and social attitude than it is of the assault itself (not including physical assault). Once again that doesn't justify the act, but it is an important factor in helping the victim.

I feel old men who take advantage of them before they are of legal age, should be jailed at the discretion of the girl's parents, but not killed.

Parents are not qualified judges, and don't always have the daughter or son's best interests in mind, even if they think they do.

It's NOT sex when a young child is involved. It's child molestation. And that very much warrants death.

You've yet to explain how it warrants death. I'm fully aware that that is your personal opinion due to your own mental bias on the subject, however law should never be based on personal opinion or bias, one rule does not serve all. If an innocent victim seeks retribution by death of the assailant and the suffering caused warrants such a reaction, then that is the victim's natural right, it is not your right nor my right.

But if a young girl is soliciting older men she doesn't even know online, she has problems and there are plenty of selfish, sick old f**ks out there ready to compound her problems for their own pleasure.

If a young girl who isn't sufficiently mature or competent is soliciting older men online, her parents are doing a bad job of supervising and re-enforcement with adequate education.

Cont..

reply to post by 27jd

That's wrong. Maybe not pedophilia by definition, but still wrong. They deserve to be jailed and humiliated, so I still support the show. But again, under 13=should be killed.

Humiliation serves no purpose other than gratification of the senseless, it does nothing to help the victims, and it does nothing to make the world a better place. If these people were genuinely evil people with no remorse then it would be a different case, but in my experience they rarely are (baring in mind we're talking about the subjects of the show here).

Are you trying to say young children develop bonds with those who molest them? Sick.

How does that sentence correlate to "To apply death as a blanket punishment for all sex acts involving children under 13 regardless of the effect the act has on the individual, is being indiscriminate."?

Again, not sex. Child molestation. Stop equating the two. It's disturbing.

I'm not, sex with a child and child molestation are two different things. I don't condone or agree with either, but it is important to understand that there is a distinction.

Religion is an entirely different issue and I cannot believe you would compare the two.

I class abuse as abuse.

Religion will generally not haunt an individual for life.

Given adequate support for the victim neither will sexual abuse. Besides I know many people who have suffered at the hands of religious ignorance, and I see a great many people who's welfare is impaired by religious abuse. I don't tolerate abuse of any kind, socially accepted abuse is still abuse.

If the indvidual is a free thinker, they will figure out it's all BS, until then, parents have a right to take their children to whatever church they wish.

Not everybody is granted the privilege of free thought, and parents do not have the right to force archaic beliefs on their children. Children have the right to an education free from bias. If a religion can not survive in the minds of the free, it should not survive at all. People who are brought up in an environment of bias are rarely free, it is much harder to undo the impressions of childhood as an adult.

As long as they don't preach murder of non-believers, it's none of our business.

I believe in protecting the welfare of the innocent and impressionable, so anything that disadvantages or harms a child is my business, that's regardless of law or social stance.

I've never met somebody who was "victimized" and haunted by their parents taking them to church.

I have.

Sure it may be brainwashing, but it helps some people cope with the thought of death, etc. and they need it to feel secure.

There are better ways of helping people cope with the coldness of reality, like re-enforcing them with good education and mental welfare. Filling their minds with false hope and a false sense of security doesn't teach them to be strong. It seems you are ok with abuse so long as it's socially acceptable.

Like I said, free thinkers will always think free.

Even in modern times truly free thinkers are a rarity.

the rest don't want to.

If they are not free thinkers how can it be a a matter of choice?

Totally different then child molestation

Only in that one is socially acceptable and the other isn't.

Originally posted by Gofunk
If you pray you pray, don't think you're any better simply because your victims are in your mind moral deviants.

Okay. So be it. And like I said, crocodiles that hunt humans, end up being killed. They deviate from the natural instincts of crocodiles and become more dangerous. They are predators that become prey because we cannot coexist with them. We may not be better, but we are lookling out fo our own interests, as we should.

I respect any individual's right to self-determination subject to that individual's ability to prove their competence and capacity to make that decision and subject to that decision not bringing any harm or suffering to non-consenting innocent parties.

How is that competence proven? After the fact? Give me a break.

What if it's a woman and a (young) boy? Men aren't the only paedophiles or abusers.

And those women are guilty as well. The boys may not think it was a bad thing, but they do not understand the older woman may, be very "experienced" and put them at risk of STD's, including AIDS. Children do not understand that risk and are not capable of making that decision. Adults are responsible for their own actions.

Why is a young girl's desire to seek older men automatically an emotional problem? Whether or not it is socially acceptable, it is quite natural and prevalent in the mammalian kingdom, and we are mammals.

Yeah, and we all know the wrinkled old lion with it's balls dragging in the dirt gets all the females, right? Nope, they are naturally attracted to youth and verility.

