Pedophiles - 'Brand' them like the animals they are

Click here for more information.

reply to post by IceHappy


You....You don't agree that a person smart enough to trick you into not telling someone you were raped until you were fully grown would be smart enough not to PARADE you around town with a pedophile brand on his face?
How does that make sense to you?
Someone smart enough to only get ONE YEAR in jail for raping a little girl, wouldn't think to himself, oh maybe I shouldn't take this little kid out on my motorcycle, someone might get suspicious what with the big RAPIST written across my forehead....

Doesn't really matter what you think, fact is that MOST molesters would be smart enough to do their molesting in private once they were branded. If they were too dumb to figure that out, they would have died in prison instead of somehow evading the other prisoners long enough to survive. Because they do often die at the hands of other prisoners.


"I trusted nobody and since I was beaten for misbehaving at school don't even suggest a teacher!"
Well guess what, this "rule" won't change the PAST.
Children do not get beaten at school any more, and if they do, the teacher gets ARRESTED. There are at least a dozen adults at any school, and most schools have a student "counselor" who is only there to talk to students about their problems. Kids are taught to tattle on adults who do that, nowadays, in school. I heard it from 2nd grade onwards, and people are pushing for it to be discussed a little tiny bit as young as kindergarten. But no, parents object to anything being taught to their child that is called "sex ed" even if nothing about actual sex is discussed, only that people shouldn't touch you in certain places.

"I don't think you have any concept on this subject! "
Again, that is your opinion, and it is a flawed one. I have known about child molestation since I was about 8 years old, and known extensively about it since I got my first computer all to myself at 16. MY ENTIRE LIFE is dedicated to helping people.

"So what repeat offenders get worse sentencing than the first-time offenders. That does not help the next victim to live through their ordeal and attack."
Tell me something, since you are such an expert. Did he see you alone for over 5 minutes before taking you on his motorcycle?
Because if he did, he could have molested you even before leaving the house, and your entire point would be invalid. Even though it already is, because duh, people wearing the equivalent of black+white jail stripes don't go out carrying a sack with a dollar sign on it, and people with a sign that everyone knows means "child rapist" on their forehead won't risk being re-arrested and will keep the kid inside. You wouldn't have even gotten a break from what he was doing, you wouldn't have gotten time away from his abuse, because you never would have left the house, and nor would he.

"Now you are making a joke of victims as there is no way you can understand the horrors. NO WAY! Empathy is NOT feeling the pain and shame of being raped! To suggest so is an insult! "
How am I joking?
I cry myself to sleep at least once a week, feeling the pain, feeling the shame, feeling the injustice. You don't know me, and you have never seen me after I read one of these. You have not seen the way I cried as I typed your reply, nor have you seen the way that this thread has made me DEAD inside for the last several nights.
I am dead. I feel nothing now because I am emotionally exhausted from all of this, all of this hatred and all of this stupidity (not aimed at you necessarily, more at the sheer fact that everyone here saying "I disagree" is disagreeing with something shown as a FACT by medical professionals, assuming they somehow know more about pedophilia and molesters by no experience or by being molested, than those who talk to them every single day for decades)

"My posting was the attempt to get readers to come up with other ideas on how someone who should be readily identified be marked or the merits of markings or the problems of marking."
I was TELLING you the problems with marking. The ways in which it would be rendered completely useless in situations in which a child is being molested. Your answer was the standard "I disagree" ("with your stated fact proven by people who know what they are talking about")
I said the problem was that he could have just not been seen in public with you, and so who would have called CPS?
Oh, yeah, and people who ride motorcycles wear helmets that often cover their entire face. Maybe not in your time, but we don't have a time machine so now it would be rendered ineffective even if your EXACT situation happened again today.


"as another poster has suggested the amount of molesters is increasing."
And I pointed out that their "fact" was pulled out of their butt, because the RATE is not increasing. The PERCENTAGE of the population that molests a child has not changed. The PERCENTAGE of children that have been molested is going DOWN. The numbers might be increasing, but so is the population. You can't look at the number of offenses, you have to look at the percentage to know if the numbers are changing.

