|
| Thread: Provoking a pedophile!! Not a good idea |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted May 13, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
|
Like it happens pretty often in the OSM, we again have a very controversal topic here. There are some different opinions about the "pedophiles in general" as I could read the last pages.
Maybe we should first try to understand the term "pedophile", before we throw in words like "Bullsh*t" and other insults when we respond to other's opinions.
As far as I know, pedophiles are "adults" who get attracted by children, not "adults" who rape / sexually abuse children.
And secondly, as far as I know, pedophilia is a kind of "mentally illness". This seems to be something a "victim" can't control.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing I dislike more than pedophilia, and my opinion also is, you can't heal it. So "death penalty" for raping children is something you have to think about.
But judging (or even sentence to dead) everyone who has the affinity to pedophilia may be a step too far, don't u think so?
There are countries / cultures where girls marry with the age of 12, completely legal and normal. Wouldn't that be some kind of "pedophalia" aswell? These girls hardly decide who they marry themselves, but are forced to marry to the one their parents have chosen.
Just look how 12-14 year old girls look like nowadays. It is incredible for me to see how young girls are, when I see them walking on the street, short skirt, small top, hot pants, painted like hell....you think they are 17 or 18, but turn out to be 13.
Just an example:
Check out this link/video: Germanys next top star
The girl u see there just finished on 3rd place in this competition (similar to America's idol I think...). Amazing voice she has, quite good looking...and she is 16 (SIXTEEN!!)
Ok..didn't want to get too far offtopic, just wanted to remind you all to express your opinion without getting too personal here, even though this is a very delicate topic.
Thanks.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 06:02 PM |
|
|
Skimming through angelito's reply (I always wanted to do that :evil:)
Quote:
As far as I know, pedophiles are "adults" who get attracted by children, not "adults" who rape / sexually abuse children.
Not nescesairly, but mostly the people whe call "pedophiles", ARE people who sexually harrassed children. In theory, Pedophiles are "Child-Lovers", but in Theory, theoriy and practice are equeln but not in practice. Pedophiles are what we call child abusers, people who not only aren't attacted to children mentally, but also physically as well...
Quote:
And secondly, as far as I know, pedophilia is a kind of "mentally illness". This seems to be something a "victim" can't control.
Strange way to put it... Pedophiles don't have to be nutters, most of them turn out to be cold-blooded sociopaths.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing I dislike more than pedophilia, and my opinion also is, you can't heal it. So "death penalty" for raping children is something you have to think about.
Like Rowan Atkinson put it: "Child rapists, would like to make a line in front of that small guillotine in the corner...". The death penalty isn't nescesairy for all pedophiles, but I think some of them do/did deserve to die (especially if the raping and harrasment was coupled to murder)
Quote:
But judging (or even sentence to dead) everyone who has the affinity to pedophilia may be a step too far, don't u think so?
Off course, who would like to have a pedophiles destroying your/ your daughter's/ your son's life ?? Raping is one thing, but the inner destruction of the child is by far the most horrible thing that could happen to them (I mean the trauma). Mental suffering easily surpassed physical suffering
Quote:
There are countries / cultures where girls marry with the age of 12, completely legal and normal. Wouldn't that be some kind of "pedophalia" aswell? These girls hardly decide who they marry themselves, but are forced to marry to the one their parents have chosen.
That depends on the culture. In Belgium (or Germany  ) you are an adult when you reach the age of 18. In the USA 16, 18 and 21 are important ages, as each of them transform the child in an adult. But in India, girls are considered mature when the firstly menstruated (or how do you say that in English). Rather, the largest difference between sex and rape is the girl's (just an example) bravery to dare to say no. Of course saying no (figuratively), doesn't hepl at that moment, but it does matter a lot later...
Quote:
Just look how 12-14 year old girls look like nowadays. It is incredible for me to see how young girls are, when I see them walking on the street, short skirt, small top, hot pants, painted like hell....you think they are 17 or 18, but turn out to be 13.
I noticed that too, but I think that calling Pedophiles pedophiles doen't depend on the victims age, but on the victims mental status, it's maturity. a rapist can be called a pedophile is he rapes a seventeen year old girl... But if he rapes an eighteen year old one, he's just a rapist (and punishment are less severe for them). That's just the kind of discrimination that I despise; since when is the mental trauma of a 18 year old vic, smaller than the one of a 17 year old one ? I'm getting offtopic, it's true, but I think pedophiles are pedophiles only when they harass somebody when is immature inside and not because of it's age. If Pedo 1 rapes an 18 year old girl be will be charged as a rapist, although the girls feels and behaves like someone who is 16. If Pedo 2 rapes a 17 year old girls, he'll be charged as a pedophile, eventhough the victim thinks, feels and behaves like a 20 year old woman (and thus she's mature). Is a victim mature or not ? That's for the psychologist to decide, but at least the maturity age of 18 musn't be a border between pedophile and rapist...
Quote:
Ok..didn't want to get too far offtopic, just wanted to remind you all to express your opinion without getting too personal here, even though this is a very delicate topic.
It's forgiven... this time
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 06:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
P.S.: That male teacher is still teaching in our local elementary school Not every pedophile is a rapist. But I don't expect you to understand that.
The fact that you approve that he is working in an environment that puts him in the middle of temptations and throw in a smiley face just has stupidity written all over it. Not to mention it backs up my theory that you defiantly have the potential to prey upon children. Sounds like these perverse conversations you had with Mr. “Perfectly ok child molester” has obviously damaged you. Just go back and read the idiotic words you type and actually believe.
If one is a pedophile and does not act on it in anyway, that includes via the internet or getting off to child porn, then he is just other person with a sick sexual desire. However if a man who likes child porn is then put in the middle of a elementary school, you can honestly state there is not something wrong about that and temps his sickness further? Why bother, sounds like at twelve you actually got off on it.
Which if you read, happens to be against the law for a reason. To catch a predator is a show that arrested pedophiles for coming into a home and just talking to underage girls and boys about wanting to have sex with them. I would not expect you to understand that though since at twelve you had your cheerleading skirt on and your moms best lotion on hand while chattin away with pedophiles and actually got off on it. Um, your right, great choice for your parents to let you roam free. This way when you get a job at your local elementary school maybe you and the teacher could invite little boys into the broom closet with you during your lunch breaks.
Quote:
Some people don't need a large group of people as support to back up their statements.
Hey bright one, I said that in response to your last post where you stated no one else was backing me, genius.
Quote:
Basic assumptions aside, a wide variety of sources and information is far more enlightening than a single source (parents), which for that matter can be very subjective. I dread to think what homophobes would teach their children.
I don’t disagree with that. I believe in opening doors for the children to let them judge for themselves. However, how you think at 12, having these sexually driven conversations with a pedophile online was rewarding or healthy is beyond understandable. You are not supposed to have tolerance for those that commit crimes against innocent children whether in person or online. ACCORDING TO THE LAW IT IS ILLEGAL. That is why we laws against it! There is a concept, laws against those that commit crimes against children because at twelve you are not able to see the potential damage.
“Behold the difference between one who grew up more tolerant with the internet... And one who didn't ”
Um, nope we did not have the internet as I was growing up. We actually got off our fat *** and did other things. Tolerant? I grew up among every nationality and breed possible which made it so I was able to acclimate and be tolerant and not tolerant of a lot of things. This did not skew my view of right and wrong. Behold the difference between allowing pedophiles on the net to raise you and someone who had the intelligence enough to decide for herself what was right and wrong.
Quote:
Not every pedophile is a disgusting rapist. I Do NOT sympathize with rapists. I DO sympathize with pedophiles that choose NOT to touch and harm children, and instead choose to live with their burden. For THOSE people I have the deepest sympathy. And the last thing they need is a judgemental freak like you who deems them disgusting rapists based on something they CANNOT change - the fact they are sexually attracted to children. Saying pedophiles by definition are rapists is like saying black people are criminals.
It is a sexual preference in one sense, you are right, so is necrophilia; does having your BF next to you in bed thinking about killing you so he can have sex with your corpse ok with you too? Sure! So lets put him a room with your dead mother and allow him to have sex with her corpse. Lets temp him further and have him work in a morgue. Do you see what is going on here? You don’t have someone work in an elementary school who in his own mind wants to have sex with small children. CHRIST, the stupidity here is killing me.
Quote:
I pity your kid(s). You see, that is what _I_ learned from the internet: You cannot judge people based on their sexual desires, only on their ACTIONS. That's one lesson you seemed to have missed in your upbringing. Oopsie?
My children are great and well rounded and not sitting in their room spanking through a computer screen with an old man who likes little boys. Ever thought about the children that he is around all day, the ones that he has after school? The ones that are forming relationships with him and see him as a strong male figure with power? Do you not understand why upon psyc evaluations if they had known this about him he would not be working there? DUH! You may not call them a rapist until they have performed an act, but I sure as hell don’t want them around my children. So here is to you and your good old twelve year old days. ****Breaks out the wine glasses and the old child porn to celebrate****** Oopsie!
Quote:
Hmmm I disagree. Because in my opinion, being a pedophile, like the colour of your skin, is not something you can change or be held accountable for. For anger, you can.
Another brilliant quote! Sure they are born with this feeling and they will tell you while in prison to not let them out because they will commit this same crime again. They are driven and cannot help it. They judge themselves as a danger to society and children, even ones that have not done it claim it is only a matter of time. If you had done your research and got off the kiddy porn sites and put down the paper towels maybe you would read and learned. I’ am only confirming what they have said. I quote, “Cut off my penis and I will desecrate children with my feet, cut off my feet I will abuse them sexually with my hands, cut off my hands I will violate them with my tongue.”
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not to mention it backs up my theory that you defiantly have the potential to prey upon children.
Quote:
Just go back and read the idiotic words you type and actually believe.
Quote:
I would not expect you to understand that though since at twelve you had your cheerleading skirt on and your moms best lotion on hand while chattin away with pedophiles and actually got off on it.
Quote:
and the teacher could invite little boys into the broom closet with you during your lunch breaks.
Quote:
So here is to you and your good old twelve year old days. ****Breaks out the wine glasses and the old child porn to celebrate****** Oopsie!
And here we have my favourite:
Quote:
If you had done your research and got off the kiddy porn sites and put down the paper towels maybe you would read and learned.
VF perhaps you could tell me what all these remarks have to do in a discussion that is ment to be serious?
I would seriously consider editing your post as I don't think I have to point out how this is
a)simply wrong an inapropriate
b)not the way you'd present an "argument" if you'd like to taken serious
c)against the CoC?
I do hope you see my point.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Thanks for your tip, he openly admits to his online fling with a pedophile. You don’t argue with ignorance AZ, therefore I was not arguing with him. You expect his words to be taken seriously? He put as smiley face next to the fact that a pedophile is working in an elementary school as if he supports that, so excuse me while I ask you why you are not drilling him for that. Do you agree with him? If so I would be happy to have a separate discussion with you in that regard. I did not call him any names, simply that I feel the words he wrote were idiotic and that by what he is saying maybe he should go look into some counseling about possible feelings he may have towards children. He sounds a bit disturbed.
Telling someone they get them offs is not offensive, he admits he does it.He called me a freak, you don't see me crying about it do you?
BTW this stopped being serious as soon as he responded, give me a break. A kit Kat bar even.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 09:06 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 13 May 2008. |
Edited by angelito at 22:30, 13 May 2008.
|
@Moonlith:
Quote:
Hmmm I disagree. Because in my opinion, being a pedophile, like the colour of your skin, is not something you can change or be held accountable for. For anger, you can.
Let me spell it out for you.
Your analogy:
Pedophile : Rapist :: BlackPerson : Criminal
My analogy:
Pedophile : Rapist :: AngryPerson : Murderer
Actually, an even better one is
Sexual Urge : Rapist :: Anger : Murderer
If you know how analogies work, you can easily point out why yours is not a good one. Of course, you are trying to use the analogy to SHOW the absurdity of the stated position (all pedophiles are rapists), but yours doesn't work by default because the structure is wrong. Here's why the structure of your analogy is incorrect:
(1) Rape is specific; criminal is general. Your analogy does not have parallel structure. At the very least it should be Pedophile:Rapist::BlackPerson:Murderer/Thief. That's a minor fault.
(2) More importantly, the implication of your analogy is that obviously not all pedophiles are rapists, just as not all black people are criminals. That's true. However, the reason your analogy is flawed is because pedophelia is causatively associated with a character trait that is associated with the crime of rape. I think that, even while we agree that all pedophiles are not rapists, pedophilia (which we can reduce to "person with sexual urges for children") can lead to rape. On the other hand, while we agree that all black people are not criminals, the state of being a black person can not lead, intrinsically, to crime. I.e., there IS a causative association between pedophilia and rape; there is NOT a causative association between being a black person and being a criminal. If you know anything about statistics, you would know that a fundamental principle is correlation is (from a biostatistics textbook) "the existence of a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply causation". There is a correlation between black people and crime, just as there is a correlation between pedophilia and rape (and what you are arguing, and what I agree with, is that the correlation coefficient, r, is less than 1). But there is only a CAUSATIVE correlation between pedophilia and rape. Before, I wasn't suggesting your analogy was flawed. Take it from someone who is an expert on statistical analysis: I was telling you that your analogy IS flawed from the outset, and thus really doesn't demonstrate your point. There's really nothing for you to disagree with here, unless you disagre with mathematics.
