Worst child abuse in history - dont read if easily upset

Originally posted by metamagic

Originally posted by A curious cat

This man has abused and raped children, he has convictions and now he has been caught for possessing, making and distributing child pornography. You actualy think that we are not putting the abused children first? He is an abuser! And you are a fool!!!

Maybe you should read the article cited before you make these kinds of erroneous statements. He was not caught making porn, he downloaded it and, probably, shared it. Where was the porn made? Lets go back to the original article. news.sky.com...

Metamagic - you think it is OK that the paedophile "downloaded it and, probably, shared it." ?

And again the point you, and other certain members who are defending that paedophiles actions, have not addressed is -

Originally posted by A curious cat

"Just because they view child pornography?" IT IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME!! Why can't you people see this? These children are not willing actors, enjoying their performance! Your argument is ridiculous, stop trying to defend them. There is no defence!

Duplicate post deleted.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Marsrising]

reply to post by Marsrising


I understand the sentence and i find it horrifying, he should get life, meaning life. I'm tired of these people being released back into society when it's shown they can't be cured, it's shown they reoffend, it's shown they're a danger to any child once they have acted upon their desires once they will do so again.

As i said, i give up on the court system in this country.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Marsrising

 

I understand the sentence and i find it horrifying, he should get life, meaning life. I'm tired of these people being released back into society when it's shown they can't be cured, it's shown they reoffend, it's shown they're a danger to any child once they have acted upon their desires once they will do so again.

As i said, i give up on the court system in this country.

You stated that you thought he would serve 2-5 years but in fact he has only been sentenced to 2 years NOT 5 years. That was why I explained the sentence. And for general info for others reading the thread.

Originally posted by Marsrising

Metamagic - you think it is OK that the paedophile "downloaded it and, probably, shared it." ?

And again the point you, and other certain members who are defending that paedophiles actions, have not addressed is -

Originally posted by A curious cat

"Just because they view child pornography?" IT IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME!! Why can't you people see this? These children are not willing actors, enjoying their performance! Your argument is ridiculous, stop trying to defend them. There is no defence!

Ironically enough, even though you totally made up the part about me defending pedophiles (not a single word in my posts is in defense of what this person did) you actually and probably quite unintentionally agree with me.

The thesis of my posts is that no one is doing anything to help the victims but are deluding themselves into thinking that by imprisoning this old man they have somehow "saved" the victims. My point is that we didn't save anyone because the victims are still being abused. Why? Because no one is doing anything for the victims but instead are patting themselves on the back for catching a person that was not involved in the abuse. That is what has to change, we need to realize that these sort of enforcement efforts are not solving the problem -- we are not rescuing or protecting the victims. I am arguing that we need to do more and we need to do it better.

Read my posts before you comment on them, it may keep you from looking foolish when you argue against things you just made up. I have never once defended pedophiles or what this man did. I have only argued that focusing solely on him does not do one whit of good for the victims and yet we act like we have saved children form abuse.

We have failed the victims at this point, and all of us, including you, should be ashamed of that fact and resolve to demand that law enforcement find these victims and ensure that their abusers -- who appear to be getting off scott free -- are never able to abuse again; and also to ensure that we pressure our lawmakers and enforcement agencies to commit to this objective, develop effective strategies for doing so and provide the resources necessary to eliminate this genocide of childhood.

You rage is misdirected. By continuing to rant against those who ask "But what about the victims!" you do those children a grave disservice. Perhaps punishing this old man will make you feel morally superior and let you strut around proudly and full of yourself, but as you do so, remember that the victims are still out there. I would like to see as much effort being put into helping them as is being put into punishing this insignificant piece of human flotsam. My post is not about him, it is about how we are not being effective in ending the abuse -- and I have to speak up on that point.




[edit on 29-6-2008 by metamagic]

only 2 yrs

i challenge any1 to tell me it has nothing to do with skin color

Metamagic, you're right that police should try and find the victims in the pics and I'm sure they are. But it isn't easy and it necessarily has to start with finding a culprit first.