"I strongly believe that those who allow a molester back in society and I don't care if you are public defender, jury or judge then you are aiding and abetting a known criminal to commit his next crime."
More than half of all child sex offenders NEVER re-offend. I have said this TO YOU before, and have said it in the thread since you got here a MINIMUM of 5 times. Every other post of mine mentions it!
I showed the math several pages back, but essentially the numbers state that 40% of those who re-offend do so in the YEAR after they were released, and that means that even less people re-offend than my math showed, because I made the generous assumption that the rate stayed the same over the span of their entire life, when really, if they don't molest a child for 5 years, they likely never will, because they have coping mechanisms that have been shown effective in their situation.

"I definitely would have trusted a police man in those days if a member of public called and asked for an investigation! Where do you get these ideas??? Why are you off topic? "
Then why didn't you call 911? If you trust the police, certainly you could have snuck off once he fell asleep and dialed 911 and gotten out of there!
What idea? The idea that if someone asks if your parent knows who you're with, and you say yes, that they won't call the police? Because it is ILLEGAL to call the police with no legitimate reason. You can't say "this guy looks suspicious and is with a child who he has been given permission to be around" and get the police to show up.
And if you were going to tell a stranger to get you out of there, why didn't you? Why did you need to wait for someone to ask? If you were truly too scared to yell out in a grocery store "HELP HE RAPED ME", then you would have been too scared to say it right in front of his face when someone asked you. You can claim you weren't, but children are predictable and and hindsight is always 20/20.
And I was not off-topic, I was replying to your idea in the context of what would have happened if he had been branded 40 years ago (you said 60s, right? 40-50 years ago?) and showing you exactly why it would not have solved the problem. You pretend he would have been dumb enough to go out in public with a sign on his head, claim it is impossible that he would have known better (how well do you really know him, though? People are smarter when trying not to get caught than in ordinary life), and claim that someone would have given a f that you were out there, you claim that as he was zipping by on his motorcycle, someone would have seen his face (unlikely) AND been the type to call 911 about it?
There is a psychological effect, I honestly forget it's name since I read about it when I was 12, but it is essentially this: when multiple people witness something that requires telling someone about it (car crash, crime, schoolyard fight, etc) people are likely to think that someone ELSE has already told the police. They then take that as an excuse to do nothing. How many times have you or someone you know driven right past a car crash and not stopped and not called 911?
The most common action in these cases is INaction. Again, you can't really disagree, because it is a proven fact. But by all means, pretend you know more than dozens of sociologists and psychologists who have observed the effect.


Re: your village.
If your girls watch TV, or have access to the internet, either at home, school, or a friend's house, they are not better off than most american girls, as they are exposed to the same things as they are.
There are thousands of cities in the US. I get it, you had a bad experience where you grew up and didn't want to bring them up there. But you are claiming the UK is somehow more child-friendly as a whole, and I was simply telling you that it wasn't. Your town? Sure. But there are towns like that in the US too.
FYI girls who go to private schools that require uniforms? Statistically more likely to do...well let's not get into details but things parents wouldn't approve of, especially if it was an all-girls school. And yes, there are still popular girls and the atmosphere is usually very similar to non-uniformed schools. And yes, if you were a teacher who wanted to molest teenaged girls, you would probably get yourself a job at an all-girls school.

Just because you do not hear about molestation doesn't mean it isn't there. I hope it isn't, in every case, but usually it just means it is family members. Depending on your town's population, as you seem to believe everything Silo quotes, she said that 1 in 4 girls are molested, so, that would probably still be a very large number in your town.

"I did not trust anyone in this school therefore I did not know anyone."
Legally speaking, if you went to a school or camp which they went to or taught at, you would be considered to "know" them. They would not legally fit into the statistics of "molested by stranger"

"Had these three school molesters had been marked they would not have had their jobs."
Had they been convicted already to BE marked, they would not have had their jobs. Now.
You need to see that you CANNOT change what has already happened. It doesn't matter what this "would have done" when you were a child. It is done, it is over, and your claims that in the 60s they "didn't check teachers for that stuff" is useless, because now they DO, so NOW the brand is useless in that type of situation.

"BTW where are the mods as I have seen better moderations on other threads keeping posters ON Topic!"
Everything I have said has been about how this topic's idea was flawed. I am not obligated by TOS to agree with every thread, I am obligated to be polite, which I have been, and to stay on topic, which I HAVE BEEN. I related points that I took from your post and answered them. If I am off topic, it is because you went off topic.

