Punishing the Paedophile Instead of Treating the Paedophile [Archive]

rikzilla

7th October 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
-Paedophilia is a mental illness and paedophiles therefore must be treated
as mentally ill persons. They must not be imprisoned. They must be
treated with behavioural conditioning techniques which have been
proven to work in laboratories. Punishing them for unintentionally hurting
children by having sex with them is a cruel punishment.

-We must remember - most paedophiles do not know that their actions are
likely to cause harm.

-Punishment is the greatest of all evils. No one should ever be punished.
Everyone who commits a "crime" should be treated, regardless of the
crime. No matter how "sick", no matter how "awful" the crime, punishment is never justified.

I am completely opposed to punishing anyone.

:rolleyes:

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
A letter in The Irish Times on January 21st.

Madam, as a psychiatrist, I read reports of the Tim Allen trial with increasing bewilderment.The astonishing spin of transforming a case of clear, and self-confessed, child pornography into one meriting collective sympathy for a man described by a psychologist giving evidence on his behalf as a "rescuer" is repulsively fascinating."Rescuer" would appear to be an extraordinarily risque word to choose given the circumstances, suggesting an unspoken, and ultimately not misguided, confidence in the sympathy that was openly displayed in court to the defendant.

In the psychological evidence given by Dr. Tony Humphreys on Tim Allen's behalf, the defendant's behaviour was described as "compulsive".

It is important to point out that paedophilia is not an addictive disorder, is not classified in any internationally accepted definition of mental disorder as an addictive disorder, and does not respond to treatments for addictive disorders.

Paedophiia, rather, is classified as a sexual perversion for which there is no specific effective treatment.This is also the reason why the "treatment" of paedophilia rests with the judicial, rather than the psychiatric, services. I would have thought that an Irish Court would view with a sardonic eye the increasing use of psychiatric labels to "medicalise" anti-social behaviour.

This tendency is not being driven by professional bodies, and while one may be amused by the concept of the Hollywood disorder "sexual addiction" (between consenting adults), this does not apply when one party is a non-consenting child to adult sexual fantasies

Yours, Veronica O'Keane, MB, PhD,MRCPsych,FRCPI.
iNSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY, London, SE5.

-z

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Serial killers, and child molesters should be treated with clinical, lethal injection. Mental illness?? Horse s**t.

Stop using "child molester" when you mean paedophile,
paedosexual. Molestation implies coercion, and it is apparent that
sexual acts involving adult and child are not necessarily forms of
molestation, of coercion.

You state that the paedophile ought to be punished. You thus
restate the thesis in question; nothing more.

I concur with what is stated in the post of c0rbin above.

Now I am off to bed, to sleep.

Abdul Alhazred

7th October 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
I am completely opposed to punishing anyone.

Why the Stalin avatar, then? I'm sure old Uncle Joe wouldn't agree with you.

Mr Manifesto

7th October 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
A letter in The Irish Times on January 21st.

Madam, as a psychiatrist, I read reports of the Tim Allen trial with increasing bewilderment.The astonishing spin of transforming a case of clear, and self-confessed, child pornography into one meriting collective sympathy for a man described by a psychologist giving evidence on his behalf as a "rescuer" is repulsively fascinating."Rescuer" would appear to be an extraordinarily risque word to choose given the circumstances, suggesting an unspoken, and ultimately not misguided, confidence in the sympathy that was openly displayed in court to the defendant.

In the psychological evidence given by Dr. Tony Humphreys on Tim Allen's behalf, the defendant's behaviour was described as "compulsive".

It is important to point out that paedophilia is not an addictive disorder, is not classified in any internationally accepted definition of mental disorder as an addictive disorder, and does not respond to treatments for addictive disorders.

Paedophiia, rather, is classified as a sexual perversion for which there is no specific effective treatment.This is also the reason why the "treatment" of paedophilia rests with the judicial, rather than the psychiatric, services. I would have thought that an Irish Court would view with a sardonic eye the increasing use of psychiatric labels to "medicalise" anti-social behaviour.