I just want to be clear.

So, despite previous convictions of rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault against children, and the fact that he "pleaded guilty to 50 counts of distributing, making and possessing hundreds of indecent images of children between January 11 and March 6 this year," you don't believe that this person has committed the actual act of making the porn, correct? Do you also believe that this man has not re-offended after his convictions and just hasn't been caught?

It's true the article doesn't specifically say he made porn but neither does it exclude it. Of the 50 counts there could be several of making the porn, do you agree? So, we don't know either way.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the person either has re-offended since his convictions, or that he was planning to do so.

In any case the guy has to be punished, whether or not we find the actual victims in the photos. I hope we do but in the meantime we can make damn sure that this particular individual will never again hurt another child. We have the power to do this, and I believe a right to do this for the common good.

reply to post by optimus fett


This is the most sickening crime that there is. I am not suprised however that a man could think of doing such a thing. Did you know that in Africa there are medicine ment who tell men who have aids that if they have sex with a baby they will be cured? SICKENING!!! I think that pedophiles should NOT be put to death. I believe that these sick human beings, if you want to call them that, should be pput into a cage four feet by four feet, set in public, and people should be allowed to poke them with sticks and spears. A fitting punishment as long as they are not allowed to die. Sick, Sick people.

Originally posted by TheComte


It's true the article doesn't specifically say he made porn but neither does it exclude it. Of the 50 counts there could be several of making the porn, do you agree? So, we don't know either way.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the person either has re-offended since his convictions, or that he was planning to do so.

If you re-read my posts, I think you will find that we are actually almost on the same page.

Yes, it is true that the article didn't explicitly state that he made the porn, but it also didn't explicitly state that he didn't kill puppies, so that failure to exclude cannot be taken as a tacit admission that it happened. But realistically, the fact that the images he downloaded were identified as being from Eastern Europe and North America certainly suggests that he is not the originator of the porn. I would also tend to think that if he made the porn, then that would probably have been newsworthy enough to state.

We also have to be careful about our terminology. Legally, those who copy porn are considered to have created it. I think this is a poor definition since it lessens the heinous nature of the original creation of the porn.

Child porn is a result of child abuse and is not the abuse itself, just as a fever is the result of an infection and not the infection itself. The fever tells you the infection is there but only treating the fever does nothing to treat the original infection. By saying that making a copy of child porn is "creating it" (true we created a copy) we have now started to confuse the fever with the infection. We now elevate the purveyors who look at porn to the same level the sadistic psychopaths that commit the actual abuse and actually create the porn initially. In response, we put our resources into catching purveyors instead of the actual abusers. Ideally we should do both, but we live in a world of limited budgets and need to set priorities.

Why I see this as dangerous is that resources are then focused away from finding the abusers who are responsible for originally producing the porn onto those who view it -- if we could catch both, it would be great. But we do not, we avoid doing the much more difficult task of finding the abusers to do the easier task of finding the purveyors of the porn. We treat the fever instead of the infection and claim the patient cured.

This is a losing strategy because all of the attention is focussed on the purveyors, who are usually pretty easy to catch, and massive publicity makes everyone believe that we have eliminated the underlying abuse. Stories like the one that started this thread show that we are being ineffective in preventing and stopping child abuse by focusing almost exclusively on porn because I have seen innumerable posts that seem to suggest the authors believe killing this guy will stop abuse. How?

By the way, the reason that I am so passionate about this is that I have worked with many of these victims after they have become adults and know their stories And I have worked with those who try and identify and rescue those who are victims, and they are continually seeing their resources budgets and support reduced or diverted to high publicity projects to crack down on kiddie porn. Ironically, a substantial amount of that porn dates back to the 1970s -- highly unlikely we are going to find those abusers thirty years after the fact.