Tell me how responding to your comment that statistics are invalid because you personally are not in them with "lots of people aren't in the statistics" is off-topic? I am talking about the proof that I have that this law would be unjust.
Oh, and if you won't believe ANY of my statistics, how come you believe ALL of Silo's, despite them being pulled from the Exact Same Website? Oh, right, because you are simply denying anything that shows you that you are not entirely correct.

"You sir are a troll You have done nothing to further this thread IMHO!"
a) Not a sir
b) Not a troll. Stating facts that disagree with your ideas on the world is not trolling. Report me, I honestly don't care, because I know that I have not done anything wrong here. I have absolutely nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of.

Originally posted by silo13
Guess the social 'grouping' pedophiles mostly and as a rule (not the exception) fall into?

White, heterosexual males.

And what group, as a rule comprise the majority of people in positions of authority in the Western world.

White heterosexual males.

Have we found the root of the problem? Why there's no 'better' system in place to deal with pedophiles?

I think that we have.

peace

edit on 14-10-2010 by silo13 because: (no reason given)

Where did this come from?

You're implying there is a conspiracy by white heterosexual males to endorse pedophilia???

This warrants a totally new thread on its own with some strong evidence backing it up, otherwise you can see what it comes across as. It's flatly racist.

I assure you the problem is in every major country with every major race. Check out the sex culture in Japan. Look at topics such as Bacha bazi and check out UNICEF and other organization's stats on under age prostitution.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


Again you write muddled up surely an English teacher would know how to use Quotes on this forum.... Too muddled to read but you got two stars good on you.

Wish you were willing to follow the topic rather than attack someone - I am beginning to believe that you must be one of those smarter people you referred to in the first paragraph.

Sorry OP off topic. Why has the ignored button not worked on this Troll?

reply to post by BiohazardsBack

What part of my post don't you understand?

I'm not accusing you of anything, nor did I call you a name.

That you said 'in your experience' leads me to believe you have personal knowledge of such 'therapy'.
From there I take everything you say, (and have taken everything you said) with a HUGE grain of salt.
Why? Because it's in MY personal experience 'counselors' and 'therapists' don't have a clue.
They know their books, but have not one clue to the 'real world'... (Prime example? That you'd never even heard about infant rape).

That 's my opinion, less name calling, less accusations. And if you can't take it either you need to grow some thick skin, or quit posting.

That being said, now that you've 'come out' about who and what you are, why don't you for ONCE just for ONCE give us a LINK to all you purport to be true?

Sorry, but over and over again you've stated this and that and the other thing, but you know what?
You've yet to once provide any of these so called doctors names, their reports, their credentials that you sight as being the last word on child rape and pedophilia.

All you've given us is Google and that just doesn't cut it.

So, you want to continue the conversation?

1 - Provide LINKS to support each and every FACT you claim is the end all of truth,
and:
2 - When you QUOTE another persons words USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION.

And no, those are not my rules, but ATS's.

peace

reply to post by Brood

I'm so sick of your ridiculous pedophilia witch hunt. Stop labeling people and assuming you know more than them, you neanderthal.

Where in my post did I label anyone, anything? I did not. YOUR MIND led you to a conclusion that was NOT intended at all. So if anyone needs to stop thinking like a neanderthal...

As for being on a 'pedophile' witch hunt? What would you rather do? I give them the name and address of the 3 year olds at the local day care? Offer them nice cake and a lolly? Or make sure they NEVER are allowed to HURT another child again? (Hint, it's the third option).

Look, you don't have to agree, but IMO if there is any hunt at all that needs to be continued, it's this one, and I could care less whether you are sick of it or not. You don't like it, why are you here on this thread?

But before you go I can assure you of one thing. If it was YOUR child that was raped - you'd be right there on the front line with a pitchfork in both hands. Or at least you should be.
Me? I'm not going to wait until it happens to try to find a way to prevent it, and if that means going on a witch hunt then hand me my broom!

peace

reply to post by Pinke

This warrants a totally new thread on its own with some strong evidence backing it up, otherwise you can see what it comes across as. It's flatly racist.

No, I'm sorry to say it's flatly statistics.

The majority of pedophiles are white heterosexual males (in the UK and USA).
As soon as I can find the url(s) (many) to back that up I'll come back and post it. I'm on an old computer and I've not the set of bookmarks/favorites here I usually have.