Parents are not qualified judges, and don't always have the daughter or son's best interests in mind, even if they think they do.

As a parent that statement is quite angering. I could give a rat's arse if you think we are not qualified judges, let a sick old man try and interfere in my judgement and he'll find it was a very bad idea.

You've yet to explain how it warrants death.

I already have, for the protection of children and to ensure the cycle of abuse stops.

I'm not, sex with a child and child molestation are two different things. I don't condone or agree with either, but it is important to understand that there is a distinction.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. It doesn't matter if it's just touching or more, under 13=death. The distinction is not important at all, not in my eyes.

Not everybody is granted the privilege of free thought, and parents do not have the right to force archaic beliefs on their children. Children have the right to an education free from bias. If a religion can not survive in the minds of the free, it should not survive at all. People who are brought up in an environment of bias are rarely free, it is much harder to undo the impressions of childhood as an adult.

Well, I'm against organized religion as well. I wish you luck in your battle against it. I will continue on my battle against child molesters, and we can both be content knowing both trying to make the world a better place.

I have.

Well, that must have been one boring church. I know, I've sat through them before as a kid with parents of friends. It sucked but I got over it, they should as well. Tell them to get some real problems.





[edit on 3-3-2008 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd
Okay. So be it. And like I said, crocodiles that hunt humans, end up being killed. They deviate from the natural instincts of crocodiles and become more dangerous. They are predators that become prey because we cannot coexist with them. We may not be better, but we are lookling out fo our own interests, as we should.

That's a bad example, a crocodile killing a human isn't deviating from the natural order at all, it's doing what it was designed to do, kill.

Originally posted by gofunk
What if it's a woman and a (young) boy? Men aren't the only paedophiles or abusers.

The woman in question would be arrested and treated just like the men should be. Teenage boys whilst talking big also don't always understand sex. I admit boys will deal with it better as they view sex differently.

A kid i once knew loved to talk big about sex (he was 13), my then girlfriend (who was 25) hit on him for fun. I was there at the time and she was just joking around and let me tell you, he went pale and stuttered. Boys might talk big but they aren't always as ready as they think so no, being a woman wouldn't change the fact that they are paedophiles trying to get sex from an underage, immature chlid.

Originally posted by gofunk
Why is a young girl's desire to seek older men automatically an emotional problem? Whether or not it is socially acceptable, it is quite natural and prevalent in the mammalian kingdom, and we are mammals.

In the animal kingdom the females tend to go for the most verile (read young and fit) male. I had a lot of female friends at school and i can tell you they like older men becuase they can buy things and take them places in a car. I'm not being mean there it's what girls actually told me.

The 20 year olds they were going out with though should have said that the girl was to young, the reason they don't is because they like having someone around who'll do anything for them and think they're great. IT's a sign of insecurity and in the end it doesn't excuse the fact that they are commiting a crime.

Originally posted by gofunk
Parents are not qualified judges, and don't always have the daughter or son's best interests in mind, even if they think they do.

I don't have kids but that is without a doubt the most silly statement i've seen on this thread. Parents generally do their best for their kids and as they have more life experience tend to also know what their child should and shouldn't be doing. I know we all as kids probably rebelled slightly, it's natural as you're finding your way.

Don't dismiss parents so easily, it looks like a damn tough job and i wouldn't want it, i know if any kids i had turned out anything like me then i'd go grey overnight

Originally posted by gofunk
I'm not, sex with a child and child molestation are two different things. I don't condone or agree with either, but it is important to understand that there is a distinction.

Now this is confusing, do you mean child molestation isn't sex and just other acts? As i'm not sure i'll cover both angles.

Sex with a child is wrong, it's against the law and full stop should mean prison for life. I do however allow what i call the 2 year leway, if you are 16 and have sex with a 14 year old then i can forgive that, you're both still kids at that age.

If sexual molestation is in your mind just touching, kissing etc then again, prison for life. Sorry although it's a lesser crime it is still a crime and very wrong. It's not a great deal less bad than sex with a child and anyone caught doing it should be removed from society. Again though i allow the 2 year leway.

As for your stance that religion hurts people, well i think it depends on the religion. Scientology and lesser cults canbe horrible nasty and completely remove you from society. I have yet to meet anyone severely messed up by christianity, hinduism, catholicism, buddhism, druidism, paganism etc etc. It depends only on how the parents enforce their religion not on the religion itself.

Hey my parents attempted to raise me a christian (they failed) and i'm relatively ok i think and my blue talking penguin agress with me

[edit on 4-3-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
That's a bad example, a crocodile killing a human isn't deviating from the natural order at all, it's doing what it was designed to do, kill.

Um, no it isn't...