My improvement of your analogy is NOT flawed (well, not the degree that yours is, anyway), because there IS a causative correlation between anger and murder. Of course, you cannot control your sexual feelings any more than you can control the color of your skin. Also, you cannot control your emotional responses. Anger is not something you can control, and some people have naturally bad tempers. What you CAN control is your actions that are causatively associated with your feelings. When someone cuts me off in traffic, I get pretty pissed off. What separates me from a murderer is that while I may be content to yell "**** OFF!" out the window at the piece of ****, a murderer follows them home and beats them to death with a tire iron. By the same token, if I see a hot woman walking down the street, I may become aroused. Sexual response is not really something you can control. A normal person may gawk at the woman. A rapist goes over a rapes her, and yes, you can be held accountable for acting on uncontrollable sexual urges just as much as you can be held accountable for acting on uncontrollable anger. That's what we call a working analogy, my friend.
While of course we may feel that acting upon pedophiliac urges is WORSE than other forms of sexual crime (because children are involved), it is, physically speaking, no different. Not all pedophiles go out and rape children. Some do. Those that do need to be punished. And just as there are nonviolent crimes associated with "normal" heterosexual urges (public lewness, etc.) there are also nonviolent crimes associated with pedopheliac sexual urges. And THESE need to be punished or corrected as well. There is nothing wrong with pedophilia, per se, only the application of it. Although, if you ARE a pedophilie, something is seriously wrong chemically in your brain, and you should be treated. As long as you do not ACT upon those urges in a manner that harms someone else, either physically or sociologically, then as far as society is concerned, fine. [note: that doesn't mean I want to associate with them or want my children to associate with them]
So just to be clear, MY analogy is fundamentally flawed as well, which was the whole point behind it, to show the absurdity of the position that pedophiles are all rapists, because clearly all angry people are NOT murderers. [let's just be clear that this analogy cannot, strictly speaking, be used to logically prove this to be true; after all, the correlation coefficients may be different for the two scenarios. Analogies are qualitative, not quantitative. But practically speaking, it is an effective way to show the unlikelihood that all pedophiles are rapists.] And just so you know, on this point I fundamentally agree with you, so don't be so defensive. It is unfair to categorically label all pedophiles as rapists. I am just trying to help you construct a salient argument using correct analogy. Rather than just stubbornly assuming that you are correct, why don't you try to learn something from someone who has been in the business of statistical analysis for years.
Quote:
I hear that a lot. I had VERY sexually explicit chats with this former teacher when I was 12. As far as I know, I wasn't damaged.
(1) As far as you know.
(2) More importantly, let me offer another analogy.
A child finds a bloody hypodermic needle as the park. His parents tell him not to pick it up, but he does so anyway and pricks himself. His parents take him to the hospital and have him tested for AIDs and Hep. Thankfully he is fine. Ergo, it is safe for all children to play with dirty hypodermic needles.
What's wrong with this logic? What's wrong is that the conclusion assumes that every child will react the same way to a contaminated hypodermic needle. It also assumes that all dirty hypodermic needles are the same. But we know that different children have different immune systems; we also know that some dirty hypodermic needles are probably actually worse than others. And there's no way a priori to determine which hypodermic needles are safe and which are contaminated with deadly pathogens.
Sure, YOU may have had cybersex with a pedophile and survived unscathed. Maybe you even think it was a positive experience. That's great. For you.
But the world is DEFINED by statistical distributions. Just because you can solve a math problem in 5 seconds doesn't mean the kid next to you can. Just because you are emotionally mature enough to handle a sexual conversation with a pedophile doesn't mean the kid next to you can. Just because YOU know not to trust everything a stranger tells you on the internet, doesn't mean the kid next to you does. And just because the pedophiles YOU talked to were (allegedly) innocuous, doesn't mean the one talking to another child IS. You are using a hasty generalization fallacy to make a generalized conclusion based on a (ridiculously) small sample size, completely ignoring the enormously large number of variables (not the least of which is age) inherent to the problem. Worse than that, you disregard all the cases of children that HAVE been hurt, phychologically and physically, by sexual predators on the internet in favor of your one localized (again allegedly) positive experience.
If you want to arrive at a TRUE answer to the question, you need to approach the problem wholistically and scientifically, and analyze a lot of data, not just make grand conclusions based on a single personal experience. And frankly if even ONE child has been hurt by a pedophile online, that's enough to tip the scales in the direction of caution, IMO. Adults can accept the responsibility for their own actions; if I walk into a dark alley at night and am mugged, I have to take some responsibility for my own stupidity. Children do not have the wealth of life experiences that adults have to make intelligent, safe decisions about their own actions, which is why they - generally - require boundaries and adult instruction for their own protection. Not all pedophiles are rapists - I agree - but many of them are, and those that are know that children are easily duped and confused by false pretenses and empty promises. This is why we teach children not to take candy from ANY strangers. Most strangers probably wouldn't kidnap a child, but a child is not able to make a rational decision about which strangers are likely to pose a threat and which strangers are not; adults have the capacity to identify threats from a distance. This is why we don't tell children, "Don't take candy from strangers wearing X and saying Y and doing Z." Children don't have that capacity for logical analysis and decision making. We tell them to avoid candy from ALL strangers for their protection, because we recognize that they are vulnerable to trickery and devious tactics by adults who are much cleverer than they are. And this is EXACERBATED on the internet, where identity - and a lot of visual clues to perfidy and evil intent - is completely hidden. The anonymity of the internet is BEAUTIFUL? No, it's terrible, because it makes it that much harder for children, already handicapped, to identify sources of danger. Why do you think pedophiles hang out on the internet and not at parks? Duh - anonymity.
Quote:
Here I disagree. The beauty of online chat is that you ALWAYS have the very easy option of "ignore". And if a child really doesn't wish to indulge in sexually tinted conversations, the button is easily pushed. It is the CHILD'S choice wether or not a pedophile online gets a chance.
Again, you are making the erroneous assumption that a child knows the difference between a fun conversation and something that is potentially harmful. It is easy for you, who are old enough to distinguish between something fun and something harmful, to claim that "all you have to do is ignore". It's not that simple for an emotionally underdeveloped child. I mean, all a child has to do is ignore the stranger at the park luring them into a car with the promises of cookies and candy, right? And yet every year many children are kidnapped in exactly that fashion. Your arguments betray your immaturity and failure to appreciate how gullible children are and how devious predators can be, particularly on the internet where they don't even have to wear a costume.
Quote:
Kids that complain they have psychological trauma due to a sexually explicit internet conversation are at least part to be blamed for listening to it or responding to it, and moreover should develop some mental stability.
Nonsense; children are not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to take full responsibility for their actions. If anyone besides the predator are to blame, its the parents who did not protect them.
Quote:
You CANNOT be harmed over online chat.
Your opinion. Are you a psychologist? At the very least, I think the issue is open for debate. Not to mention, I would prefer my children to learn about sex FROM ME, not from a slack-jawed forty-year-old male wearing boxer shorts and sitting next to a bucket of vaseline, pretending to be a 12 year old.
And children CAN be harmed when they are duped into meeting with sexual predators under false pretexts. This is proven FACT. Who is to say your child won't be the next one? Oh, they were murdered by a rapist pedophile? I guess you would just say it was your child's fault, right?
Quote:
And that aside: EVERYONE can be a criminal.
Skirting the issue. Who is more likely to lure your children to their home and rape them - your average joe or a online pedophiliac?
Quote:
And likewise, only pedophiles that actually indulge in criminal behavior should be judged for their actions.
Agreed. Well, sort of. If pedophiles are acting according to their pedophiliac urges, then it SHOULD be criminal behavior.
Quote:
And we seem to differ in our opinion wether sexually explicit chats and deceit over online chat is to be considered criminal behavior. Disapproving of it is one thing, but that doesn't make it criminal.
Well let me ask you this. If a pedophile joins a chat group filled with mostly pre-teens and lies about his age to mislead the children, is that wrong? I'm not talking legally. I'm just asking - do you feel that is morally wrong to do?
If you put aside the issue of criminality aside for a moment, then, would you agree that parents are justified in not wanting their children exposed to pedophiles? Ignore the consequent actions. Think like a parent for a second. Regardless of what you decide to allow or not allow your child to do, would you WANT your 12yo child to be exposed to a 40 year old man, masquerading as a 12 year old, having sexually explicit conversations with them. (Under this wording, it is possible to answer No, while still allowing them to use the chat room anyway.)
Because I ASSURE you, that no parent would actually WANT that to happen to their children.
Edit by angelito
Very good post to a delicate topic. Thumbs up!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
This discussion is hard to take seriously. Of course not all people who are pedophiles are rapists. However, they have a greater likelyhood of becoming rapists because of the way things are. Pedophilia is frowned upon, as well it should be.
I know that I wouldn't want any child to be in a class taught by a pedophile. Nor would I want any child to talk to one online. It doesn't harm everybody, but it harms a great amount of people. It's like what Angelito said about young girls. That's bad enough, but when they start talking to pedophiles online, that's even worse.
Edit: Brilliant post, Corribus.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 13, 2008 09:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with pedophilia, per se, only the application of it.
Even more so the attempt to act on it, hence why we have people arrested and charged all the time for preying on children on the net.It is them setting meetings up, going to the homes of children, and anything associated with that. That is how much society despises this activity.
Good post Cor.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 12:54 AM |
|
|
Firstly, let me just say that Corribus' post to this was stellar. Deserving of that bonus. Thank you for that, it was a pleasure to read.
Now...down to business.
I did NOT like reading some of what I am about to reply to. My impression is that Moon is neither a parent nor should be allowed to breed, especially if you hold your comments as your truth. Matter of fact, you sound an awful lot like one certain Shadey with your mouth diarrhea. Maybe you are just saying things to get people riled up... and if that's the case. You should stop.
I think I can speak with some authority since my former brother in law IS a convicted pedophile/child RAPIST. These sorts of things were too close to home, at least for me, and maybe Moon...you just haven't been properly versed in any of this to be spouting out such ignorant crap. If I didn't know any better, you sound like you are defending these douchebags that engage in kiddie sex. My comments will be in bold.
Quote:
Quote:
That's not a very good analogy. A better one would be: "Saying pedophiles by definition are rapists is like saying people who get angry are murderers." I'm not saying I agree with the point behind the analogy, but I thought you'd like your analogy to at least make sense.
Hmmm I disagree. Because in my opinion, being a pedophile, like the colour of your skin, is not something you can change or be held accountable for. For anger, you can.
You can change whether or not you have sex with little kids. Same as you have the choice to have sex with dead things, members of your family or animals. The common denominatior is that all of those things are ILLEGAL in this country. Period. End of story.
If you engage in those types of things, you should be held accountable. You do those types of things and you SHOULD be in jail.
Quote:
Also, lying about your age online and having sexually explicit discussions with 10 year olds is an action. There are other actions aside from rape associated with pedophilia that are damaging to children.
I hear that a lot. I had VERY sexually explicit chats with this former teacher when I was 12. As far as I know, I wasn't damaged.
Okay...first off what was any self respecting teacher doing having those kinds of "chats" with you? Sounds more that a little askew to me. That's NOT right, and I am sorry, if my 15 year old came home and told me that some teacher of his was talking to him like that and it wasn't about sex ed. class...someone would be having their bits and pieces dragging over the coals by me. You say as far as you know you weren't damaged...well good for you. Count yourself lucky.
Moreover, the beauty of the internet is the fact you are anonymous, and can choose who you wish to interact with. In 99% of the cases, people you chat with over an online chat, you don't tend to see again, unless it is an actual tight community - in which pretending to be someone else is quite difficult. (And IF youngsters hang in tight online communities, it is never a sexual one.)
Don't make assumptions that you are anonymous. There are many ways to figure out indentities and it can all start as simply as locating an IP.
As far as youngsters not having sexual chats...don't fool yourself, they know a lot more than we give them credit for and do things that we don't always catch right away.
Most people around that age are actually aware you can pretend to be someone else, and I have yet to see how it can be damaging.
Because they have yet to run into the "wrong" person...
Quote:
The point being that while you are correct that all pedophiles are not rapists, there are many pedophiles who are not rapists but who are nonetheless criminals. There are probably also pedophiles that do nothing wrong and live a "normal" life. I have no problem with these people per se. However, if you are using the internet as a vehicle to prey upon children, even with no intent to do actual physical harm (i.e, invite them over to your house to have sex with them), you are still indulging in deceitful, potentially psychologically harmful behavior, and you either need to be punished (if you're doing it maliciously and luring children into sexually explicit conversations under falst pretenses) or at least voluntarily seek the help of mental heath professionals.