I am not defending kiddie porn, but we have to remember that it would not exist if we could eliminate the underlying abuse -- but cracking down on kiddie porn will not stop the abuse. I believe that as long as there is kiddie porn and a demand for it, it is a symptom of a sickness in our society that we have not adequately addressed. The porn is not the problem, it is the measure of a problem.








[edit on 29-6-2008 by metamagic]

Originally posted by Marsrising

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Although absolutely sickening, killing a man for possessing pictures is extreme and shows your own blood lust more than the defendant's.

How the hell can you defend anyone possessing pictures of babies being raped, what kind of sick person are you?

THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR THAT WHATSOEVER.

And you state that the people in this thread are WORSE than that pervert. You are insane.

Actually, he displays the typical kind of thought process I have seen among many who are the product of our idiotic public school system and are so supportive of the Atheist agenda to advance this kind of morality using drawinian evolution.

There are exceptions to the rule but the distinction made as to the kind of moral decay and asinine understanding, compassion for this kind of sexual deviance can not go without pointing out the monumental hipocrisy inherant in this and many other Atheists where a very defined stereotype begins to fit hand to glove and why we need to take a strong look at the kind of garbage people like this defend.

On one hand being clever enough to at least say he doesn't condone the actions of this sick puppy but lets take a closer look shall we.

I first noticed something was off about the post he had removed in ashley's avatar thread and then I read the post that had your chin hitting the floor and was like you, wondering how anyone can say such a thing.

Then again I consider things like this from a differen't perspective.
You see this is the double standard that this social darwinist jumped to conclusions right away blurting out , "Genetics have nothing to do with this"

That's funny?? I thought it did according to Darwinists?
I mean I just had a post edited almost completely out for saying this very issue would take place and people who were arguing for the rights of homosexuals using genetics as the basis they can't help themselves would be carried over into such acts like this.

Why do I think that?

Well I have been researching Atheism for 2 years and if you peruse most atheist websites, you will find a LOT about sex and sexual deviance. The reason Raso blurted out the fact that genetics had nothing to do with this is so that it can't be argued in the reverse of other stands he takes on sexuality where genetic excuses for his argument suit him.



See Raso believes the genetic argument works for gays but not with people like this pedophile?

Well this is what we have been worried about and the double standards for attacking the pedophile priest,,

while they enlist the services of the ACLU to defend the rights of NAMBLA, and show signs of compassion for vermon like this scumbag, is what Darwinists end up getting confused about and what we have always said about them not having a clear cut basis for morality.



In fact, if you took the time to investigate it, you see not only are many of them showing a disturbing sympathy behind the guise of "reasonableness", they argue using the same post modernist circular semantics to decriminalize such acts.

one of the busiest Atheist Blogs set me straight on the subject!




If you were to adopt raso's opinion you see why the so called Science community boasting of their so called superior logic shows exactly why this kind of logic makes no sense at all?

See Below:

It means we don't understand ourselves, and we fear ourselves. So, we kill what we fear

We kill what we fear and we fear ourselves? Hey I'm all for the guy committing suicide if that is raso's argument but it isn't true. What we fear is our own children being the victim of someone like this and our LOVE for them is why we want to kill what threatens them and yes, the more our society makes consessions for sexual depravity, the more we have to worry about this kind of predator getting off the hook by blaming it on his genetic design.

Sexuality is a choice and NO ONE is forced to have sex gay, straight or pedophile priest. When the argument about the priest was on the atheist blog, do you really believe their concern was for the children? Or just a great opportunity to flame Christianity?





This kind of sickness is unfortunate they are the adults versions of the child abuse they have endured but you won't see raso talking about that kind of child abuse. No what he will argue that raising your children with a sense of Christian values and morality is child abuse. Then we have the stunning brilliance of fifty fathoms deep thinkers of the rational response squad graduates saying this:

EverythingYouDespise said:"I also find it interesting that the moralists on this thread think it's so much more horrible and shocking that these particular bits of pornography featured infants rather than older children.

And here I was just about to ask,, if all you are so against the victimization of children,, why are you not pro life?