Animals generally avoid human villages and such unless they have a problem (old, ill, injured). These are rarities known as rogues. Lions that stay at villages to hunt humans because they are weaker than normal prey. The Tsavo lions of the early 1900s would be a pristine example of this. The shark from 1916 off the coast of New Jersey that killed several people (and inspired Jaws) was thought to have been sick, explaining why it stuck so close to shore.

Regardless of that, the croc above is large for a Nile Crocodile, and if it were in the village, it was likely rogue, as well. This would endanger people, so thus, it was most likely killed out of defense. Nile Crocodiles in most of their range and most of their current extant subspecies are common, not even listed as being endangered. The Madagascar subspecies, which is smaller than the mainland populations, is considered threatened. If the animal was not rogue, it may have been suspected of killing someone from their village, leading to it being killed to be examined.
www.museumofhoaxes.com...

Predatory animals instinctively avoid humans, nature engraves it in them that we are the most dangerous creatures on the planet. But occasionally something snaps in an animal and they realize humans are easy prey, BUT they find out why their instinct tells them to stay away, because they are hunted down and killed, because we cannot coexist, like I said. Much like a man (or woman) that preys on children should be. It was a perfect example.

If we were natural prey, we would lose hundreds of people a day on both coastlines due to shark attacks, hundreds a day along rivers and swamplands due to alligators and crocodiles, etc....

Their diet is diverse. They prey on anything from dragonflies and bats to sharks, antelopes and even buffalo. Although attacks on humans have occurred, most species of crocodilian don't include humans as a food source. In fact, it has been suggested that a person bending down over a water source may resemble an antelope in the eyes of a crocodile and this is why the attacks occur.
www.vanaqua.org...

[edit on 4-3-2008 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd
Predatory animals instinctively avoid humans, nature engraves it in them that we are the most dangerous creatures on the planet. But occasionally something snaps in an animal and they realize humans are easy prey, BUT they find out why their instinct tells them to stay away, because they are hunted down and killed, because we cannot coexist, like I said. Much like a man (or woman) that preys on children should be. It was a perfect example.

If we were natural prey, we would lose hundreds of people a day on both coastlines due to shark attacks, hundreds a day along rivers and swamplands due to alligators and crocodiles, etc....

Sharks do attack humans, the only reason more aren't attacked is because they call people out of the water when there are sharks, some beaches have nets around and the sharks are sometimes confused by surf boards. That's why there aren't more attacks. Why do you think beaches in shark areas often take such procautions? Maybe it's becuase they realise that sharks will attack humans if they're hungry.

I would love to see you test your theory and swim through a crocodile infested lake, then we'd see just how much they avoid you. Same with any other predatory animal, lions, tigers etc.

Humans tend to know the risks and stay away, don't compare paedophiles to animals it's a truly awful example, but hey we can disagree all day on that one. At least we agree on the important issue, paedophiles need to be removed from society for the entirety of their lives.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Sharks do attack humans, the only reason more aren't attacked is because they call people out of the water when there are sharks, some beaches have nets around and the sharks are sometimes confused by surf boards.

What!? Are you serious? Please tell me you're not, the natural world is one of my biggest interests. First, sharks do attack humans on occasion, either due to mistaken identity, or territory protection. You must live in Australia or South Africa, here in the US, there are no shark nets and there are thousands upon thousands of people in the water everyday. California has a high great white population, due to sea lions being protected and their population rise. Again, thousands of pathetically easy humans to prey on EVERYDAY in the water, yet hardly any attacks occur. Because they do not prey on humans naturally. And the surf boards are what make the shark think we ARE sea lions, surf boards make it more likely you will be attacked (although the chance is still VERY slim). I surf, and I've had a HUGE blue shark swim right under me, it wasn't the slightest bit interested.

Read up my friend...

www.elasmo-research.org...

ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com...

That's why there aren't more attacks. Why do you think beaches in shark areas often take such procautions? Maybe it's becuase they realise that sharks will attack humans if they're hungry.

No, those nets do MUCH more harm than good.

Shark nets lining the coast of Australia are doing more harm than good by killing dozens of other marine species, a conservationist study has found.

The 150-metre long shark nets, reaching all the way to the ocean floor, dot the coast line to protect beachgoers from attacks from great white, tiger and bull sharks.

However, a study by the Sydney Aquarium Conservation Fund has found that for every threatening shark caught in the nets, up to 40 harmless marine creatures are trapped, including dolphins and turtles.
www.theage.com.au...

Again, THOUSANDS of tourists in the water EVERY DAY...

Durban, South Africa's most popular holiday city, installed nets in 1952 following a series of shark attacks, several of which were fatal. The city suffered no more serious attacks, but several netless resorts a short way off did. During one horrific period known as "Black December," five people died in shark attacks over a 107-day stretch, from Christmas 1957 to Easter 1958.
news.nationalgeographic.com...

and only FIVE people were killed during the worst period of unfortunate attacks, by what was probably a rogue shark which of course needed to be destroyed because it was hunting humans selectively. But we are NOT their natural prey, and they are NOT just eating machines that eat whatever they encounter.