Whoever wrote the above line is thinking straight...and I agree with most of what's said to a degree. not all pedophiles are rapists, however the common denominator is what landed them in that status to begin with. It's ILLEGAL. There are some case of a convicted pedophile serving their time and coming out to be a quiet, law abiding citizen once again. But let me just say those cases are far and few between. The cases of these people getting caught, doing time, coming out and trying to find different ways to prey on children is more the "norm". And good luck trying to tell them that they need help. They won't seek help and they won't stop until they are caught again.
Here I disagree. The beauty of online chat is that you ALWAYS have the very easy option of "ignore". And if a child really doesn't wish to indulge in sexually tinted conversations, the button is easily pushed. It is the CHILD'S choice wether or not a pedophile online gets a chance.
Not always true. Sure you have the option of blocking, ignoring, or flat out deleting said person spaking to you in ways you aren't comfortable with. But what if that person is playing as if they are someone your age? Not a threat? One of your peers? You can't always know 100% if the person on the other end of the conversation is who they say they are...and this has been proven time and again by law enforcement and watch dog groups on the Internet. Sometimes, by the time the youngster registers the idea that said person they are talking to IS a threat, that pedophile has already gotten their foot in the door.
Kids that complain they have psychological trauma due to a sexually explicit internet conversation are at least part to be blamed for listening to it or responding to it, and moreover should develop some mental stability.
You CANNOT be harmed over online chat.
The only way you COULD be harmed is if you fall in love with what seems to be a same-age peer over the internet, only to discover it is in fact some old pervert. But in my opinion, this is no different than discovering your real life lover has been deceiving you in whatever way. And even THEN you could blame the kid for trusting someone over the internet, as it is a general rule you can never be sure who you are chatting to.
What Cracker Jack box did that little gem pop out of? You CAN be harmed by speaking to people online. Sure, again you could have the option of blocking, ignoring, or deleting said person, BUT there is only so much window of opportunity to register that said person as a threat. And after the words stop, what then if said person shows up at the door? The only thing that made good sense on those above 3 statements was that it is a general rule that you can nver be sure WHO you are chatting TO.
And as far as I know, kids ARE being warned about that.
Sure they are warned, but what kids do you know actually listen to sound advice? If you should happen to know, send them MY way because I don't think I've ever met a single kid that listened to everything they were told especially when it came to the Internet. This is why neither of my children are online and when the time comes that I feel they are responsible and mature enough to handle that priviledge...then that's what they make parental controls for, and that is why I am around to supervise them. Key word here is "SUPERVISE". I can only hope other parents would be so in tune with their kids. Many of these pedophile phishing nutters could and would be avoided if parents took the time to actually get up off their ***** to see what the heck their kids were doing and who they were talking to. Period.
Quote:
As with the new, better analogy above, just because all people who get angry are not murderers, doesn't mean that non-murdering angry people can't be criminals.
I still disagree with the analogy 
And that aside: EVERYONE can be a criminal.
Absolutely, Everyone could be, thankfully the majority of people never find that thin line that once crossed puts them in the category of "law-breaker".
Quote:
Likewise, while all pedophiles are not rapists, a pedophile who cannot control his urges - but who is not (yet) a rapist - is still much more prone to the rape of a child in the future than a pedophile who CAN control their urges or someone who doesn't have those urges at all. Of course, almost everyone gets angry. It is only the people who ACT upon that anger in a violent way who need to go to jail, and anger-derived criminal actions are not limited to murder.
And likewise, only pedophiles that actually indulge in criminal behavior should be judged for their actions. And we seem to differ in our opinion wether sexually explicit chats and deceit over online chat is to be considered criminal behavior. Disapproving of it is one thing, but that doesn't make it criminal.
I disagree. if someone is engaging a child in sexually explicit chats and making the child believe that they are someone else, then I believe that that IS criminal behavior since it would appear, at least to me, that tehy have some other motive behind the chats. Whether that be to try and lure the child out or whatever, that chats are only the vehicle to the main goal.
But this is straying from the main point I believe
Quote:
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with pedophilia, per se, only the application of it.
Did I read that right? There is NOTHING WRONG with PEDOPHILIA?!?
Back up my friend and read that again, because if there wasn't anything WRONG with it then we wouldn't have jails full of those sick douchebags. If you are a person sitting back and having fantasies about having sex with kids, your daughter, your dog, or your dead gramma...then there is something seriously wrong with your head. Seek help immediately. If you want to think there is nothing wrong with any of that, then I encourage you to go up to your local law enforcement and ask them. I am sure they will be more than happy to tell you that is ILLEGAL. Sure, you can think about it all you want, but the second you take the thoughts and start trying to find ways to make it a reality...
Even more so the attempt to act on it, hence why we have people arrested and charged all the time for preying on children on the net.It is them setting meetings up, going to the homes of children, and anything associated with that. That is how much society despises this activity.
Absolutely VF.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 02:15 AM |
|
|
Unfortunately I don't have much time thus I can't respond here as much I'd like to but let me just say this... I do agree with Moonlith on many things and I have the impression that some here are being a bit hypersensitive & baised (this may be due to the fact that they are parents... reason however should decide here).
I'll soon explain my points of view and try to explain how Moonlith indeed is right with many things. But before claiming that it's impossible please give me the time to respond and then trash me.
However one thing before I go
@Setitetart
Quote:
If I didn't know any better, you sound like you are defending these douchebags that engage in kiddie sex.
Quote:
Not every pedophile is a disgusting rapist. I Do NOT sympathize with rapists. I DO sympathize with pedophiles that choose NOT to touch and harm children, and instead choose to live with their burden. For THOSE people I have the deepest sympathy.
I'm sure you just missed this part before you wrote that.
I'd be happy if you'd (people in general not YOU specifically) would stop throwing random (and at times pretty stupid and offensive) accusation arround just because they
a)didn't understand what a person was really saying
b)they simply reject other facts.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 03:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately I don't have much time thus I can't respond here as much I'd like to but let me just say this... I do agree with Moonlith on many things and I have the impression that some here are being a bit hypersensitive & baised (this may be due to the fact that they are parents... reason however should decide here).
I'll soon explain my points of view and try to explain how Moonlith indeed is right with many things. But before claiming that it's impossible please give me the time to respond and then trash me.
I don't seek to trash anyone, only putting in my 2 centsand state how things look to me. Purely MY opinion. I expect to get feedback, whether it is good or bad...
I won't say it's impossible...but much of what I've read really taps me because it's obvious to me that some of you haven't had the misfortune of dealing with someone that is a pedophile/child rapist. And to make things clear, not all of my experiences with my former BIL were me as a parent, some predate the birth of my son. My BIL is a repeat offender and he refused help on many occasions. Even after the man was incarcerated his influence was felt for years. Even to this day, I forbid my son to be anywhere in the vacinity of his Uncle even though I am supposed to just accept the idea that he doesn't rape boys, and did his time. Never mind his roommate is also a convicted pedophile/child rapist that DOES like boys. They are on the Internet and I can almost bet it won't be long before one or both of them is picked up again...because what they do is wrong on so many levels.
I would never wish on anyone the hell that is dealing with those types of people. it isn't simply a matter that they are sick in the head and can't be helped, they know not what they do. I have seen it personally and know that to be a load of crap. I suppose I could say that not every pedophile is that way, much like not every pedophile is also a child rapist...
However, there is a thin line dividing it.
However one thing before I go
@Setitetart
Quote:
If I didn't know any better, you sound like you are defending these douchebags that engage in kiddie sex.
Correct me if I am wrong...but in more than a few instances it sure does sound to me like defense. Keeping up with the old lame excuses...not holding these people accountable or responsible for their deplorable actions. I am aware that in a few countries arranged marriages and acceptable pedophila are the norm, but I am speaking strictly on US standard and nothing more. Pedophilia is ILLEGAL here. if you do it here in any way shape or form, whether directly or implied through the Internet or otherwise...you can be arrested and it is a felony charge.
Quote:
Not every pedophile is a disgusting rapist. I Do NOT sympathize with rapists. I DO sympathize with pedophiles that choose NOT to touch and harm children, and instead choose to live with their burden. For THOSE people I have the deepest sympathy.
Not only did I NOT say that, but I did miss it. However, I don't agree with the statement either. I will agree that not every pedophile is a rapist and that I don't have one iota of sympathy for someone that goes out and forces themselves on another. But why would a person choose to have sympathy for someone that is attracted to kids? Regardless of whether or not they are actively doing "harm" or not...sympathy because they can't or won't seek help? It's a lame duck philosophy...oh poor them and their heavy burden. It doesn't wash with me. Every person on the face of this planet makes choices in their lives, from the simple and mundane things to complex and life altering choices. For each and every one of those choices there are consequences. Factoring in the region specific laws that each citizen of each country must abide by.
Something to think about.
You make the right choices and life is generally pretty good.
You make craptastic choices and things can be so-very-bad.
I'm sure you just missed this part before you wrote that.
I'd be happy if you'd (people in general not YOU specifically) would stop throwing random (and at times pretty stupid and offensive) accusation arround just because they
a)didn't understand what a person was really saying
b)they simply reject other facts.
I'd be happy if people would stop playing the violins for every sad sap that got caught doing things they know to be wrong.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 04:09 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:17, 14 May 2008.
|
@ Setitetart:
Quote:
Whoever wrote the above line is thinking straight...
It was me.
I wrote:
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with pedophilia, per se, only the application of it.
You replied:
Quote:
Did I read that right? There is NOTHING WRONG with PEDOPHILIA?!?
Back up my friend and read that again, because if there wasn't anything WRONG with it then we wouldn't have jails full of those sick douchebags. If you are a person sitting back and having fantasies about having sex with kids, your daughter, your dog, or your dead gramma...then there is something seriously wrong with your head. Seek help immediately. If you want to think there is nothing wrong with any of that, then I encourage you to go up to your local law enforcement and ask them. I am sure they will be more than happy to tell you that is ILLEGAL. Sure, you can think about it all you want, but the second you take the thoughts and start trying to find ways to make it a reality...
Yeah, so let me clarify that statement, because reading it again I see how that's can be misinterpreted.
What I mean is that really you are only culpable for your actions, not your thoughts and emotions. You and I are in agreement that if someone finds little children sexually attractive, there is something seriously wrong with him, and he should seek help.
That said, you cannot legally go after a person just for having thoughts, and if a pedophile's urges are restricted to mental fantasies, sick as they are, there is nothing you can do about it. If a pedophile has the self-control to live a normal life, without engaging in activity that encroaches upon or endangers other people or their rights/safety, then there is nothing wrong with that, per se. I mean, let's forget pedophilia for a moment and consider normal heterosexual relationships. As I tried to use earlier, consider a man walking down the street and seeing an absolutely gorgeous woman standing there at a bus stop wearing a very skimpy outfit. If you are a heterosexual male, it is biological instinct to think, "I want to have sex with that woman." Of course, you may not frame your language that way - you may say "She's HOT" or "What a nice rack!" or whatever, but essentially you have a natural sexual urge to go over and have sex with her right there. Naturally, 99.99% of heterosexual males can suppress those natural impulses and wait until taking the girl out to dinner (and shoving a few drinks into her) before asking her to have sex. Unfortunately, a low percentage of heterosexual males to not possess the ability to suppress those urges - or just choose not to - and commit rape. The reason one person is a criminal and the other is not is NOT necessarily because of differences in their physical urges; the difference as far as the law (and society) is concerned is that the rapist chooses to act upon his urges in a manner that causes physical/emotional harm to another member of society, and the normal heterosexual male does not. This is pretty much the boundary between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. Now, when it comes to pedophiles, there's really no difference, exept the nature of the urge is different. Pedophiles that act upon their urges in an illegal way (and, unlike heterosexual behavior, any action based on pedophiliac urges is illegal by definition, and rightly so) are criminals that need to be institutionalized; however, pedophiles that suppress their urges are no different, legally, from heterosexuals who suppress their urges.
The caveat here is of course that while we do not consider "normal" (i.e., those who have self-control and can suppress their urges) heterosexual males a threat to society, we do consider "normal" pedophiles to be a threat. [keeping in mind that technically anyone could become a criminal in the future - Moonlith's Red Herring] The reason is that the "targets" of heterosexual urges are adults whereas the "targets" of pedophiles are children. Of course, adults are equipped to protect themselves; children are not. So there's a justifiable inclination to deal with pedophiles BEFORE they have technically done anything wrong. While that inclination may be justified, there are ethical concerns involved because to force such "normal" pedophiles to preemptive measures is technically a violation of their legal rights. I don't have the answer to that ethical dilemma. As a citizen and someone who respects the constitution and human rights, I feel a person should have the benefit of the doubt, as going down that road is a slippery slope and sets a precedent that gives me a sour taste; as a parent I say lock them up!