As for the 'white male conspiracy' I'll be only too happy to redirect you to a post found earlier in this thread by OfHumanDecent. Page 2, like the 14th post.

She tells it much better than I ever could.

EDIT TO ADD:

Here's a page I happened to have on this computer. It gives the statistics I was speaking of.

Pedophilia and Psychological Profiling

peace

Originally posted by seagull
The laws should be changed to a death sentence upon conviction, and the usual appeals process.

Death sentence upon conviction? Yes. Appeals? No. Especially when there is hard evidence, e.g. DNA samples, against them.

You really have to ask the question: Why is there an epidemic of child molestation? The answer can be found in the liberal sentencing laws thast are in effect and demented individuals will use these laws to there sick advantages.

Execute them. Be done with it.

reply to post by silo13

Where in my post did I label anyone, anything? I did not. YOUR MIND led you to a conclusion that was NOT intended at all. So if anyone needs to stop thinking like a neanderthal...

The light of day is dawning finally...I wondered how long it would take.

So, 'in your experience' it doesn't work?

You care to elaborate on your 'experience' with rehabilitation?

You wondered how long what would take then? What, that I admitted to the socially stigmatized fact that I have seen a counselor at some point in my life? What about me seeing a therapist (or not, since CBT methods ae available free online) makes "The light of day finally break"?
If you weren't assuming that I was a pedophile, why would you assume that my therapy had ANYTHING to do with rehabilitation?
CBT is, as I said, used for many things. It is not all rehabilitation, it is, however, coping methods to deal with whatever life throws at you.
Life throws sadness at me, and urges at pedophiles. Both can be dealt with in most cases.

And in answer to your question, my experience with CBT did not succeed because the entirety is based on working through what you were thinking at the time of whatever incident occurred. I have little to no memory of the moments in which I feel the worst, and therefore cannot tell the therapist "How I felt" or "what I was thinking about" when I said things that informed others I was upset. If you do not have thoughts that lead to actions, you cannot stop them. Most molesters have THOUGHTS of molesting children before they do it. So the therapist could, for example, remind them to see what emotional toll it would have on that person, see themselves being put into prison for breaking the law, visualize it all. That usually makes them stop. This is not an opinion, but a medically reviewed fact.
I do not have thoughts that LEAD to sadness, in most cases, therefore I was not an ideal patient for such a therapy. I simply have constant sadness that is not "caused" by anything anyone can identify, which most likely means it is entirely chemical

Why? Because it's in MY personal experience 'counselors' and 'therapists' don't have a clue.
They know their books, but have not one clue to the 'real world'... (Prime example? That you'd never even heard about infant rape).

And how many counselors and therapists have you seen? Counselors are not really adequate, one can call themselves a "counselor" with just a bachelor's degree in anything, not even medical or psychological degree. You could get a bachelor's degree in math and call yourself a counselor.
Therapists have to have a master's degree, again, in any subject, to call themselves such.
PSYCHIATRISTS have to have what is really equivalent to a medical degree, only they study just the one body part. They need a doctorate in psychiatry to call themselves such, and hence have gone through 7-10 years of school in the field of psychiatry.
And yes, I have HEARD of infant rape. I never said it NEVER happened. I said that it was unfair to declare that EVERY pedophile and child molester can and will rape a baby to death, because statistically speaking, less than 1% of convicted child molesters or child rapists have raped a baby. Proof? You found a maximum of 2 articles per year, and there are over 4000 molesters arrested each year.
And how is my perceived lack of knowledge related to an EXPERT's level of knowledge? I am a patient, not a therapist of any sort, of course I do not know as much as the average expert in the field.


"That being said, now that you've 'come out' about who and what you are, why don't you for ONCE just for ONCE give us a LINK to all you purport to be true? "
Excuse me?
WHO AND WHAT I AM?
Why is it that I, not you, have to give links? Most of what I have said has come from YOUR websites, YOUR links. I have never used google as a source, I simply gave you a link to a google search for what you claimed was so common, to make it so you and your "SLOW COMPUTER" could skip two steps in the process of attempting to prove your point.