There are better ways to protect ourselves...

surfing.about.com...

I would love to see you test your theory and swim through a crocodile infested lake, then we'd see just how much they avoid you. Same with any other predatory animal, lions, tigers etc.

Well, thanks. Jeez. I'm glad you would "love" to watch me be attacked and killed, lol. Steve Irwin swam with crocodiles on countless occasions, and wasn't attacked. The irony that he was killed by a freak accident with a non-predatory animal shouldn't escape you. You're being silly though, a single human in their habitat can be seen as a threat by them and they will probably attack to defend their territory, or their young. But we are not their natural prey, and none of the predators you mentioned hunt humans as natural prey. They avoid humans unless there is something worng with them. Hippos are NOT predatory animals, but try and swim in a lake with them, I'd probably rather try my luck with the crocs.

www.oneworldmagazine.org...

www.straightdope.com...

Humans tend to know the risks and stay away, don't compare paedophiles to animals it's a truly awful example, but hey we can disagree all day on that one. At least we agree on the important issue, paedophiles need to be removed from society for the entirety of their lives.

It is not an awful example. Again, I'm not comparing healthy animals that attack humans because of territory, percieved threat, mistaken identity, or even sudden opportunity. I'm comparing pedophiles to rogue animals, that stop hunting their natural prey due to illness, brain damage, or whatever reason, and seek out humans exclusively.

Old and injured tigers have been known to attack humans or domestic cattle and are then termed as man-eaters or cattle-lifters which often leads to them being captured, shot or poisoned.
www.helium.com...

Those animals, like pedophiles, must be destroyed. It's unfortunate, but necessary. Just like I'm not talking about a 21 year old that falls in love with a 17 year old, I'm talking about adults who are attracted to, and seek out children. The comparison is spot on, IMO.

But you're right, we can disagree about analogies all day. It's not important.











[edit on 6-3-2008 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd


Well, thanks. Jeez. I'm glad you would "love" to watch me be attacked and killed, lol.

Lol ok ok i wouldn't like to see you killed of course not, it's not how i meant it. It's just a phrase really the whole love thing at least where i'm from. I love you really

As for the shark nets doing harm, did i ever say they don't? The nets are a terrible idea in my opinion. What i was saying is that they put the nets there to prevent shark attacks, great whites by the way aren't the most aggressive shark at all, they were demonised a great deal by the film Jaws, furthermore one of there biggest prey are seals, which is why we see them attacking surf boards. Tiger sharks on the other hand are very aggressive, they have attacked divers and i know from my brother (who is diver) that when they are diving in waters where there may be tigers, they try and dive where there is cover.

[quoteOriginally posted by 27jd
But you're right, we can disagree about analogies all day. It's not important.



Nope it isn't important but i just won't accept that analogy, don't think we need one anyway. Paedophiles should be gone from society, i have looked up many papers on research about these people and no one has even suggested that they found a cure. I don't think you could ever cure it.

I'm tired of the way child molesters get treated as well. They get a few years in prison and then electronicaly tagged. It's disgusting, they shouldn't have freedom, that tag won't prevent them from finding a child. In fact it may make them more dangerous, they might just grab the nearest child on the street, carry out their sick acts and then kill the child!

All because they can no longer get access to children normally, no sorry life in prison i'm tired of these people being treated with such leniency.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Lol ok ok i wouldn't like to see you killed of course not, it's not how i meant it. It's just a phrase really the whole love thing at least where i'm from. I love you really

I figured as much, just giving you a hard time.

Tiger sharks on the other hand are very aggressive, they have attacked divers and i know from my brother (who is diver) that when they are diving in waters where there may be tigers, they try and dive where there is cover.

Well, tigers eat anything in the water, living things, dead things, metal things, wood things, etc. Not fair to call them aggressive, they're just not picky, lol. Bull sharks are the most aggressive, they have the most testosterone of any animal on earth, so they are sharks on constant roid rage. A bull shark is thought to be the species of shark that went rogue up in NJ and inspired Jaws, because it went quite a ways inland up a river and attacked people, bulls are the only ones that can go into fresh water. Great whites do get a bad rap, they're probably the smartest species of fish and people have started diving with them without cages frequently and the whites interact with them. For a long time after Jaws that was unheard of.

Nope it isn't important but i just won't accept that analogy, don't think we need one anyway.

Fine, whatever, lol. I just don't do the whole 'being wrong' thing that often. But you're right, even a rogue animal that preys on humans deserves more rights than a pedophile. At least they don't know what they're doing is wrong, and do it anyway.