(Thanks for the star, btw. )
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 04:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Seitetart:
Quote:
Whoever wrote the above line is thinking straight...
It was me.
*smirks* So the kudos go to you then Corribus, as you were indeed thinking straight. 
I wrote:
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with pedophilia, per se, only the application of it.
You replied:
Quote:
Did I read that right? There is NOTHING WRONG with PEDOPHILIA?!?
Back up my friend and read that again, because if there wasn't anything WRONG with it then we wouldn't have jails full of those sick douchebags. If you are a person sitting back and having fantasies about having sex with kids, your daughter, your dog, or your dead gramma...then there is something seriously wrong with your head. Seek help immediately. If you want to think there is nothing wrong with any of that, then I encourage you to go up to your local law enforcement and ask them. I am sure they will be more than happy to tell you that is ILLEGAL. Sure, you can think about it all you want, but the second you take the thoughts and start trying to find ways to make it a reality...
Yeah, so let me clarify that statement, because reading it again I see how that's can be misinterpreted.
Ah yes. Thank you and please do. LOL
What I mean is that really you are only culpable for your actions, not your thoughts and emotions. You and I are in agreement that if someone finds little children sexually attractive, there is something seriously wrong with him, and he should seek help.
Absolutely.
That said, you cannot legally go after a person just for having thoughts, and if a pedophile's urges are restricted to mental fantasies, sick as they are, there is nothing you can do about it.
True that. Thoughts are completely one thing and not under the jurisdiction of any law so to speak. it's when they fail to keep the thoughts to themselves and start doing physical actions/deeds...whether or not they are caught right then, if ever.
If a pedophile has the self-control to live a normal life, without engaging in activity that encroaches upon or endangers other people or their rights/safety, then there is nothing wrong with that, per se.
Agreed. Thank you for mentioning self control, because that appears to be the issue with so many of the people in the pedophile cubby, is that they lack self control and their desires overpower their would be rational thinking.
I mean, let's forget pedophilia for a moment and consider normal heterosexual relationships. As I tried to use earlier, consider a man walking down the street and seeing an absolutely gorgeous woman standing there at a bus stop wearing a very skimpy outfit. If you are a heterosexual male, it is biological instinct to think, "I want to have sex with that woman." Of course, you may not frame your language that way - you may say "She's HOT" or "What a nice rack!" or whatever, but essentially you have a natural sexual urge to go over and have sex with her right there. Naturally, 99.99% of heterosexual males can suppress those natural impulses and wait until taking the girl out to dinner (and shoving a few drinks into her) before asking her to have sex. Unfortunately, a low percentage of heterosexual males to not possess the ability to suppress those urges - or just choose not to - and commit rape. The reason one person is a criminal and the other is not is NOT necessarily because of differences in their physical urges; the difference as far as the law (and society) is concerned is that the rapist chooses to act upon his urges in a manner that causes physical/emotional harm to another member of society, adn the normal heterosexual male does not. This is pretty much the boundary between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal.
Well said Corribus...
Now, when it comes to pedophiles, there's really no difference, exept the nature of the urge is different. Pedophiles that act upon their urges in an illegal way (and, unlike heterosexual behavior, any action based on pedophiliac urges is illegal by definition, and rightly so) are criminals that need to be institutionalized; however, pedophiles that suppress their urges are no different, legally, from heterosexuals who suppress their urges.
The caveat here is of course that while we do not consider "normal" (i.e., those who have self-control and can suppress their urges) heterosexual males a threat to society, whereas we do consider "normal" pedophiles to be a threat. [keeping in mind that technically anyone could become a criminal in the future] The reason is that the "targets" of heterosexual urges are adults whereas the "targets" of pedophiles are children. Of course, adults are equipped to protect themselves; children are not. So there's a justifiable inclination to deal with pedophiles BEFORE they have technically done anything wrong. While that inclination may be justified, there are ethical concerns involved because to force such "normal" pedophiles to preemptive measures is technically a violation of their legal rights. I don't have the answer to that ethical dilemma. As a citizen and someone who respects the constitution and human rights, I feel a person should have the benefit of the doubt, as going down that road is a slippery slope and sets a precedent that gives me a sour taste; as a parent I say lock them up!
I see the dilemma, I really do, but having been on that side of the fence it's hard for me to care about their rights, especially once they've already committed crimes against kids. For the pedophiles who keep themselves and their wants in order, for lack of a better phrase, meaning that they keep their urges to the mind and not to the physical, I have zero issues with them. (Until they start putting toes out of line)
The other thing is also that once a person commits a felony of that degree, their "rights" are pretty much wiped. they aren't able to vote or to purchase or own firearms among other things...they've given all of that up. i am not saying they don't have some rights, but what they do have versus another who hasn't committed felonies...theirs are a shell of what they had pre-felony.
I'd like to always be able to give the benefit of doubt, but having been there personally I find it very hard to do so.
I have issues with the repeat offenders and the offenders that have served time and yet they still go to places they know they have no business being around. My BIL was/is restricted from being within X distance from schools, daycares, porn stores, and any other place that kids are frequent. He is also barred from being online...but even with those "restrictions" in place, it's never stopped him from going to those places or being online. He is a predator plain and simple and while he might not be actively fondling or raping someone's kid...it doesn't make him any less of a threat. Online or off.
I have 2 children...and I want nothing more than to be able to keep them safe.
Anyway...
(Thanks for the star, btw. )
Anytime love (even though I wasn't the one who gave the bonus). You deserved it.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 09:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My BIL was/is restricted from being within X distance from schools, daycares, porn stores, and any other place that kids are frequent.
Now I'm sure there's something wrong with USA.
Kids are frequent...AT A PORN STORE?! 
What kinda laws do you have there?
BTW. I believe in Finland people get adult status sexually when they turn 16.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 10:10 AM |
|
|
What does restricting porn sites have to do with stopping pedophiles?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 11:17 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 11:33, 14 May 2008.
|
*grunts* Here we go...
@ VF:
Quote:
The fact that you approve that he is working in an environment that puts him in the middle of temptations and throw in a smiley face just has stupidity written all over it. Not to mention it backs up my theory that you defiantly have the potential to prey upon children. Sounds like these perverse conversations you had with Mr. “Perfectly ok child molester” has obviously damaged you. Just go back and read the idiotic words you type and actually believe.
You have a very twisted sense of logic. And for your own mental health I would tell you to back down from this discussion if that's the kind of logic you wish to stick to, but I cannot force you. I'll restrain myself from answering to the childish bits.
Quote:
If one is a pedophile and does not act on it in anyway, that includes via the internet or getting off to child porn, then he is just other person with a sick sexual desire.
And just because 99,99% of the population thinks it is sick (myself included), that does not give you the right to DEFINE it as a sick sexual desire. It remains subjective.
Quote:
However if a man who likes child porn is then put in the middle of a elementary school, you can honestly state there is not something wrong about that and temps his sickness further? Why bother, sounds like at twelve you actually got off on it.
I'm sorry, do you know the man? I had met him there after I left elementary school, we had sexual chats, I ran into him now and then IRL, and we just said hi and talked some. He is a very nice man, one who I pity for his sexual desires. He has been a teacher for what, 40+ years? What gives YOU the right to say he is a filthy rapist and should be put out of his job ? You are being too judgemental here.
The reason I spoke of him here, is to give a clear example of a pedophile that would NEVER rape or harm a child. (And my you, I dare to believe even the majority of pedophiles would never touch a child. It's just that you never know the friendly neighbour next door has feelings for kids simply because he never acts on it, and as such, every pedophile in the news is instantly linked to the rape he or she has committed.)
Quote:
Quote:
Some people don't need a large group of people as support to back up their statements.
Hey bright one, I said that in response to your last post where you stated no one else was backing me, genius.
"Majority" never qualifies as a solid backup, bright one.
Quote:
I don’t disagree with that. I believe in opening doors for the children to let them judge for themselves. However, how you think at 12, having these sexually driven conversations with a pedophile online was rewarding or healthy is beyond understandable.
Reward: Sexual release (duh)
Healthy: Made me throughoutly explore my sexual desires and kinks (as any other erotic conversations I had with non-pedos)
Quote:
You are not supposed to have tolerance for those that commit crimes against innocent children whether in person or online.
I agree, but you missed the part where I stated I do not deem online interaction a criminal activity. Difference of opinion.
Quote:
Not every pedophile is a disgusting rapist. I Do NOT sympathize with rapists. I DO sympathize with pedophiles that choose NOT to touch and harm children, and instead choose to live with their burden. For THOSE people I have the deepest sympathy. And the last thing they need is a judgemental freak like you who deems them disgusting rapists based on something they CANNOT change - the fact they are sexually attracted to children. Saying pedophiles by definition are rapists is like saying black people are criminals.
Quote:
It is a sexual preference in one sense, you are right, so is necrophilia; does having your BF next to you in bed thinking about killing you so he can have sex with your corpse ok with you too? Sure!
Indeed, it IS. As long as he doesn't put his FANTASIES into PRACTISE. That is one thing I learned And you did not, apparently: There is NOTHING wrong with fantasizing about ANYTHING: it CAN be wrong when you put it into practise.
Quote:
So lets put him a room with your dead mother and allow him to have sex with her corpse.
I know I said I would delete any and all childish comments you made, but this one I just had to leave here. What is the point of this comment, other than to provoke someone into a more heated argument - and thus deriving from a mature discussion?
Quote:
Lets temp him further and have him work in a morgue. Do you see what is going on here? You don’t have someone work in an elementary school who in his own mind wants to have sex with small children. CHRIST, the stupidity here is killing me.
Again, there is a difference between having sexual fantasies and acting on it. Wether or not pedophiles get TEMPTED when working with children, I will comment on later in a responce to Cor.
Quote:
They are driven and cannot help it. They judge themselves as a danger to society and children, even ones that have not done it claim it is only a matter of time. If you had done your research and got off the kiddy porn sites and put down the paper towels maybe you would read and learned. I’ am only confirming what they have said. I quote, “Cut off my penis and I will desecrate children with my feet, cut off my feet I will abuse them sexually with my hands, cut off my hands I will violate them with my tongue.”
And again you assume I did not do my research. Trust me, I am well aware of the examples of pedophiles willingly letting themselves be castrated - in which case, by the way, they would NOT molest children with anything, since they would no longer have hormones or the ability to get excited from them.
Quote:
Like Rowan Atkinson put it: "Child rapists, would like to make a line in front of that small guillotine in the corner...". The death penalty isn't nescesairy for all pedophiles, but I think some of them do/did deserve to die (especially if the raping and harrasment was coupled to murder)
And this is where I agree. Child rapists in my opinion deserve the same punishment as any other rapist: Castration.
Quote:
BTW this stopped being serious as soon as he responded, give me a break. A kit Kat bar even.
Your loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Corribus:
Quote:
If you know how analogies work, you can easily point out why yours is not a good one. Of course, you are trying to use the analogy to SHOW the absurdity of the stated position (all pedophiles are rapists), but yours doesn't work by default because the structure is wrong. Here's why the structure of your analogy is incorrect:
<big lap of text>
I need to admit, you are right here The main reason I did not see the flaw is because the point I was trying to make, is that you cannot claim every pedophile is a rapist just like not every black man is a criminal. The link I was making between pedophile and skincolour, is that it is something you cannot help - it is something you need to live with. As such I did not look at the part that you were critisizing.
The reason I became instantly defensive was probably because I was looking at the main point I was trying to bring across, and not so much at the details of the analogy. I am open to being proven wrong - which you did - but I just didn't see it in my previous post.
So, thanks And I retract my wordings that I disagree with your correction.
There is one issue though I need to adress here:
Quote:
I think that, even while we agree that all pedophiles are not rapists, pedophilia (which we can reduce to "person with sexual urges for children") can lead to rape. On the other hand, while we agree that all black people are not criminals, the state of being a black person can not lead, intrinsically, to crime.
I would question to what extent being a pedophile does lead intrinsically to rape. As well I would question to what extent pedophiles are actually more tempted to harass children when working with children, than a normal man is tempted to rape a woman when working with women.
You see, of the pedophiles that you know of, easily above 95% is a rapist - otherwise they wouldn't even hit the news. However, there is an unknown amount of pedophiles that does NOT rape children, and from those people, you simply do not know if they are pedophiles.
As such, you do not know the ratio of pedophiles that give in to their urges (that could be well over 75%, but simularly less than 5%). And inevitably, you cannot really say pedophiles working with children are more tempted to violate them based on the few examples where it went wrong - just as you cannot say men are more tempted to violate women when working with them based on a few rape examples.
I'm just theorizing here. For all I know the group of pedophiles that doesn't do anything is very small. Personally I would agree with you that they probably are, since non-pedos do have options to relieve their sexual stress in legal means, whereas pedophiles do not. But to me it is none the less interesting to theorize on.