So here. A government website resource for you, since you expect me to believe your rate of one in four little girls getting sexually abused without evidence, but don't believe a word I say unless it is backed up by a useless little website.
www.publicsafety.gc.ca...
And here, let me quote it for you. Seems otherwise you would skim over the things that disprove you, just as you did with the last page of stats you quoted.
"The initial follow-up of the child molesters found that 42% were reconvicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period." (since the majority of sex offenders are in their late 30s and early 40s, we can assume that by the time this follow-up period is done, so will the molesters. Hard to chase a kid down when you're 70 years old.
"Not all child molesters recidivated at the same rate. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offenses, who selected extrafamilial boy victims, and who were never married. In contrast, the long-term recidivism rate for the low risk offenders was less than 20%. "
"Although the long-term recidivism rates for the child molesters were substantial, the recidivism rates for the nonsexual criminals were even higher, 61% versus 83.2%, respectively, for any reconviction."
So no, other criminals are more likely to re-offend than molesters and sexual predators.
I know that wasn't you who last said that they had a higher rate, but I am hoping the person who did say it is reading this.
Oh.
And just below that, it says that sexual offenders are only 35% likely to be arrested again FOR SOMETHING SEX RELATED.
Other arrests are completely unrelated to children and sex, and are therefore not useful. A molester branding won't stop someone from refusing to pay their taxes, or from robbing a store, or any other non-child-related crime, only (in your opinion) the crimes in which they molest another child. So keep that statistic in mind. That means only (about) 1/3 of then re-offend ever.
Names are at the bottom, don't expect me to list names in this thread when you don't. The burden of proof, after all, falls on the one who claims. Which is you, right now, you are claiming that this would help, and I am saying "well no, it won't" and you have only used your opinion to show that it will. Your opinion that pedophiles cannot stop themselves, your opinion that they will not resort to violence to get what they "cannot stop themselves" from doing.

Google, by the way, is a search engine. The websites listed on it have their very own set of credits and bibliographies at the bottom of their own page. You used a search engine to find news reports of babies raped, so why can't I use google to find resources on my subjects?

You know who else lists their sources at the bottom of the page?
Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org...
Behavior modification programs have been shown to reduce recidivism in sex offenders.[7]
7. ^ Marshall, W.L., Jones, R., Ward, T., Johnston, P. & Bambaree, H.E.(1991). Treatment of sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 465-485
Here is the link the the only thing available online describing that article.
www.sciencedirect.com... rch&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1498546133&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a71eeaa2acc6abe9a3 7e50477976f90c&searchtype=a
"In examining the value of the different approaches, we concluded that comprehensive cognitive/behavioral programs (at least for child molesters, incest offenders, and exhibitionists) are most likely to be effective"
So, phone one of these people then I suppose, since there is NO WAY this kind of information would legally be put online. The authors are at the top, and at the bottom it directs you to contact someone at Queen's University.
Bold is my own, to show how even without a link, I know what I am talking about, knowing many mental health professionals who went through school very recently and have up-to-date information due to only being out of school a couple of years.

You know what it literally impossible to view online?
Psychologist and Psychiatrist's evaluations of patients.
Why? Oh yeah, it is illegal to share that information.
So no, I cannot show you actual case records of situations in which it helped, only professionals saying it did. They are not legally allowed to lie, and while some psychologists occasionally fib results, it is usually on useless subjects such as the nature-v-nurture debate, one prominent faker was the study which "showed" twins separated at birth grew up to be remarkably similar adults in terms of beliefs and personality. Turns out those people never actually existed, and he was found out as a fraud VERY quickly. This is from 1991 and has yet to be refuted.


More stuff to disprove your "facts", as anyone can disprove anyone else's "facts" simply by looking at a different study.
www.leadershipcouncil.org...
"For instance, the National Women's Study surveyed a representative sample of over 4,000 adult women in the United States . Three hundred forty-one (8.5%) of these women were victims of at least one rape prior to the age of 18"
8.5% = 8/100 4/50 2/25 1/12
One out of twelve is NOT one out of four. Not even close.


"2 - When you QUOTE another persons words USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION.

And no, those are not my rules, but ATS's."

Then report me. If clicking "reply to" is not sufficient, have a moderator tell me so, not you, who is using it as an excuse for leaving out your responses to my MOST useful points. I find it odd that you only miss the most important point in the entire post, each and every time. You never miss something mundane or small, only the biggest point.