[edit on 7-3-2008 by 27jd]

Sorry for the long delay in my replying work takes up too much of my time

reply to post by 27jd

Okay. So be it. And like I said, crocodiles that hunt humans, end up being killed. They deviate from the natural instincts of crocodiles and become more dangerous.

How is a crocodile killing a human deviation from natural instincts?

They are predators that become prey because we cannot coexist with them. We may not be better, but we are lookling out fo our own interests, as we should.

There is a huge difference between self defence and pre-emptive gratuitous humiliation. We kill crocodiles, we don't indignify or parade them.

How is that competence proven? After the fact? Give me a break.

With adequate structure and social understanding of competence. Granted that will take huge reforms in our current education systems, however simply because you are incapable of judging a person's competence does not mean others are. At the end of the day all people regardless of age or status have the right to self determination, and nobody else has the right to interfere with that. We have a duty to protect the defenceless from harm and the impressionable & naive from corruption, however if a person demonstrates informed judgement and a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of their actions we have no right to prevent them from doing whatever they like so long as it does not infringe upon the same right for others, no matter how immoral we view their actions to be.

And those women are guilty as well. The boys may not think it was a bad thing, but they do not understand the older woman may, be very "experienced" and put them at risk of STD's, including AIDS. Children do not understand that risk and are not capable of making that decision. Adults are responsible for their own actions.

That reads to me as if you are more comfortable with the idea of women abusing boys than you are of men abusing girls. It seems as if your biggest concern when it's a woman with a boy is the risk of STDs, however when it's a man and a girl it's automatic death? Isn't that a bit of a double standard.

Yeah, and we all know the wrinkled old lion with it's balls dragging in the dirt gets all the females, right? Nope, they are naturally attracted to youth and verility.

Actually they go for the most dominant male and the male most capable of protecting the pride, regardless of age.

As a parent that statement is quite angering.

And that is exactly why parents are not qualified as judges. You allow your personal emotion to overrule rational judgement and that is not in the child's best interests. Emotion is self-indulgent, it serves nobody but oneself.

I already have, for the protection of children and to ensure the cycle of abuse stops.

Killing an adequately incarcerated or rehabilitated person does not protect children, and it certainly doesn't stop the cycle, kill one and another pops up. The only way you can stop the cycle is through sufficient education, welfare, and rehabilitation programs.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. It doesn't matter if it's just touching or more, under 13=death. The distinction is not important at all, not in my eyes.

Then I hope you are never involved in the therapy and welfare support of abuse victims.

Well, that must have been one boring church. I know, I've sat through them before as a kid with parents of friends. It sucked but I got over it, they should as well. Tell them to get some real problems.

That's an incredibly ignorant and narrow sighted comment, and one that doesn't portray concern or compassion for the welfare of others. You don't want to make the world a better place, you just want to normalise it to your skewed perspective of morality.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

The woman in question would be arrested and treated just like the men should be. Teenage boys whilst talking big also don't always understand sex. I admit boys will deal with it better as they view sex differently.

I was pointing out this board's pre-occupation with man & girl abuse and it's apparent ignorance to the fact that there are also women who abuse boys. In my experience men who detest child abuse seem to be predominantly concerned with man & girl child abuse and seem more comfortable with woman & boy child abuse, which to me shows that the person is more concerned with complying with social norms than they are about the welfare of the abuse victim.

A kid i once knew loved to talk big about sex (he was 13), my then girlfriend (who was 25) hit on him for fun. I was there at the time and she was just joking around and let me tell you, he went pale and stuttered. Boys might talk big but they aren't always as ready as they think so no, being a woman wouldn't change the fact that they are paedophiles trying to get sex from an underage, immature chlid.

A woman with a 13 year old boy, just like a man with a 13 year old girl, would not be paedophilia. While adolescents are socially categorised as children, they are not children by the laws of nature. Paedophilia is sexual attraction to children.

I don't have kids but that is without a doubt the most silly statement i've seen on this thread. Parents generally do their best for their kids and as they have more life experience tend to also know what their child should and shouldn't be doing. I know we all as kids probably rebelled slightly, it's natural as you're finding your way.

Try looking at life outside of your social class. People on this forum seem highly ignorant to the fact that a great many people do not live in a 2.4 children environment.

You need to understand that a parent's good intention does not always translate into what's best for the child. Parents quite often make decisions based on their emotion rather than rational judgement. Experience alone does not imply understanding, and age does not imply wisdom or experience.

In my experience parents who do their best for their kids are a rarity. Plenty will imply that they're doing their best for their kids, but in reality that quite often means doing what emotion dictates. Even worse there are many parents who have children purely to satisfy their own indulgences without regard to the environment they're bringing the child into.

Don't dismiss parents so easily, it looks like a damn tough job and i wouldn't want it, i know if any kids i had turned out anything like me then i'd go grey overnight

Being a good parent is easy when if you're competent and make the right decisions.