As for the topic of me generalizing children based on the way I acted, you are right here as well, I do admit that is another flaw of mine. As well the issue of deeming a threat nil based on one good experience. This was just my experience though, and as shamefull as it is to admit, it is I believe a simple case of "I was better than others of my age and I wish others could be like I was."
I have a hard time dealing with that
Quote:
But the world is DEFINED by statistical distributions. Just because you can solve a math problem in 5 seconds doesn't mean the kid next to you can.
This pretty much sums up your whole point and my flaw. I did make a hasty conclusion based on my own single experience while ignoring all other bad examples, again in that admittedly arrogant "I was better than others of my age and I wish others could be like I was" kind of way. I appologize for that.
Quote:
Children do not have the wealth of life experiences that adults have to make intelligent, safe decisions about their own actions, which is why they - generally - require boundaries and adult instruction for their own protection.
I would like to point out though, that I disagree with the general idea in this thread that children are somehow ALWAYS the innocent victims and pedophiles are the big bad wolves. I know of situations where childs have willingly played with the fire.
I remember this tale of a young girl - around 14 orso - that had sex with her P.E. Teacher, who was around 23 I believe, at the time. She herself took the initiatives to come back for more to him. When she reached the age of 22, she suddenly accused him of having molested her, that she somehow has a trauma now. I find it hard to believe that. And aside from the teacher in this example being a retard, I do wonder who is the real victim here.
Just to stress that not everything is as black and white as many in this thread like to proclaim it is.
Quote:
Again, you are making the erroneous assumption that a child knows the difference between a fun conversation and something that is potentially harmful.
Again that "I was better than others of my age and I wish others could be like I was" thing Sorry.
Quote:
Not to mention, I would prefer my children to learn about sex FROM ME, not from a slack-jawed forty-year-old male wearing boxer shorts and sitting next to a bucket of vaseline, pretending to be a 12 year old.
Mind you, I learned most about sex from sites ABOUT sex - not pornsites or pedophiles
Quote:
And children CAN be harmed when they are duped into meeting with sexual predators under false pretexts. This is proven FACT. Who is to say your child won't be the next one? Oh, they were murdered by a rapist pedophile? I guess you would just say it was your child's fault, right?
If I ever HAD a child I would make sure he or she would never - EVER - get to meet up with ANYONE he or she meets over the internet, untill he or she is mentally mature enough.
That aside, there is a tool called a keylogger that logfiles any keystrokes the user makes - a parent can use it to read back later on what his or her child has been typing. Although this raises the issue of trust between parent and child, and the issue of privacy. I know in my case, I would have been mentally scarred for life if I found out my parents had been reading up on what I had been typing.
Quote:
Who is more likely to lure your children to their home and rape them - your average joe or a online pedophiliac?
I get your point
Quote:
If pedophiles are acting according to their pedophiliac urges, then it SHOULD be criminal behavior.
THIS I find a very interesting statement. A normal man surfing for porn on the internet is not a criminal activity (I hope), but I might agree that a pedo trying to find sexual satisfaction over the internet could be held a criminal.
However, I do wonder wether or not I'd be more content with a pedo satisfying his urges through online cybersex with minors, rather than a pedo that does not get to do that, grows sexually frustrated, and starts actually preying on real children. A case of a "lesser evil" perhaps.
Quote:
Well let me ask you this. If a pedophile joins a chat group filled with mostly pre-teens and lies about his age to mislead the children, is that wrong? I'm not talking legally. I'm just asking - do you feel that is morally wrong to do?
You drove me in a corner here, since I dislike judging things wrong or right I like to look at things from multiple sides. But yes, I would deem that wrong, primairily based on the fact I deem lying in general to be wrong.
Quote:
would you agree that parents are justified in not wanting their children exposed to pedophiles? Ignore the consequent actions. Think like a parent for a second. Regardless of what you decide to allow or not allow your child to do, would you WANT your 12yo child to be exposed to a 40 year old man, masquerading as a 12 year old, having sexually explicit conversations with them. (Under this wording, it is possible to answer No, while still allowing them to use the chat room anyway.)
I do agree parents are justified in not wanting their children exposed to pedophiles. However, I severely disagree with the heavy black and white thinking portrayed by some in this thread. Understanding their heavy reactions, I might, but I disagree with them simply because people are being judged and generlized here - just as much as I have done.
Quote:
Because I ASSURE you, that no parent would actually WANT that to happen to their children.
I'm sorry if my statements made to believe I thought parents were or should be okay with it happening to their children
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Setitetart:
Quote:
Maybe you are just saying things to get people riled up... and if that's the case. You should stop.
I tend to blame people who get riled up about my statements on the fact they cannot control their emotions. I tend to say things blunt and to the point, and whenever I engage in discussions I make sure to leave my emotions out of it - discussions are meant for the brain. If you get riled up about my statements, then I am sorry, for that is not my intention, but it is YOUR problem.
Therefor:
Quote:
Matter of fact, you sound an awful lot like one certain Shadey with your mouth diarrhea.
Please restrain yourself from making such statements. I find it immature.
Quote:
you sound like you are defending these douchebags that engage in kiddie sex.
As stated before, then you should read my posts more carefully if you really think that.
Quote:
You can change whether or not you have sex with little kids. Same as you have the choice to have sex with dead things, members of your family or animals. The common denominatior is that all of those things are ILLEGAL in this country. Period. End of story.
While I agree with the statement that you can choose not to engage in such activities, I disagree with the argument you choose to use. Laws by definition are subjective, and should NEVER be used as arguments, and ESPECIALLY not to "end a topic".
Quote:
Okay...first off what was any self respecting teacher doing having those kinds of "chats" with you? Sounds more that a little askew to me. That's NOT right, and I am sorry, if my 15 year old came home and told me that some teacher of his was talking to him like that and it wasn't about sex ed. class...someone would be having their bits and pieces dragging over the coals by me.
I did not know this man was a pedophile untill I left elementary school and by accident met him on an online chat. The topic of sex was never discussed with me - or anyone of my school - with that teacher.
Quote:
But let me just say those cases are far and few between. The cases of these people getting caught, doing time, coming out and trying to find different ways to prey on children is more the "norm". And good luck trying to tell them that they need help. They won't seek help and they won't stop until they are caught again.
Then that simply means the punishment is wrong. I still opt for castration to ensure they won't ever get aroused - and thus tempted - ever again.
Quote:
What Cracker Jack box did that little gem pop out of? You CAN be harmed by speaking to people online. Sure, again you could have the option of blocking, ignoring, or deleting said person, BUT there is only so much window of opportunity to register that said person as a threat. And after the words stop, what then if said person shows up at the door? The only thing that made good sense on those above 3 statements was that it is a general rule that you can nver be sure WHO you are chatting TO.
Sorry, but you have to be a real RETARD to give out your address to strangers you meet online. In that case I would blame the parents for not being carefull enough.
Quote:
Sure they are warned, but what kids do you know actually listen to sound advice? If you should happen to know, send them MY way because I don't think I've ever met a single kid that listened to everything they were told especially when it came to the Internet. This is why neither of my children are online and when the time comes that I feel they are responsible and mature enough to handle that priviledge...then that's what they make parental controls for, and that is why I am around to supervise them. Key word here is "SUPERVISE". I can only hope other parents would be so in tune with their kids. Many of these pedophile phishing nutters could and would be avoided if parents took the time to actually get up off their ***** to see what the heck their kids were doing and who they were talking to. Period.
At the risk of your kid growing up to hate you for being so controlling? That happened before. Just how big IS the risk of a child being abducted by a pedo? Frankly, I don't believe it's that high.
There are people who ask what the hell is wrong with mother nature, how it is possible that natural disasters become more extreme. They don't become more extreme, there is little difference between the amount and intensity of natural disasters from now and hundreds of years ago. The only difference is, that human population has grown, and the struck areas are inhabited by more people these days - thus making the absolute numbers of deaths bigger than they used to be.
Simularly, in absolute numbers, I have no doubt there will be more and more newsreports of childs having been molested by pedophiles. But relatively? I doubt the ratio changes. Although I could be wrong - I don't have actual numbers.
I just don't understand why people (particularly Americans) are so afraid of this and that all the time. As if somehow the chance of risks has increased.
Quote:
I disagree. if someone is engaging a child in sexually explicit chats and making the child believe that they are someone else, then I believe that that IS criminal behavior since it would appear, at least to me, that tehy have some other motive behind the chats. Whether that be to try and lure the child out or whatever, that chats are only the vehicle to the main goal.
While if the only motive is cybersex, I don't see the problem.
Quote:
Did I read that right? There is NOTHING WRONG with PEDOPHILIA?!?
Back up my friend and read that again, because if there wasn't anything WRONG with it then we wouldn't have jails full of those sick douchebags. If you are a person sitting back and having fantasies about having sex with kids, your daughter, your dog, or your dead gramma...then there is something seriously wrong with your head. Seek help immediately. If you want to think there is nothing wrong with any of that, then I encourage you to go up to your local law enforcement and ask them. I am sure they will be more than happy to tell you that is ILLEGAL.
Again you pull the "illegal" card... Beastiliaty used to be legal here. Now some crackpots try to forbid it due to it being "morally unacceptable". According to your logic, Beastiliality would be totally fine before, and wrong after, the law forbids it. Loose morals?
There is NOTHING wrong with having sexual fantasies that are different from the norm: It is BAD when potentially HARMFULL sexual fantasies are put into actual PRACTISE. But the fantasies alone do not make a lunatic. It depends on how the person developed. A dumbass with gore fantasies is more dangerous than an intelligent person with gore fantasies. It is a matter of KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE between realism and fantasy. Nothing with being "Sick", I hate it when people are so judgemental over anything that is not "normal".
Quote:
But why would a person choose to have sympathy for someone that is attracted to kids? Regardless of whether or not they are actively doing "harm" or not...sympathy because they can't or won't seek help? It's a lame duck philosophy
Or you could try and think what I might have meant instead of deeming it a lame duck philosophy based on a single assumption you make.
The reason I have sympathy for these people is not because they are what they are (such as you assume), but because of the choice they make, which is a very, VERY difficult choice.
Imagine what your life would be like if you made a willing choice NOT to give into your sexual urges, and as a result, live your life without any sexual satisfaction whatsoever - ever. Moreover, you live in a society that literally spits on you just for who you are - if they knew.
The LAST thing people that make this choice need, is judgemental people like VF that deem them rapists based on the fact they are pedos. And for that very difficult choice they make, they have my deepest sympathy.
I've heard tales of pedophiles willingly letting themselves get castrated to get rid of their desires. That is one HECK of a sacrifice to make. You say that does not deserve sympathy? Do you really mean you CANNOT see how I could POSSIBLY have sympathy for these people?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*panths*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a little philosophic idea (not for the feint hearted):
Imagine a world in which pedophilia was normal. AKA, a society in which it was plain normal to have sex with children, and where everyone does it. The question I like to ask: Would children that grow up in a society like this, develop a trauma as well? Would sex with children be deemed immoral? And what would this tell us about our own current morals and judgement about pedophilia?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Would children that grow up in a society like this, develop a trauma as well?
Yes, although maybe to a lesser extent.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Setitetart
Known Hero
Reality check....
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
*grunts* Here we go...again. LOL
Firstly to JoonasTo and to Titanium Alloy:
Quote:
Quote:
My BIL was/is restricted from being within X distance from schools, daycares, porn stores, and any other place that kids are frequent.
Now I'm sure there's something wrong with USA.
Kids are frequent...AT A PORN STORE?!
What kinda laws do you have there?
BTW. I believe in Finland people get adult status sexually when they turn 16.
Pardon me, I wasn't clear in separating instances...my bad. *laughing at own mistake...*
LOL No, children are NOT allowed, nor do they frequent porn stores here in the US. *smirks* Law state clearly that anyone who enters these places MUST BE 18 years of age. Period. My former BIL, as per his parole was restricted from going to porn stores because of the nature of his crimes. He was also restricted from being near anywhere that child were at...day cares, schools...etc. I hope I made myself a little more clear this time around.
The US has different adult status depending on which part of the country you reside, for example you can be married and considered "adult" in some states as young as 16...although I'm fairly certain some areas carry younger than that. However, you don't get full adult status until you are 18 or legally emancipated.
@ VF:
Quote:
The fact that you approve that he is working in an environment that puts him in the middle of temptations and throw in a smiley face just has stupidity written all over it.
I have to agree with VF...would be pedophiles, child predators and/or child rapists have ZERO business working in a school environment around kids. If they were ever incarcerated previous to them landing that teaching job, I can damn well bet that they aren't supposed to be there anyway.But then again mybe the laws are different in the Netherlands and it's perfectly acceptable to have, what I would call for what it could possibly be, a ticking time bomb mentoring/teaching your children.