And am I really supposed to click "quote this" 10 times and edit it down each and every time to the exact sentence I want to quote, or once I have provided proof that it is you I am quoting and I quote accurately each time, are simple empty lines and quote marks useable? I have already shown that I have not misquoted, and if you think I have, you can click on where it links to the post I am quoting and see it yourself. Let me show you exactly how flawed your idea that the quoting system is so perfect:

Originally posted by silo13
I have a big huge head and it is purple for some reason. Rainbows and puppies. This is a fake quote. I am making a point.

Did you say it? No. Was I able to make it LOOK like you said it? Certainly. It took me less than 30 seconds.


Edit to Add:
Oh look. If you weren't being rude, why was your post removed?
In my experience, mods don't jump to conclusions here when moderating. They look at the facts, and if they think it is needlessly offensive, then they remove it. You may not have MEANT to imply it, but it certainly did imply it.
You have said that I am name calling, and I truly believe I have not been. That doesn't mean that you are not affected by it or that it wasn't in some way insulting, it means that it was accidental. Not that it was "my fault" for seeing that or "that other person's fault" for calling you out on it, or "your fault" for thinking what I said was picking on you.
Here is the difference between us, though.
You said "You did this inappropriate thing"
I suggested you point out where I did so, so I could avoid doing so again.
I said "You did this inappropriate thing"
You responded with NO I DIDN'T NO I DIDN'T IT'S YOU YOUR FAULT ALL YOUR FAULT.
I don't think someone with that mindset should be allowed to suggest laws, personally. I think the people who suggest laws should do so from a rational mindset, and willing to look at and accept all facts given to them.

reply to post by silo13

The majority of pedophiles are white heterosexual males (in the UK and USA).
As soon as I can find the url(s) (many) to back that up I'll come back and post it. I'm on an old computer and I've not the set of bookmarks/favorites here I usually have.

Site linked that "proves" your point:

Addendum: Nonfamily Child Abductors Who Murder Their Victims
-Nonfamily child abductions have a low rate of occurrence

You are saying that the majority of PEDOPHILES are white etc etc.
This statistic only lists the molesters who ABDUCTED AND KILLED their victims.
Most molesters (yes even the ones who are legally defined as a pedophile) do NOT kill their victim. Therefore this is a flawed statistic, in the way that you are using it.

Murder is an entirely separate crime from molestation and rape, and should be treated as such.

And as for you "not believing" pedophiles "love" children, then why are you using this website as a resource?

ii. Fixated child molester
...
...
...“Loves” children and doesn’t want to harm them

And in the table, they have No next to Harmful to the Child, Aggressive Personality, Antisocial Personality (ruling out psychopathy and sociopathy) and Intercourse Occurs. the only ones they have Yes next to are Child Sexual Preference and Knows the Child.

Just going over what you've presented Silo13 ...

Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...
A post stating that 1% of the population may be Illuminati ... Referencing David Icke and persons who believe child sacrifice happens in the Vatican. Nothing solid. Nothing stating that white people are responsible for anything. It's pretty weak evidence. Again that post really requires its own thread to justify its information. No offense to the poster, but it's almost a whole other topic.

Your second source I have chosen some choice parts ....

Source: www1.csbsju.edu...

Addendum: Nonfamily Child Abductors Who Murder Their Victims

Race: majority white, interpret with caution

Discussion

* Findings are consistent with previous literature
* Interviews allow for a more in-depth view of offenders
* No glaring warning signs that could predict an offense
* Many offenders are not socially integrated within society
* Majority of offenders did not meet criteria for classification as a psychopath
* Self-reported data and small sample size may complicate results

Beyer, K. R., & Beasley, J. O. (2003). Nonfamily child abductors who murder their victims: Offender demographics from interviews with incarcerated offenders. In J. H. Campbell & D. DeNevi (Eds.), Profilers: Leading investigators take you inside the criminal mind. (pp. 313–333) Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

All information taken from a single book; a discursive attempt at profiling (that also disagrees with some of your previous points) based only on offenders who kill their victims in non-family situations taken from a book about criminal profiling in America. Link: www.amazon.com...

It's not quite a journal article; it's advertised for popularity. It is also only from the United States. Fortunately it is also on my book shelf. I have looked at the pages of the study .... here is the quotes ...

"Nonfamily child abductions have a relatively low rate of occurence despite the intense media attention and public hysteria these types of cases often attract."

"Existing research on child abduction is limited"

"Close comparisons were found among the studies in regard to race, as the majority of offenders were Caucasian, ranging from 66 percent to 71 percent"

"These data should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size (N = 20)."