Now this is confusing, do you mean child molestation isn't sex and just other acts?

I mean sex with children is just that, sex with children. Child molestation is the abuse of children through sex or sexual acts. Granted most of the time the first implies the second, but there is a distinction. If a child does not view their experience as bad and does not suffer trauma or mental affliction, you do them no favour by imposing such affliction.

Sex with a child is wrong, it's against the law and full stop should mean prison for life. I do however allow what i call the 2 year leway, if you are 16 and have sex with a 14 year old then i can forgive that, you're both still kids at that age.

While I agree that sex with children is generally harmful to the child, it's 'wrongness' has nothing to do with it's legality. Simply because something is against the law does not mean it is 'wrong' and simply because something is legal does not mean it is 'right'.

Originally posted by Gofunk
With adequate structure and social understanding of competence. Granted that will take huge reforms in our current education systems, however simply because you are incapable of judging a person's competence does not mean others are. At the end of the day all people regardless of age or status have the right to self determination, and nobody else has the right to interfere with that. We have a duty to protect the defenceless from harm and the impressionable & naive from corruption, however if a person demonstrates informed judgement and a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of their actions we have no right to prevent them from doing whatever they like so long as it does not infringe upon the same right for others, no matter how immoral we view their actions to be.

What? I'm sorry but a childs brain is not fully formed. Even if you think they are mature it simply isn't true, children don't proces stress the same way adults do. Many peope say how resilient children are, the reason for that is either they don't udnerstand whats going on and so it passes them by or they develop coping mechanisms. If they are developing those mechanisms then it's a response to perceived harm. A childs brain isn't fully developed and we should protect them agaisnt these people.

Originally posted by Gofunk

And that is exactly why parents are not qualified as judges. You allow your personal emotion to overrule rational judgement and that is not in the child's best interests. Emotion is self-indulgent, it serves nobody but oneself.

To an extent i understand what you mean, but as we're in a free society both in the UK and US then everyone is allowed their opinion. I'll quote Aristotle again "The law is reason free from passion", the emotional responses whilst understanable should be forgotten and we shoudl stick to the logic of it all. Sex with children tends to damage them, we should protect them all.

Originally posted by Gofunk

Killing an adequately incarcerated or rehabilitated person does not protect children, and it certainly doesn't stop the cycle, kill one and another pops up. The only way you can stop the cycle is through sufficient education, welfare, and rehabilitation programs.

I am going to say this very clearly now becuase you don't seem able to comprhend it, you cannot rehabilitate a paedophile. I have read a great deal about this and i've never found one paper that succesfully showed any way to change a paedophiles mind. It is exactly the same as being straight or gay, you cannot change it, it's hard wired into the brain.

All we can do is when one of these people give in to their urges we lock them up for life, they have shown that they cannot control themselves and so we must control them ourselves.

As for understanding paedophiles bringing about change, well i'm sorry but i think you're living ina dream world. Paedophiles cannot be changed, people have tried, even chemical castration hasn't worked. The simple and effective approach is to wait until one of these people commit a crime and then deal with them correctly. You won't prevent the crimes from happening, it's a sexual drive.

Originally posted by Gofunk

I was pointing out this board's pre-occupation with man & girl abuse and it's apparent ignorance to the fact that there are also women who abuse boys. In my experience men who detest child abuse seem to be predominantly concerned with man & girl child abuse and seem more comfortable with woman & boy child abuse, which to me shows that the person is more concerned with complying with social norms than they are about the welfare of the abuse victim.

The reason the board is preoccupied with it is because most paedophiles and chlid molesters are men, but yes if a woman commits the same crime then she should be punished in the same way.

Originally posted by Gofunk
A woman with a 13 year old boy, just like a man with a 13 year old girl, would not be paedophilia. While adolescents are socially categorised as children, they are not children by the laws of nature. Paedophilia is sexual attraction to children.

Erm according to the law if you have sex with anyone under 16 (in this country) you are a paedophile.

Originally posted by Gofunk
Try looking at life outside of your social class. People on this forum seem highly ignorant to the fact that a great many people do not live in a 2.4 children environment.

Try not to be so condescending, i do look outside my class and i am well aware that the 2.4 children family is actually the rare model rather than the rule.

Originally posted by Gofunk
In my experience parents who do their best for their kids are a rarity. Plenty will imply that they're doing their best for their kids, but in reality that quite often means doing what emotion dictates. Even worse there are many parents who have children purely to satisfy their own indulgences without regard to the environment they're bringing the child into.

Well i disagree, most parents i have met are doing their best for their kids, maybe you've had some bad experiences and you're jaded.

Originally posted by Gofunk

Being a good parent is easy when if you're competent and make the right decisions.