You have a very twisted sense of logic. And for your own mental health I would tell you to back down from this discussion if that's the kind of logic you wish to stick to, but I cannot force you. I'll restrain myself from answering to the childish bits.
Hey VF...haven't we heard this before about you? God you sick monkey. For your own "mental health" do yourself a favor and back down from Moon will you? *laughing* Not the first and certainly not the last is it? Ummm....nope.
Quote:
If one is a pedophile and does not act on it in anyway, that includes via the internet or getting off to child porn, then he is just other person with a sick sexual desire.
And just because 99,99% of the population thinks it is sick (myself included), that does not give you the right to DEFINE it as a sick sexual desire. It remains subjective.
No my friend, that IS sick. Not subjective at all.
The rules are clear and concise that there are just some things that are and always will be considered taboo and off limits. From the dawn of dirt it's never been okay to engage in relations with dead things, animals, family members, or kids. However, there have been scattered instances of at least one of these relationships to be okay...I.e...certain royalty felt that they couldn't reproduce outside of their royal blood and therefore ended up with a good many problems due to the inbreeding. And there are a good many jokes about the Scots and Iowans with their sheep ...but hey...LOL.
The reason I spoke of him here, is to give a clear example of a pedophile that would NEVER rape or harm a child. (And my you, I dare to believe even the majority of pedophiles would never touch a child. It's just that you never know the friendly neighbour next door has feelings for kids simply because he never acts on it, and as such, every pedophile in the news is instantly linked to the rape he or she has committed.)
First off that is NOT a clear example as even you don't know what the guy did behind closed doors. The idea that he was around kids all day long and talking to you sexually, as he probably did to others, scares the hell out of me. You can dare to believe what you like, and at 21 years old you've barely begun to live your life as an adult. Perhaps when you have more years under your belt and kids of your own, you'll change your tune. I am not saying that to dog on you, but experience changes a lot of these half cocked ideas your generation seem to share.
You see, of the pedophiles that you know of, easily above 95% is a rapist - otherwise they wouldn't even hit the news. However, there is an unknown amount of pedophiles that does NOT rape children, and from those people, you simply do not know if they are pedophiles.
Our law enforcement agencies have made it our business to KNOW. We can do searches or go down to the police station to get lists of all the pedophiles/rapists/predators living in our neighborhoods.
As for the topic of me generalizing children based on the way I acted, you are right here as well, I do admit that is another flaw of mine. As well the issue of deeming a threat nil based on one good experience. This was just my experience though, and as shamefull as it is to admit, it is I believe a simple case of "I was better than others of my age and I wish others could be like I was."
You were, in my opinion, BEYOND lucky.
Quote:
Children do not have the wealth of life experiences that adults have to make intelligent, safe decisions about their own actions, which is why they - generally - require boundaries and adult instruction for their own protection.
I would like to point out though, that I disagree with the general idea in this thread that children are somehow ALWAYS the innocent victims and pedophiles are the big bad wolves. I know of situations where childs have willingly played with the fire.
You're not getting it. Despite the idea that some of these kids "willingly" played with fire, doesn't mean they knew the complexities of what they were dealing with. the pedophiles ARE the "big bad wolves" and ****ing KNOW BETTER. The kids ARE victims in that...plain and simple. This pedophile anthem of "they know not what they do" just irritates me to no end. Who is the ADULT?
They know better. What's more, is depending on their location they are probably more than aware that diddling kids isn't kosher.
I remember this tale of a young girl - around 14 orso - that had sex with her P.E. Teacher, who was around 23 I believe, at the time. She herself took the initiatives to come back for more to him. When she reached the age of 22, she suddenly accused him of having molested her, that she somehow has a trauma now. I find it hard to believe that. And aside from the teacher in this example being a retard, I do wonder who is the real victim here.
Okay...I can see where this might be an issue, but then again not knowing all the details it sounds a lot to me like the fat person that turns around and sues McDonald's for making them fat.
That aside, there is a tool called a keylogger that logfiles any keystrokes the user makes - a parent can use it to read back later on what his or her child has been typing. Although this raises the issue of trust between parent and child, and the issue of privacy. I know in my case, I would have been mentally scarred for life if I found out my parents had been reading up on what I had been typing.
You know what? My job is to be a responsible parent to my child. I am NOT here to be their buddy. That comes later.
Trust me, no kid is going to be "mentally scarred" that their parent(s) gave a damn about who they were talking to or what was being said.
What's more is if they are hiding it, it's probably not on the up and up anyhow and that's where I would need to step in and steer things back in the right direction.
Also, I strongly feel that if my child is living in MY home, their privacy has boundaries. Kids might pitch a fit, but you know, they don't always know what's good for them either.
Sometimes it sucks having to be the parent...but you have to be the best you can be so that your kids grow up to be law abiding, intelligent, responsible adults.
Quote:
If pedophiles are acting according to their pedophiliac urges, then it SHOULD be criminal behavior.
THIS I find a very interesting statement. A normal man surfing for porn on the internet is not a criminal activity (I hope), but I might agree that a pedo trying to find sexual satisfaction over the internet could be held a criminal.
However, I do wonder wether or not I'd be more content with a pedo satisfying his urges through online cybersex with minors, rather than a pedo that does not get to do that, grows sexually frustrated, and starts actually preying on real children. A case of a "lesser evil" perhaps.
I think you need to see "To catch a Predator". While I can see your train of thought, it's still flawed because, at least in this country, it is illegal to engage ANY minor in sexually explicit chat and/or cybersex.
Normal, of age, people surfing the Internet for porn is not illegal unless they are downloading boatloads of kiddie porn, necro, or beastiality...then they cross the line from looking.
Quote:
Well let me ask you this. If a pedophile joins a chat group filled with mostly pre-teens and lies about his age to mislead the children, is that wrong? I'm not talking legally. I'm just asking - do you feel that is morally wrong to do?
You drove me in a corner here, since I dislike judging things wrong or right I like to look at things from multiple sides. But yes, I would deem that wrong, primairily based on the fact I deem lying in general to be wrong.
Not only is it wrong based on motive, but the lying as well.
@ Setitetart:
Quote:
Maybe you are just saying things to get people riled up... and if that's the case. You should stop.
I tend to blame people who get riled up about my statements on the fact they cannot control their emotions. I tend to say things blunt and to the point, and whenever I engage in discussions I make sure to leave my emotions out of it - discussions are meant for the brain. If you get riled up about my statements, then I am sorry, for that is not my intention, but it is YOUR problem.
Blame? Wow. Okay.
I am not riled so much about your statements as I am the lack of common sense.
Look, what you need to understand, at least about me, is that this specific discussion is close to home for me. If I convey to you that this irritates me, it is not because I am over here bugging out, it is because I have had more than my fair share of dealing with these types and it's people like you that fuel their fire with comments like "They can't help it" and "He'd never hurt a kid".
Pedophilia is a CHOICE, NOT a disease.
You are a 21 year old living in the Netherlands with at least one confirmed experience with a pedophile you weren't aware was one. I'll say again, YOU were lucky beyond belief.
I have read through your comments and I find myself floored by your lack of experience with the darker side of this topic and the really bad things that can happen when these types of people are left unchecked. While your willingness to give them a chance to prove themselves non-threatening is sweet, it just isn't realistic in any sense of the word. You yourself say that you wouldn't want your kid fraternizing with these types...and I hope you never have to deal with it.
Therefor:
Quote:
Matter of fact, you sound an awful lot like one certain Shadey with your mouth diarrhea.
Please restrain yourself from making such statements. I find it immature.
Cope. I could have said far worse.
Quote:
you sound like you are defending these douchebags that engage in kiddie sex.
As stated before, then you should read my posts more carefully if you really think that.
I'll do that, but I still say you sounded like you were initially in their defense with the "they can't help it" comments...although I will say that your comments to Corribus conceded that you had in fact started to understand the other points even going so far as to say that you wouldn't want YOUR kids dealing with a pedophile. Nuff said.
Quote:
You can change whether or not you have sex with little kids. Same as you have the choice to have sex with dead things, members of your family or animals. The common denominatior is that all of those things are ILLEGAL in this country. Period. End of story.
While I agree with the statement that you can choose not to engage in such activities, I disagree with the argument you choose to use. Laws by definition are subjective, and should NEVER be used as arguments, and ESPECIALLY not to "end a topic".
No. Laws are not subjective. If they were, anyone could wiggle out of crimes they'd committed, because after all the law breakers view is different than the law abiders...all depends on your lawyer I suppose
Laws are set. And I said ALL of those things ARE ILLEGAL in THIS country. That is a PERIOD. That is a known fact. If go out and download kiddie porn, I WILL go to jail. If I fondle my neighbor kid...I WILL go to jail, if I have sex with a dead cat..I WILL go to jail...and probably undergo psychiatric testing as well. See what I am saying?
Quote:
Okay...first off what was any self respecting teacher doing having those kinds of "chats" with you? Sounds more that a little askew to me. That's NOT right, and I am sorry, if my 15 year old came home and told me that some teacher of his was talking to him like that and it wasn't about sex ed. class...someone would be having their bits and pieces dragging over the coals by me.
I did not know this man was a pedophile untill I left elementary school and by accident met him on an online chat. The topic of sex was never discussed with me - or anyone of my school - with that teacher.
You don't know that, and can't speak for the entire student body. You have zero idea what that teacher does behind closed doors.
Sorry but it isn't like he is going to confess to YOU his doings...didn't YOU say a few comments back that this teacher had had explicit chats with you?
Quote:
But let me just say those cases are far and few between. The cases of these people getting caught, doing time, coming out and trying to find different ways to prey on children is more the "norm". And good luck trying to tell them that they need help. They won't seek help and they won't stop until they are caught again.
Then that simply means the punishment is wrong. I still opt for castration to ensure they won't ever get aroused - and thus tempted - ever again.
No one ever said all the laws fit every crime. Castration won't stop all of them and furthermore it doesn't stop the temptation much less the arousal. While it will in some cases, it hasn't in others...
Quote:
What Cracker Jack box did that little gem pop out of? You CAN be harmed by speaking to people online. Sure, again you could have the option of blocking, ignoring, or deleting said person, BUT there is only so much window of opportunity to register that said person as a threat. And after the words stop, what then if said person shows up at the door? The only thing that made good sense on those above 3 statements was that it is a general rule that you can nver be sure WHO you are chatting TO.
Sorry, but you have to be a real RETARD to give out your address to strangers you meet online. In that case I would blame the parents for not being carefull enough.
Absolutely. But didn't you say you'd be mentally scarred if your parents had ever disregarded your privacy like that? I was trying to tell you up there somewhere that part of being a good parent is being the bad guy sometimes. How can you blame the parents for not being careful enough when you'd be against the keylogger and other parental tools? Anyway, as I said before, sometimes it sucks having to be the parent...but you have to be the best you can be so that your kids grow up to be law abiding, intelligent, responsible adults...and if that means keyloggers and whatever else...then so be it.
Quote:
Sure they are warned, but what kids do you know actually listen to sound advice? If you should happen to know, send them MY way because I don't think I've ever met a single kid that listened to everything they were told especially when it came to the Internet. This is why neither of my children are online and when the time comes that I feel they are responsible and mature enough to handle that priviledge...then that's what they make parental controls for, and that is why I am around to supervise them. Key word here is "SUPERVISE". I can only hope other parents would be so in tune with their kids. Many of these pedophile phishing nutters could and would be avoided if parents took the time to actually get up off their ***** to see what the heck their kids were doing and who they were talking to. Period.
At the risk of your kid growing up to hate you for being so controlling? That happened before. Just how big IS the risk of a child being abducted by a pedo? Frankly, I don't believe it's that high.
You've made the mistake of thinking that I care if they hate me. As I said before I am their parent FIRST, and their buddy later...much later.
I care that they are alive and well adjusted. First off, I am NOT controlling...my kids enjoy a pretty easy life all told. VF can attest to that as could Gootch. Understand that both know me personally and know my children as well. While I might say NO to a lot of things, I do also say YES to appropriate things. By appropriate things I am talking about age approriate games and movies and when the time comes for them to be on the Internet...they WILL be SUPERVISED. YOu do what you have to whe it comes to keeping your kids safe. Furthermore you educate your kids so that when they are on their own they can make wise choices.
Sure while the risk of being flat out abducted by a pedophile isn't huge...that there is even a risk makes it something I have to think about and be aware of.
Also let me point out that there has been a jump in abductions here in the US and you don't have to be a kid to be taken. College girls specifically.
I just don't understand why people (particularly Americans) are so afraid of this and that all the time. As if somehow the chance of risks has increased.
*Rolls eyes*
Quote:
I disagree. if someone is engaging a child in sexually explicit chats and making the child believe that they are someone else, then I believe that that IS criminal behavior since it would appear, at least to me, that tehy have some other motive behind the chats. Whether that be to try and lure the child out or whatever, that chats are only the vehicle to the main goal.
While if the only motive is cybersex, I don't see the problem.