"The research findings from the study were consistent with US census data for adults (Caucasian 75%, African American 12%, Hispanic 12 percent, and other minorities 1%) (US Department of Commerce 2000.)"

It appears the author would disagree with you also.

Also the majority of them were Christian. So we could use this study to say Christians are more prone to killing children. Or we could take into account the census data and realize that it's pretty likely the persons are going to be Christian.

This is the trap of finding a statistic to match your opinion without looking at all the correlating data. You're really best reading the references of articles like this as they often just pick out the bits they want or perform butchered summaries of in depth content. The book itself isn't so bad. It brings several studies together with a trained eye. The author doesn't appear to do their own surveying for the majority of the book.

I hope this is helpful.

Originally posted by silo13

Where in my post did I label anyone, anything? I did not. YOUR MIND led you to a conclusion that was NOT intended at all. So if anyone needs to stop thinking like a neanderthal...

Nobody is buying that. You just labelled someone as a "therapist" as if that would mean they know less about a psychological disorder than you, or are you just mad because its impossible for you to argue against hard facts? I guess not, because you do it anyways. You also label pedophiles as child molesters, when they are not. Pedophile is to child molester as heterosexual is to rapist. Most pedophiles don't have sexual relations with a child in their entire lifetime, most of them are emotional wrecks; the ones that do molest children often suffer from various other psychological disorders, and some of them aren't even pedophiles. But none of this matters to you, just facts, books, things therapists learn, you're smarter than facts, facts won't win, you will.

Guess you're arrogant and ignorant, much like... a neanderthal. Weird. I don't blame you, it must be difficult to see anything with that log in your eye.

As for being on a 'pedophile' witch hunt? What would you rather do? I give them the name and address of the 3 year olds at the local day care? Offer them nice cake and a lolly? Or make sure they NEVER are allowed to HURT another child again? (Hint, it's the third option).

I would rather you not make a mockery of a rather serious situation by saying it is animalistic... and that the solution is branding -- labeling and torture. Couldn't get much more barbaric without lobbing off their heads and body parts, which has also come up.

Look, you don't have to agree, but IMO if there is any hunt at all that needs to be continued, it's this one, and I could care less whether you are sick of it or not. You don't like it, why are you here on this thread?

I'm on this thread because this site is about denying ignorance, just thought I'd throw the truth out there for you to hear, unfortunately the majority of the population doesn't want to hear it because they detest thinking about it, poor them -- the misunderstood, being asked to consider things with perspective rather than bias.

But before you go I can assure you of one thing. If it was YOUR child that was raped - you'd be right there on the front line with a pitchfork in both hands. Or at least you should be.

"If you had an incredibly bias-inducing experience, you wouldn't want to know more about it either, you'd start a riot!"

Sorry, I'm not as ridiculous as most of the world; I like to know what I'm fighting for before I pick up my pitchfork. Pedophiles are not the problem. Rapists are. If you are going to "brand" child molesters, "brand" all sex offenders, they are all dangerous and disgusting. Branding pedophiles, though? Ridiculous.

Me? I'm not going to wait until it happens to try to find a way to prevent it, and if that means going on a witch hunt then hand me my broom!

Look up what a witch hunt means, it has nothing to do with you carrying a broom to battle, but taking everyone sweeping the porch from their home, calling them a witch, and burning them alive to test their theory. It is about condemning people with no solid conviction evidence out of ignorance and fear. Only a fool would say something so brash and ignorant, and its hilarious that you accept the idea since most of those who were labeled "witches" and burned at the stake were only declared witches because they suffered from a mental disorder that nobody understood.

"If you had an incredibly bias-inducing experience, you wouldn't want to know more about it either, you'd start a riot!" "

Right, exactly why victims should not be the legislating officein charge of punishment of those who harm them or their families.

If you want to live in a society in which the victim gets to punish the criminal, move elsewhere. Western society is based on laws, most of which are based on facts and some of which were made based on opinions. Guess which ones are under fire from the general population?