Are you a parent? If not then you have absolutely no idea about that. Every parent i've met says how hard it is, they also say they wouldn't change it for the world.

Originally posted by Gofunk

I mean sex with children is just that, sex with children. Child molestation is the abuse of children through sex or sexual acts. Granted most of the time the first implies the second, but there is a distinction. If a child does not view their experience as bad and does not suffer trauma or mental affliction, you do them no favour by imposing such affliction.

Sadly children are not very objective, they are not qualified to judge their experience and may simply say it's fine becuase they are fearful of the adult they've been with. I've spoken to abuse victims, i've known them and they all felt that they were doing something wrong. If someone had asked them though then they wouldn't have let on, they would have just assumed it was their fault.

Originally posted by Gofunk

While I agree that sex with children is generally harmful to the child, it's 'wrongness' has nothing to do with it's legality. Simply because something is against the law does not mean it is 'wrong' and simply because something is legal does not mean it is 'right'.

By wrong i mean it is illegal, it is harmful to the child both psychologically and sometimes physically (depending on the age of the child). You are playing word games with this one, i cannot see how you didn't know what i meant.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

As for your stance that religion hurts people, well i think it depends on the religion. Scientology and lesser cults canbe horrible nasty and completely remove you from society. I have yet to meet anyone severely messed up by christianity, hinduism, catholicism, buddhism, druidism, paganism etc etc.

Once again, try looking outside your social class. Over half the world is plighted and impoverished by religious abuse. The whole of western society was put back at least 800 years by Christianity (see the dark ages), and much of the middle east is kept in depravity by Islam.

I meet plenty of people on a daily basis who's competence and ability to use rational judgement and make informed decisions has been disadvantaged by religion. I see children who have been brought into an unloving environment by religion's anti-abortion 'pro-life at the cost of welfare' attitude. I see people who are forced to suffer due to archaic laws that were created to satisfy religious ignorance. I've met people who have suffered great despair at the hands of religion. People who could not be them selves for fear of discrimination by those around them, because of religion.

All religion is by definition a cult, social acceptance does not make any religion any less of a cult. And all religion by definition is bad, do not mistake religion for faith. Faith is personal belief, religion is the abuse of faith to control others and enforce a minority's agenda upon the majority.

It depends only on how the parents enforce their religion not on the religion itself.

It depends on both.

Hey my parents attempted to raise me a christian (they failed) and i'm relatively ok

Simply because you and I are fine, does not mean everybody is.

reply to post by 27jd


Hungry animals kill indiscriminately, as do those who feel threatened. That first article is either incredibly misinformed or intentionally misleading. Quite often in the wild animals which have no experience of humans do not fear them unless they are naturally shy/cautious, which most large predators high in the food chain are not.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

paedophiles need to be removed from society for the entirety of their lives.

Even if they willingly suppress their sexual desire for children and live normal lives? Sounds awfully like discriminatory eugenics to me.

reply to post by 27jd

It is not an awful example. Again, I'm not comparing healthy animals that attack humans because of territory, percieved threat, mistaken identity, or even sudden opportunity. I'm comparing pedophiles to rogue animals, that stop hunting their natural prey due to illness, brain damage, or whatever reason, and seek out humans exclusively.

Even among animals that frequently kill people, it is exceedingly rare for them to do so exclusively. Wild animals kill indiscriminately. They have tastes and they have regular diets, but deviation from that is not unnatural nor is it indicative of illness. You have a curious habit of thinking something is mentally ill simply because it doesn't conform to your skewed perspective of social norms.

Those animals, like pedophiles, must be destroyed. It's unfortunate, but necessary.

In that case so must you, your attitude and the attitude of those like you infringes upon humanity's ability to progress and develop. But that wouldn't be socially acceptable would it?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Paedophiles should be gone from society, i have looked up many papers on research about these people and no one has even suggested that they found a cure. I don't think you could ever cure it.

Like I explained in an earlier post, it's not about curing paedophilia, it's about preventing a person's sexual desire from bringing harm to others. A paedophile that does not abuse children causes no harm to society. I also strongly believe the severity of a paedophiles desires can be mitigated by establishing adequate structure and equality during childhood and allowing for sufficient outlets that do not bring harm to others. Unlike sexuality and attraction, sexual drive can be mediated because sexual drive is hormonal.

All the talk about pedophilia in this thread is off-topic anyway.

This show always has the "bait" posing as someone in their mid-teens.
That's way too old for a pedophile.

The definition of "pedophile" is someone attracted to pre-teen children.
Not teens.

People looking to hook up with teenagers may be irresponsible, but they certainly aren't "pedophiles."

As for this show, it's creepy and Orwellian - don't get me started...