I think sexual predator Jeffery Dahmer says it best

Mass murderer (Dahmer) on evolution v. morality


‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

This is why the death penalty is the only way and if it were up to me,,

I would take a 12 guage shot gun and send that sick POS

to hell right now.

- Con

So uhm.


Really? The worst?


Did you even hear about the guy in austria who kept his daughter in the dungeon and then fathered several children by her and started molesting them?


I think that one gets my vote for worst. But then again, I don't think you can even place one child abuse instance above or below another on the scale of terror.

Originally posted by TheComte
Metamagic, you're right that police should try and find the victims in the pics and I'm sure they are. But it isn't easy and it necessarily has to start with finding a culprit first.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the person either has re-offended since his convictions, or that he was planning to do so.

In any case the guy has to be punished, whether or not we find the actual victims in the photos. I hope we do but in the meantime we can make damn sure that this particular individual will never again hurt another child. We have the power to do this, and I believe a right to do this for the common good.

I didn't address in my previous a point you made.

First of all I do agree that it is not easy to find a culprit, but should that be our excuse for not making it a priority? Is that how we decide what the right thing is to do? Instead of choosing things on the bases of whether they are important, we choose things based on what is easy? I opt, and I think you do too based on the moral tenor of your posts, for doing what is right no matter what the cost.

But the

Originally posted by metamagic

suggest the authors believe killing this guy will stop abuse. How?

Well I am glad It isn't me that makes choices like that one it is very very hard to consider the alternatives when people like this make my blood boil.

I think on that area I would recuse myself for it is too hard to be objective and impartial however, the reason their is child porn in the first place is because there is a MARKET for it.

This is no different than any other criminal situation where there is a buyer and seller. The product is porn and porn is everywhere but this isn't the kind where actors are paid or consenting adults agree, this is a highly charged subject matter where innocent children are being forced into abusive sexual acts so that people with a particularly deviant sexual fetish can add the multi sensory impact they require to fulfill a very deranged sex act through fantasy and pictorial images they already are well aware is an egregious heinous crime.

This means matching the fetish to the foot is risky business and people pay top dollar for it. Who ever said they don't doesn't know what they are talking about. No one is going to provide the materials to satisfy such a unique taste for this kind of sexual depravity generally known to be so repugnant an act the risk are too great without compensation to offset such risk and retribution for getting caught.

That is what separates this from the others is the sheer evil vulgarity and ugliness of it. So much so that I find it inescapable to look to the actual camera man who recorded the original videos and pictures any more or less at cause than I do those who copy it, download it etc,.

When it gets this far out this evil, it is so over the line of what is and isn't acceptable much less forgivable that to even consider why one is worse than the other is ludicrous to me.

This is no different than a drug to these people and traditionally they have always come down harder on the drug dealers than the drug users but this is different, I'm sorry this is SO far different because this drug is the kind where the user partakes of the product by actually watching something so sickening, so unequivocally absolutely disgusting as he watches a human child literally being raped and sodomized.

What makes this different guy, what makes this so different that I have NO patience or understanding for your so called "experience" on this subject is that this guy watches this child being raped bleeding fro the rectum

AND HE ENJOYS IT!

That is where you and I have a huge chasm of difference that not only do I NOT understand it, I think anyone asking me to would be a punch in the face waiting to happen.

I am not defending kiddie porn, but we have to remember that it would not exist if we could eliminate the underlying abuse -- but cracking down on kiddie porn will not stop the abuse. I believe that as long as there is kiddie porn and a demand for it, it is a symptom of a sickness in our society that we have not adequately addressed. The porn is not the problem, it is the measure of a problem.

No I think you worded this a little too vague, here let me try

As long as there is a market for it (customers freaks like that guy) there will be someone to fill the need but both should be looked at with as much contempt as the other when something this sick is out there, trying to gauge how much worse one is than the other is superfluous when this is evil in overdrive and overkill in its effect on how it makes people sick to there stomach.