Okay. Let me ask you....is having sex with kids or foddling kids legal in Holland? If you as a 21 year old ADULT engage a minor in cybersex would there be consequences? Is there the possibility that YOU could go to jail for messng with a minor in any way, shape, or form?
Answer me that, and meanwhile I am going to look up child crimes for the Netherlands.
Quote:
Did I read that right? There is NOTHING WRONG with PEDOPHILIA?!?
Back up my friend and read that again, because if there wasn't anything WRONG with it then we wouldn't have jails full of those sick douchebags. If you are a person sitting back and having fantasies about having sex with kids, your daughter, your dog, or your dead gramma...then there is something seriously wrong with your head. Seek help immediately. If you want to think there is nothing wrong with any of that, then I encourage you to go up to your local law enforcement and ask them. I am sure they will be more than happy to tell you that is ILLEGAL.
Again you pull the "illegal" card... Beastiliaty used to be legal here. Now some crackpots try to forbid it due to it being "morally unacceptable". According to your logic, Beastiliality would be totally fine before, and wrong after, the law forbids it. Loose morals?
No. Again I say ask your local law enforcement. It doesn't matter what the laws were 50 million years ago kiddo. What matters is the here and now because we've learned through the ages that some things aren't right and needed to be amended. It has nothing to do with loose morals.
There is NOTHING wrong with having sexual fantasies that are different from the norm: It is BAD when potentially HARMFULL sexual fantasies are put into actual PRACTISE. But the fantasies alone do not make a lunatic. It depends on how the person developed. A dumbass with gore fantasies is more dangerous than an intelligent person with gore fantasies. It is a matter of KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE between realism and fantasy. Nothing with being "Sick", I hate it when people are so judgemental over anything that is not "normal".
Part of what you say there is right, about knowing the difference between realism and fantasy. And I have to disagree, an intelligent person with some fantasies could very well be MORE dangerous than your run of the mill "dumbass", because the intelligent person could put their ideas into reality more readily than a less than smart person.
Get off the judgemental soapbox, there are plenty of not-norm things that are either accepted or become norm. I.e. tattooing and piercing, bi-racial and homosexual relationships just to name a few.
But you can't sit there and tell me that there isn't something inherently WRONG about someone that wants to **** dead people or animals, live animals, little kids or their own mother. Come on now. This is why I say it sounds like you are defending the sickos.
Quote:
But why would a person choose to have sympathy for someone that is attracted to kids? Regardless of whether or not they are actively doing "harm" or not...sympathy because they can't or won't seek help? It's a lame duck philosophy
Or you could try and think what I might have meant instead of deeming it a lame duck philosophy based on a single assumption you make.
I didn't make any assumptions, you had it all right there in black and white for me to read. Why not try to be a little more clear and concise.
The reason I have sympathy for these people is not because they are what they are (such as you assume), but because of the choice they make, which is a very, VERY difficult choice.
No.
Imagine what your life would be like if you made a willing choice NOT to give into your sexual urges, and as a result, live your life without any sexual satisfaction whatsoever - ever. Moreover, you live in a society that literally spits on you just for who you are - if they knew.
There are other options okay.
The LAST thing people that make this choice need, is judgemental people like VF that deem them rapists based on the fact they are pedos. And for that very difficult choice they make, they have my deepest sympathy.
In my opinion your sympathies would be better suited to better causes.
You don't know VF, and she is far from judgemental. One of the most understanding and NON judgemental people I know.
What's more is that you have zero idea of the things that have happened in her life that have led her to believe as she does on certain topics. So don't even go there lumping her with the people that WOULD make your life a living hell for saying half of the things you have.
What? So you managed to not to be messed with and so therefore they all must be such great people, misunderstood and without a choice in the matter. Whatever. I think had you been molested your tune would be much different. I would be willing to bet you would not have a shred of sympathy for those kinds of people.
I've heard tales of pedophiles willingly letting themselves get castrated to get rid of their desires. That is one HECK of a sacrifice to make. You say that does not deserve sympathy? Do you really mean you CANNOT see how I could POSSIBLY have sympathy for these people?
Oh big freaking deal...poor them. Make them the martyr because they gave this big "sacrifice". No, I don't see how I should give them any sympathy whatso-freaking-ever. I DO really mean that I can NOT see why you have any sympathy for people that either have or could possibly do crimes against kids.
Here's a little philosophic idea (not for the feint hearted):
Imagine a world in which pedophilia was normal. AKA, a society in which it was plain normal to have sex with children, and where everyone does it. The question I like to ask: Would children that grow up in a society like this, develop a trauma as well? Would sex with children be deemed immoral? And what would this tell us about our own current morals and judgement about pedophilia?
To answer your question, if things like that were normal and accepted, then sure, probably no "trauma". That's saying that the whole world was that way and it was accepted everywhere.
But let me tell you, we have already seen the disaster that IS a society that goes into incest and pedophila type behaviors and the outcome isn't so hot.
Case and point, the church compound that was recently raided here in the US.
Look it up.
____________
"Do you think we should drive a stake through his heart, just in case?"
~ Peter Lorre to Vincent Price at Bela Lugosi's funeral
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 06:03 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:27, 14 May 2008.
|
@Moonlith
See, I knew that it was possible to have a rational discussion about this. Everyone just needs to keep their cool. It's impossible to express yourself logically and make others see the validity of your viewpoint when a thread is covered in a fog of wrath and pointing fingers.
Quote:
I would question to what extent being a pedophile does lead intrinsically to rape. As well I would question to what extent pedophiles are actually more tempted to harass children when working with children, than a normal man is tempted to rape a woman when working with women.
Alright, pedophilia is just a word that means "Person sexually attracted to children." Take note when I say there is a causative correlation between pedophilia and raping children, that does not mean that there is a 1 to 1 correlation (r = 1) between the two. The correlation is less than 1 but more than 0. But in any case, I think we'll agree that ALL pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, by definition. And I think you will agree that there is a causative correlation between sexual attraction and rape. Thus, by association, you could say that there is a causative correlation between pedophilia and rape. [This is why I said an even better analogy would be "sexual urge : rapist :: anger : murderer"] Just to be fair, the same sort of statement could be made about heterosexual urges; there is a correlation between heterosexual males and rape of women, obviously. The correlation is not GOOD, because a very low percentage of heterosexual males rape women, and there are obviously a lot more, better causative factors besides heterosexuality that lead to rape of women. However, the correlation for heterosexual males and rape of women is much better than the correlation for homosexual males and the rape of women. So, I don't mean that pedophilia leads intrinsically to rape; I mean that pedophilia has a causative association/correlation with rape. That says nothing about the strength of the correlation.
Is the correlation between pedophiles and child rape stronger than that between homosexual males and women rape? I don't know. If I may speculate, I would say yes. The percentage of heteromosexual males who rape women (or engage in heterosexual misconduct) is probably (I believe) lower than the percentage of pedophiles who rape children (or engage in pedophiliac sexual misconduct). The basis of this conclusion is that heterosexuals can act on their urges with other consenting adults (i.e., the average heterosexual has a normal, legal, culturally accepted outlet), whereas pedophiles cannot. Thus if you make the assumption that heterosexuals act on their sexual urges with the same frequency that pedophiles do, and a (much) higher percentage of heterosexual behavior is classified as "accepted conduct" than pedophiliac sexual behavior, my supposition would clearly fall out of that. Of course, that is only speculation and requires a number of assumptions, some of which are, admittedly, based on cultural definitions of what is and what is not acceptable sexual behavior.
Also, just for the sake of precision - correlation statistics really require quantitative values for calculation (height vs. weight, for example). Their application to a variable that really has no quantitative value associated with it (like rape) is sketchy at best. I do so only to aid in the expression of my thoughts. It is a very qualitative argument, but I hope in using it you can better understand what point I'm trying to get across.
Quote:
You see, of the pedophiles that you know of, easily above 95% is a rapist - otherwise they wouldn't even hit the news. However, there is an unknown amount of pedophiles that does NOT rape children, and from those people, you simply do not know if they are pedophiles.
Fair enough. But understand that my concern - and the concern of most parents - is not limited to rape. Sexual misconduct - even for "normal" people - encompasses a much larger legal jurisdiction than rape. Just to be clear, as I've stressed, if a person is a pedophile and they maintain self-control and have no sexually-related contact with children, then in principle I don't really care.
Quote:
As such, you do not know the ratio of pedophiles that give in to their urges (that could be well over 75%, but simularly less than 5%). And inevitably, you cannot really say pedophiles working with children are more tempted to violate them based on the few examples where it went wrong - just as you cannot say men are more tempted to violate women when working with them based on a few rape examples.
Again, fair enough. Nevertheless, as a parent I reserve the right to determine who my child is and is not allowed to associate with. It is my right - nay, my duty as a parent - to set boundaries around my child's life until they are old enough and mature enough (again, by criteria determined by me) to make responsible decisions on their own. Thus while the state is forbidden from descriminating against a person based on personal beliefs, I, as a parent, am not. This is, incidentally, somewhat related to the controversy surrounding Megan's Law.
Quote:
As for the topic of me generalizing children based on the way I acted, you are right here as well, I do admit that is another flaw of mine. As well the issue of deeming a threat nil based on one good experience. This was just my experience though, and as shamefull as it is to admit, it is I believe a simple case of "I was better than others of my age and I wish others could be like I was."
Well, it's human nature to make vast conclusions based on the view through the lens of our own experiences. I.e., "what's good for me must be good for everyone." Sadly, that's not the case.
Quote:
I would like to point out though, that I disagree with the general idea in this thread that children are somehow ALWAYS the innocent victims and pedophiles are the big bad wolves. I know of situations where childs have willingly played with the fire.
The only thing I would say to this is to repeat that if blame should go anywhere besides the pedophile, it should be to the parents of the children. Here's the rub. Let's assume for a second that a 13 yo child gets on the internet and purposely goes to a chat room that is meant for (heterosexual) adults. The child hangs around there because he enjoys reading the very sexually explicit conversations. By some stroke of fate, there is also a pedophile hanging out there, talking with some friends. The pedophile is there ONLY because he is chatting with a friend, maybe about baseball, and he is being very open with his age and gender. The child starts accosting the pedophile repeatedly with sexual advances, which the pedophile, to his credit, tries to ignore. But the child badgers and badgers and finally the pedophile, unable to withstand his urges and longer, invites the child into a private room, and the rest is history.
The easy conclusion here is that the child is somewhat to blame. After all, he went into the adult chatroom; the pedophile didn't find the child in a child's chatroom. The The pedophile was open about his age. he told the child to get lost, but the child wouldn't listen. Etc.
The problem here is that the child is a child, and the pedophile is an adult. The child, in theory, doesn't know better. The adult should. Children, particularly adolescents, do not know how to deal with new emotions and feelings, notably of chemical origin, that are overwhelming them. Adults should have developed the ability to exercise self control even in the midst of overwhelming temptation. I mean, if an adult sees $1000 sticking out of a guy's pocket, and decides to rob him, he doesn't blame it on the money or the guy, does he? He's an adult and he is responsible for his actions.
Please understand, I'm not completely exonerating a child of responsibility for his actions. I don't believe it's so easy that a child is completely free from responsibility until the day they turn 18 at which point they suddenly are an adult and must act as such. A child in the above scenario needs to also be dealt with, but whereas the pedophile is still liable to be charged as a criminal, the child isn't. The child didn't commit a crime; he was just incredible wreckless and stupid. It's also incredibly (and subjectively) dependent on age - a 16yo should be made to take much more responbility for his actions than a 12yo; this is why we give more privaleges to older children, but of course with those privaleges comes a heavier burder on responsibility. Any good parent should teach this principle to their children, but many do not; children are just given privaleges and made to assume no responsibility. Which is why you get adults that can't own up to the consequences of their actions.....
So really, who is responsible if a child engages in consistently wreckless and stupid behavior? Depending on the age, it may partially be the child, of course; but a lot of that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parents.
Quote:
I remember this tale of a young girl - around 14 orso - that had sex with her P.E. Teacher, who was around 23 I believe, at the time. She herself took the initiatives to come back for more to him. When she reached the age of 22, she suddenly accused him of having molested her, that she somehow has a trauma now. I find it hard to believe that. And aside from the teacher in this example being a retard, I do wonder who is the real victim here.
This really isn't that different than my above example. 14yo girls can be incredibly manipulative and calculating. I do not doubt at all the truth of your story - I've seen stories like it. But no matter how insistent the girl is, she is still a child. The teacher is an adult. It is the adult's duty, not only as a member of society but as a teacher, to protect the welfare of children. The 14yo girl doesn't have a clue of what she is doing and doesn't understand the very serious potential ramifications of her actions (probably because she hasn't been taught by her delinquent parents). She doesn't understand that by screwing around with a 23 yo adult, she could get pregnant, she could destroy her chances of going to college, or that she may very well regret her actions the rest of her life. 14yo girls just want to have fun and don't appreciate the value of looking ahead to their future. This is understadable - *no* 14 yo child has the wisdom and experience to understand the ramifications of actions that may extend 10-15-20 years into the future. 14yo children live life 1 day, 1 week at a time. That doesn't excluse them completely, but it does color how they should be dealt with in comparison to an adult who should know better.