It reminds me of "The Running Man" for some reason.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

What? I'm sorry but a childs brain is not fully formed. Even if you think they are mature it simply isn't true, children don't proces stress the same way adults do. Many peope say how resilient children are, the reason for that is either they don't udnerstand whats going on and so it passes them by or they develop coping mechanisms. If they are developing those mechanisms then it's a response to perceived harm.

Although there's an average, everybody develops differently. In a developed and progressive society, the individual's right is far more important than the average.

A childs brain isn't fully developed and we should protect them agaisnt these people.

As I said: "We have a duty to protect the defenceless from harm and the impressionable & naive from corruption".

I'll quote Aristotle again "The law is reason free from passion", the emotional responses whilst understanable should be forgotten and we shoudl stick to the logic of it all.

Exactly, which is why parents are not qualified judges.

Sex with children tends to damage them, we should protect them all.

Indeed we should. We should protect all innocent and defenceless people from harm by the hands of those who would take advantage. Regardless of age or social status.

I am going to say this very clearly now becuase you don't seem able to comprhend it, you cannot rehabilitate a paedophile.

The lack of comprehension in this case is not mine. As I have clearly stated repeatedly in previous posts, I make no implication that paedophilia itself can be rehabilitated. I don't believe it needs to be. It is a person's will to harm others that (in general) can be rehabilitated.

I have read a great deal about this and i've never found one paper that succesfully showed any way to change a paedophiles mind. It is exactly the same as being straight or gay, you cannot change it, it's hard wired into the brain.

Just as psychology makes the distinction that paedophilia is not a mental disorder so long as it does not impact a person's ability to function socially and does not cause the person distress, the law must make distinction that paedophilia is not a crime so long as a person does not behave in ways that brings harm or suffering to others.

Would you rape a woman simply because you are attracted to her?

All we can do is when one of these people give in to their urges we lock them up for life, they have shown that they cannot control themselves and so we must control them ourselves.

Most people show lack of restraint or self-control at some point during their lives, just as most people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and improve their behaviour for the benefit of others. Granted there are exceptions, but that is exactly the reason why I believe sentencing should be specific to each individual case.

Understanding a person's ability to learn from their mistakes and improve their behaviour is an important part of modern law.

As for understanding paedophiles bringing about change, well i'm sorry but i think you're living ina dream world.

I disagree, sure I'm an idealist but I also understand the importance of innovation. I base my beliefs on things I can see a solution to. Simply because you are incapable of finding a solution does not mean others can't. Reform and progress through out history has generally come from those who are willing to look at things from an alternative angle, unless you're willing to give up all the benefits you are afforded from progression, please don't discriminate against those who strive for progress. Or should we all just give up because our predecessors were less competent?

I find it ironic that a person quoting Aristotle is discriminating against philosophical thought.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

The reason the board is preoccupied with it is because most paedophiles and chlid molesters are men.

Most in the media perhaps.

Erm according to the law if you have sex with anyone under 16 (in this country) you are a paedophile.

Laws of nature.

Try not to be so condescending, i do look outside my class and i am well aware that the 2.4 children family is actually the rare model rather than the rule.

If you don't want me to be condescending don't apply your experiences and prosperity as a rule of thumb for all people. I have no tolerance for ignorance.

Well i disagree, most parents i have met are doing their best for their kids, maybe you've had some bad experiences and you're jaded.

Like I said, try looking outside of your social class. Although I would argue that bad parenting exists across all classes, it seems people from more prosperous backgrounds seem more ignorant to the fact.

Are you a parent? If not then you have absolutely no idea about that. Every parent i've met says how hard it is, they also say they wouldn't change it for the world.

I am not a parent, for the very reason that I understand the importance of establishing a stable and advantageous environment before I give in to instinct. I have experience of bad parenting and I have experience of good parenting. I would argue that the reason the parents you speak to find being a good parent difficult is because they have kids when they aren't ready. Parenting will always have it's obstacles and difficulties, but being a good parent has nothing to do with how difficult children can be.

Sadly children are not very objective, they are not qualified to judge their experience and may simply say it's fine becuase they are fearful of the adult they've been with.

What people say isn't important, it's what they think and feel that's important.

I've spoken to abuse victims, i've known them and they all felt that they were doing something wrong.

Which is clearly something that needs to be dealt with, because they weren't doing something wrong.

If someone had asked them though then they wouldn't have let on, they would have just assumed it was their fault.

People who rely on what's said have no business in mental welfare.

By wrong i mean it is illegal, it is harmful to the child both psychologically and sometimes physically (depending on the age of the child). You are playing word games with this one, i cannot see how you didn't know what i meant.

I know exactly what you meant. I'm simply stating Law is not a measure of right or wrong. Law can be a measure of correctness in relation to society's norms, but it will never define what is right and wrong, therefore the use of the words 'right' or 'wrong' in relation to law is incorrect unless the discussion is about the morality of the law itself.