There is obviously a reason why people oppose this idea so much to come in here and waste hours of their lives trying to change your mind, Silo.
You claimed this was a "less controversial" method of dealing with it, and it has been proven not to be, by the amount of uproar you are facing.
This thread really cannot go anywhere with namecalling and supposing and manipulating of facts. It might be by accident, many people mistakenly miss a word. Maybe you missed "abduct and murder" in your last source. Maybe you missed where it said how rare these cases are.
But when claiming something as fact, you cannot do that. If your computer is too slow to read the entire page, if you do not have the time to carefully read each and every word on your supposed source of facts, you should not even be posting it, or any opinions made based on skimming it.
If your computer is too slow to follow the thread, respond to posts in the order given? Then maybe you should leave. If you started this thread with such a computer, maybe you should have just emailed your sources to someone else and allowed them to deal with it for you, because it is expected of the OP to read EVERY comment, and it is also expected that you read them in the order given to you, because otherwise you may miss the post that has ALREADY shown you why what you're about to say is wrong and untrue, which has happened several times already. It took you four or five mentions of the Sex Offender Registry to deal with it, despite it being the most prominent reason why this would be ineffective and unnecessarily cruel.
You have yet to deal with my point made probably more than 10 of your posts ago that this branding would BE a death sentence if you sent them out into the world. And no, of course you don't CARE that they would die, but it is still legally wrong to do so knowingly.
My point is that you are obviously not fit to be leading this thread any more, with your numerous false claims easily falsified by the very page you quoted or linked.

PLEASE NOTE!!!

Continued personal attack and/or remarks against the Terms & Conditions Of Use will be removed and/or this thread will be closed.

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

You are responsible for your posts

The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

What's with the anger on ATS?

reply to post by silo13


*buzzer* wrong again!

I am in no way defending what pedophiles do. However ANYONE who could BRAND SOMEONE, is SICK. there is no way around it. Id say both you and the pedophile were sick in that situation. If you could brand someone, then what else could you do? what about wrongfully convicted people, should they be branded too? No.

See you havent really thought out your idea. You were just hoping for some flags!

We have to set the example, or else we're no better!

reply to post by VonDoomen


Exactly, how are we supposed to learn that killing is the wrong way to address a situation if we kill the people that we don't want to deal with? Last time I checked, every kindergarten student knew that two wrongs don't make a right. This basic principle somehow does not carry over to many adults because they are too blinded by bias and ignorance.

Originally posted by BiohazardsBack
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

Check again good sir. You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. I have never in my life gone to college, as school is bad for me.

...no mistake and i'm not a sir...

Originally posted by Brood
The amount of ignorance in this thread is absolutely sickening.

...thanks for showing up so quickly, as i knew you would and bet on it... now i can go buy those two HUGE pots of bright yellow mums i've been wanting for my front porch...

Originally posted by Brood
Pedophilia is a MENTAL DISORDER.

...that is merely conjecture, dear - not fact...

Originally posted by Brood
I think people should brand all of you, personally. Put a big brand right between your eyes that says "I'm perfect and everyone that opposes me with hard facts is wrong".

...no poster has said they are perfect...

...perhaps you're angry because no one thinks you're perfect... is that it, honey?... do you feel like the whole world is against you?... well, ya know the old adage - just because ya think it dont mean it aint true...

Originally posted by Brood
I actually cannot believe how closed-minded you surface-thinkers have become. Absolutely pathetic. Continue wallowing, children.

...gosh, would an effective psychologist react that way?...

I am very upset that it is easier to attack someone rather than to suggest ways of protecting the children....

I know of one way that would make some of you to know how important that another child is not molested by a known offender but will not suggest it as I live through it and would not want anyone else to, which is, the why, I shared what is very very personal to me. I feel rather foolish to have trusted so many with something so personal!

ATS has gone down in my opinion. Intellectuals talk about the topic - you don't have to agree, but rather discuss the subject or better put the spirit of the OP which has merit and the truth is that something needs to be done and if you did not like their idea well IMHO an intellectual would suggest a better one. There was no suggestions and yet a few of us repeatedly asked for a conversation. It saddens me this attitude... Branding is not a good idea well what is.... Leaving the status quo since the start of time has not and is not working.

So what will???? as one poster stated Beeeep (buzzer sound here) out of time!

What a disappointment ATS is now to me. I am also amazed that many attacked the OP and the OP was censored... I did ask a few times where the Mods were....

BTW most of you would have never made it on my team - one had to be adaptable and see the greater good - which is the why training started with so many and so few graduated Hoorah!!!

Go back to sleep America, there is nothing here to see - go back to sleep!