Those here who have been ranting on hang em high backing up their bravado with abject descriptions of the kind of torture this guy deserves is not only NORMAL it is JUST.

Wanting to take this animal out with extreme prejudice is not only the kind of reaction the axiom "an eye for an eye" and "poetic justice" come from but the kind I would EXPECT. Justice is to be felt as a release of the anger when someone like this can watch something as sick as that and like it so much he ejaculates. I think I would do the same watching someone like this getting informed by a jury finding of guilty and whether he ends up the same demise as Jeffery Dahmer would make no difference.

Anyone that can watch this stuff is no less the scum of the earth as those who film it and export it. I'm sorry, you are asking too much

and that guy already went too far in my view

much too far


- Con

reply to post by Quazga


I don't think the guy in Austria practiced child abuse, I think his daughter was 19 when he locked her in the basement and turned her into a sex-slave. I could be wrong but that is the story as I recall it.

reply to post by Sonya610


There was children he made with that daughter that had never seen the sun according to articles I had seen. I think that would qualify as child abuse.

[Back to the main topic]

The child porn hound that was the start o this thread is sick and there is no cure outside stopping his heart..So go on and fix him I say.

There is probably nothing that will help those that were subjected to making the material. But the children that this person wont hurt in the future will be saved. People can argue that this person never actually did anything to a child all day long...But like the would be serial killer that starts on animals things are going to eventually escalate. It's a matter of time. Call me stupid and say it wont happen if you wish..that I can't prove ti will. The go look up the progress of this type of person. They all start somewhere.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
I don't suppose many of you people ever considered the possibility that these people should be studied to determine what caused them to become what they are,they did not get that way "Just Cuz".
They come from what seem like normal families usually,the parents who are busy working,trying to support their kids,hire a sitter or relative to care for their kids while they are out chasing their hollow dreams.
The family suffers,the kids suffer,everyone suffers.These people come from neglect and abuse,they don't just pop out of the ground like weeds.
And the legal BS system wont' fix it because if they did they would be out of a job.
Most of you are so incredibly clueless.

A laughable final comment from someone who asks us to "understand" someone who rapes a new born baby, and how they "become" that way- here is a curve ball for ya, human beings can do evil things, some human beings can do things so depraved it is beyond all normal rationale- this has happened since we first appeared on this sod and will happen til we leave it


All we can do is deal with such vermin in an appropiate manner

Originally posted by metamagic

I am not defending kiddie porn, but we have to remember that it would not exist if we could eliminate the underlying abuse -- but cracking down on kiddie porn will not stop the abuse. I believe that as long as there is kiddie porn and a demand for it, it is a symptom of a sickness in our society that we have not adequately addressed. The porn is not the problem, it is the measure of a problem.
[edit on 29-6-2008 by metamagic]

yes, and that is why someone involved in the act of abusing a kid would receive a higher sentence than someone with pics of it?

TATTOO A GREAT BIG ' P ' FOR PEDO ON THEIR FOREHEAD. PEOPLE WILL GET THE MESSAGE AND CHILDREN .

This is disgusting!

Have they found some of the people who made these videos!?? Because if not they need to find them as soon as possible!!! Before more children get hurt!

Any info about that??

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Although absolutely sickening, killing a man for possessing pictures is extreme and shows your own blood lust more than the defendant's.

I agree with this. Many people ask "why would someone do this?", and are that overcome with emotion that they dwell on the question and never seek the answer. There is a reason why people behave like this, and it's easy just to explain it that he was "sick". But why was he sick? The truth is, the answer is probably more frightening than his acts.
It is important when reading material such as this to not let the forces of Darkness influence yourself. It will only lead to anger and clouded judgement, which will prevent people from understanding why this happened. If the people on this world did understand why, it could easily be stopped, permanently.
Killing these people will not make the problem go away, understanding why it happens will, and it needs to be done. There is a simple answer why this behaviour occurs, and I will not "spoon feed" it to people here.

You need to find it yourselves.

[edit on 30/6/08 by NuclearPaul]