Adults make mistakes, too, of course. And if the girl makes false claims when she's 22, THEN she can be held accountable for those actions. Look, I understand what you're saying, and sometimes I have no doubt that the wrong party ultimately takes the fall, but by and large the adult is the person who needs to act like an adult, not the child.
Quote:
If I ever HAD a child I would make sure he or she would never - EVER - get to meet up with ANYONE he or she meets over the internet, untill he or she is mentally mature enough.
Good.
Quote:
That aside, there is a tool called a keylogger that logfiles any keystrokes the user makes - a parent can use it to read back later on what his or her child has been typing. Although this raises the issue of trust between parent and child, and the issue of privacy. I know in my case, I would have been mentally scarred for life if I found out my parents had been reading up on what I had been typing.
The point is, that if parents have been good parents, they should have no NEED to distrust their children, and children would have no need to be check on by their parents. Such tools are basically bandaids for lazy parents who don't trust their children. But if there IS such a lack of trust between parents and children, that is a sign that something is not right in the family.
Children *DO* need their space and privacy in order to grow into responsible, functional adults. Trust is important. I would hope that I would never feel the need to spy on my children in this fashion. However, that doesn't mean that I won't impose boundaries. My child will have to EARN the right to have a computer in her bedroom by demonstrating she is capable of assuming that resopnsibility; it will not be given as a right just because her friend has one. She of course may not like that at the time, but when she is an adult, she will appreciate the boundaries I provide her as a child. I *hated* some of the things my parents did when I was a kid, but looking back on it, I credit their wisdom in not catering to my every demand as being responsible for how I have turned out.
Quote:
A normal man surfing for porn on the internet is not a criminal activity (I hope), but I might agree that a pedo trying to find sexual satisfaction over the internet could be held a criminal.
Well let's talk porno then.
A heterosexual male viewing adult nude women is not criminal behavior because (presumably) the models consented to be photographed naked or while engaged in sexual acts. A pedophile viewing CHILD pornography *is* a criminal because he is (indirectly) supporting the exploitation of children, who either did not consent at all to be photographed, or were tricked into consenting. This is basically the same problem we have been discussing - even if a child agrees to be photographed nude, they do not, according to the law, have the psychological capacity to consider the possible consequences of their actions, and the people who actual TAKE the photos know this and exploit the innocence of children to make money. Vendors of child pornography are worthless human specimens and there is no equivocating on that point. Pedophiles who VIEW child pornography are stupid and they know it is wrong, and buy purchasing such contraband they are contributing to the corruption and exploitation of minors for profit.
Quote:
However, I do wonder wether or not I'd be more content with a pedo satisfying his urges through online cybersex with minors, rather than a pedo that does not get to do that, grows sexually frustrated, and starts actually preying on real children. A case of a "lesser evil" perhaps.
Choosing a lesser evil is not really a satisfactory outcome. Choosing NO EVIL is the only legal option. I mean, a thief doesn't use as his defense in court, "Well your honor, I could have killed the guy; I only robbed him, so I should be commended."
Quote:
You drove me in a corner here, since I dislike judging things wrong or right I like to look at things from multiple sides. But yes, I would deem that wrong, primairily based on the fact I deem lying in general to be wrong.
Good, then I think we have understanding. You see, it is not only the preying on children that I find reprehensible. It is also the fact that it is done under false pretenses.
Quote:
I do agree parents are justified in not wanting their children exposed to pedophiles. However, I severely disagree with the heavy black and white thinking portrayed by some in this thread. Understanding their heavy reactions, I might, but I disagree with them simply because people are being judged and generlized here - just as much as I have done.
I see the point you are making, and to some extent I agree with it.
However, I'm sure you would not be against warning children about taking candy from strangers under the pretense that it generalizes all strangers as kidnappers. Naturally, if we could be with our children all the time and help them identify dangers, we would probably me more willing to allow our children to take candy from strangers that WE deem safe (and even then, I'm not sure how willing I'd be). But insofar as we cannot always be around our children to protect them, we have to operate under the assumption that ALL strangers are potential kidnappers, because as parents we cannot rely on our children correctly identifying danger for themselves. When it comes to protecting our kids, we MUST generalize to some extent and we must use some black-and-white rules - no matter how unfairly discriminating.
@Setitetart
Let me just respond to one select thing:
Quote:
I see the dilemma, I really do, but having been on that side of the fence it's hard for me to care about [the rights of pedophiles], especially once they've already committed crimes against kids.
Presuming no crimes have been committed yet, that's a knee jerk emotional response. It's one I happen to share, of course. But the problem with basing laws and policy on knee-jerk emotional responses is that it means the consequences haven't been thought out properly.
Consider: A vast majority of Americans feel that pedophilia is wrong and probably would not be against enacting laws against pedophilia - even preemptive ones that curtail the rights of pedophiles BEFORE any actual crimes have been committed.
Now, similarly, a majority of Americans feel that homosexuality is wrong and probably would not be against enacting laws against homosexuality - even preemptive ones that curtail the rights of homosexuals. The religious right in this country is itching for any excuse to enact legislation that curtails the rights of homosexuals, based ONLY on an emotional response. If we start enacting laws based purely on emotional responses that pre-emptively restrict something we find morally reprehensible, what is to say that the same logic won't be hijacked to pass legislation against OTHER forms of sexual "deviancy"? (Please note, to forestall the misinterpretation that is obviously coming [from someone] - I do *not* under any circumstances equate pedophilia to homosexuality, not even close and not even a little bit. No comparison at all between the two!) Just a thought about why the rights of people are important to protect, even if we don't like them or what they believe on principle.
However, I agree that once a crime has been committed, that argument goes out the window. I'm a total believer in Megan's Law. If you commit a felony, you no longer deserve to have all the rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn't mean you have NO rights. But you certainly don't deserve the rights (such as privacy) that facilitate any repetition of your behavior.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted May 14, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, do you know the man? I had met him there after I left elementary school, we had sexual chats, I ran into him now and then IRL, and we just said hi and talked some. He is a very nice man, one who I pity for his sexual desires. He has been a teacher for what, 40+ years? What gives YOU the right to say he is a filthy rapist and should be put out of his job ? You are being too judgemental here.
No I do not know him. He may have never touched a child in his life. However I would have to say that is probably not the case Moon (could be). Have you heard about slews of children coming forth after one child does and claims molestation by a teacher? The reason why they don’t talk sooner is because most cases are just dripping with threats from the person that has the control and in this case the power being a teacher. Understand that it is all about control and power over the victim, not just sexual gratification. Sometimes pedophiles will work on a child for months, convincing them that this is the right thing to do before ever having sexual contact with them. It is called grooming a child. He should be allowed to have a job that encourages this festering desire to have sex with children. He would have never been allowed to have the job in the first place had he been honest and stated that he has thoughts of having sex with young children.
Quote:
The reason I spoke of him here, is to give a clear example of a pedophile that would NEVER rape or harm a child. (And my you, I dare to believe even the majority of pedophiles would never touch a child. It's just that you never know the friendly neighbour next door has feelings for kids simply because he never acts on it, and as such, every pedophile in the news is instantly linked to the rape he or she has committed.)
Assuming the majority of a group of people, with a skewed sexual preferences, would not perform sexual acts on a child, if given the opportunity, is a dangerous frame of thought. Is it not our job as citizens and as parents to try and protect those that cannot protect themselves? A village to raise a child, have you never heard of this ideology?
Lets be honest moon; you have stated that you won’t have children and that is fine. However if this teacher (whom by your statements enjoys fantasies of having sex with children, possibly babies, I mean who really knows) lived next to you and you had a child, would you feel completely ok with letting him babysit him/her? I mean you have stated that being online and the fact that you were more mature than other children your age has basically made you more worldly and tolerant. Has it also made you just completely disregard the obvious and trust people to that degree, not to mention it sounds almost like you are desensitized to the subject in general? Is that because of your constant espouser to porn or internet growing up that this is just one of those things that does not strike you as just awful and inexcusable?
Quote:
but you missed the part where I stated I do not deem online interaction a criminal activity. Difference of opinion.
Yes, I caught that Moon. However the fact is regardless of your feelings about it, it is against the law. You need to understand that this just not about the physical activity that is harmful. There are several cases that show when you mentally harass, manipulate (in this case children), or even threaten their own family members with death if they don’t comply, is damaging more times than not. So take law out of it, as you wish to do, just look at the psychological aspect. You may not have a clear understanding of that but the fact is when this happens to a child, even just over the net, it takes their sense of trust in this world and cuts it right from the beginning. It takes away a certain piece of child hood that they can’t get back. The law is in place because enough psychological damage has been done to innocent children to warrant such laws.
Quote:
Indeed, it IS. As long as he doesn't put his FANTASIES into PRACTISE. That is one thing I learned And you did not, apparently: There is NOTHING wrong with fantasizing about ANYTHING: it CAN be wrong when you put it into practise.
So you use this word “anything”, how about parents that fantasize about killing, raping, and maiming their own children? Or the man that thinks about having anal sex with a baby, they may never do it, but that thought is acceptable for you to have them floating around our society? The fact is they get off on having control over something that is innocent and cannot defend itself. The entire mindset, whether we want to have pity for those that live this way or not, is unhealthy and unsafe, that they need to be instituted. This is why when a person threatens to shoot themselves or harm others we institute them until which time they are fit to return to society. Now can anyone lose it, yes? People snap all he time and do awful things. However if we know that a person is having very morbid or extreme desires and they are not getting any help, that thought just festers. Those are the people that blowup buildings, off their parents, and have sex with your child. This teacher you speak of was having inappropriate conversations with you at an inappropriate age. He should have been instituted and received whatever help he needed and a very stern warning that thoughts are thoughts, but actually screwing with a little boys mind that way is not tolerated. If you would have told your parents would they have just continued to allow you to have this conversation? My guess is no, that your friendly teacher would have been shish kabob and ended up at the next hog roast as the main course.
Quote:
And again you assume I did not do my research. Trust me, I am well aware of the examples of pedophiles willingly letting themselves be castrated - in which case, by the way, they would NOT molest children with anything, since they would no longer have hormones or the ability to get excited from them.
Understand what I said in my post. The statement from this inmate was and I will quote it again, “Cut off my penis and I will desecrate children with my feet, cut off my feet I will abuse them sexually with my hands, cut off my hands I will violate them with my tongue.” It is not always about intercourse sometimes the pedophile does not even get aroused sexually, sometimes it is that they get the child off and that gives them a sense of control. Hence the reasons I say you have not done you research properly. Cutting of their penis does not take the mental illness away nor the thoughts and desires to control a child because they are so easily swayed and convinced, the child whom takes candy from the trusting stranger.
Quote:
I would question to what extent being a pedophile does lead intrinsically to rape.
If at anytime they touch a child, it is considered rape. Even if it is a ten year that consents. Again there has been a general consensus that children are not able to understand such a complex ordeal. It will even feel good to them and then when they become adults it interferes with relationships and the way they are supposed to view their own children.
[quoute]remember this tale of a young girl - around 14 orso - that had sex with her P.E. Teacher, who was around 23 I believe, at the time. She herself took the initiatives to come back for more to him. When she reached the age of 22, she suddenly accused him of having molested her, that she somehow has a trauma now. I find it hard to believe that. And aside from the teacher in this example being a retard, I do wonder who is the real victim here.
Again he was in a power position that has very specific boundaries and limitations. He should have never had sex with her to begin with. Believe me when I say that trauma is probably very real for her and has played a very specific role in her life. Set aside the fact that men mature slower than women but he understood, that while he may fantasies about her, he had not business ever having intercourse with her.
I conclude with allowing myself to become very vulnerable on an online forum. I have been molested on two separate occasions in my life. Once from the age of 6-8 and the other while I was 10 by gun point by my mother’s boyfriend. He was a grounds keeper at a school for years. Once this broke news several children in the neighborhood came forth including his own daughter that was well grown up by then. He was proven guilty on all accounts and did 6 months. He then had to do community service work which the county had him picking up trash around the adjoining schools in his neighborhood. The same neighborhood that he molested several children by luring them over to do yard work and eat cookies and milk with him. The first time was by my mothers husband and that went on for two years. I’ am a strong person but that time in my life was dark and has caused several issues with me sense I have become grown. In the first case his mother knew he had those types of urges as a young child. My life and those of several children were destroyed by the very mindset that states, thoughts are harmless. His mother should have had him committed and gotten him help. This is why your innocent teacher disgusts me.
I want you to know that I speak from a place that I have been and would never wish on anyone, ever. Tears………..
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
| |
|
|