This tendency is not being driven by professional bodies, and while one may be amused by the concept of the Hollywood disorder "sexual addiction" (between consenting adults), this does not apply when one party is a non-consenting child to adult sexual fantasies

Yours, Veronica O'Keane, MB, PhD,MRCPsych,FRCPI.
iNSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY, London, SE5.

-z

The guy out of Home Improvement is a sex perv? :eek:

Andonyx

7th October 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
-Paedophilia is a mental illness and paedophiles therefore must be treated
as mentally ill persons. They must not be imprisoned. They must be
treated with behavioural conditioning techniques which have been
proven to work in laboratories.

...

-Punishment is the greatest of all evils. No one should ever be punished.

Okay let's put aside our instant disgust at the type of crimes we're dealing with and examine this person's position logically.

Your arguments bring up two questions on my mind:

1. If, as you suggest, a paedophile is incapable of understanding that his actions are wrong, and in fact unable to help himself to what he perceives to be natural inclinations...would it not make sense to incarcerate that person at least for the duration of their treatment?

You seem against prison, but is not prison necessary in cases where punishment is not sought, but the protoection of other citizens from a person deemed unable to grasp societal / moral right and wrongs?

For instance I would rather risk letting a guy who knocked over a liquor store as a teen and has since demonstrated remorse and a desire to get on with a normal life back on onto the streets, than someone who is in your words, "Sick." And who may never understand the consequences of our actions. If everyone who committs a crime is posessed of a mental ilness needing treatment you must also remember that modern medecine still cannot "cure" everything.

2. If you are against all forms of punishment...how does classical conditioning fit into your view of learned human behavior?

Do you believe that human beings are naturally moral / ethical beings who would seek the greatest good instinctually? Do you believe there are some people who only act for good out of fear of punishment? Or is positive reinforcement alone enough of a bhavior learning mechanism for all of society?

rikzilla

7th October 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The guy out of Home Improvement is a sex perv? :eek:

I'm guessing it's a common name...but then again??? Who knows what he's been up to in Ireland???

MORE POWER!! Woof Woof! :roll:

-z

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Why the Stalin avatar, then? I'm sure old Uncle Joe wouldn't agree with you.

Next you'll say I should not have a Stalin avatar because I do not
eat the same breakfast as he, i.e. Weetabix. Actually, I do eat
Weetabix, but that is not the point.

But now ... I must sleep - after which I can reply to every other
response.

Skeptic

7th October 2003, 10:10 AM

Ahem, people... this person, with the "don't punish pedophiles" nonsense and the avatar of STALIN, is obviously a troll...

rikzilla

7th October 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

Next you'll say I should not have a Stalin avatar because I do not
eat the same breakfast as he, i.e. Wheatabix. Actually, I do eat
Wheatabix, but that is not the point.

But now ... I must sleep - after which I can reply to every other
response.

No,...what you are is an extremely transparent and tedious troll.
:yawn:

tamiO

7th October 2003, 10:29 AM

Fraeybol

Good luck to you discussing this. As you can see, our most vocal posters in this forum are not interested in discussion.
:(

Mr Manifesto

7th October 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by tamiO
Fraeybol

Good luck to you discussing this. As you can see, our most vocal posters in this forum are not interested in discussion.
:(

There's no anchor tied to your butt. Why don't you discuss it, if it's such a burning issue?

corplinx

7th October 2003, 10:41 AM

I just don't believe the anyone should expect their tax dollars to go to treatment when treatment isn't very effective. Whatever reason someone becomes a child molester, we have to realize that the disruptive effect on society is too much to tolerate.

We need to simply "put down" people who:
A. have a first offense and the evidence in incontrovertible
B. put down all second offenders

A good limit on appeals should make the process fairly cheap. I propose turning them into soylent green to feed the homeless.

Abdul Alhazred

7th October 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
Next you'll say I should not have a Stalin avatar because I do not
eat the same breakfast as he, i.e. Weetabix. Actually, I do eat
Weetabix, but that is not the point.

Don't be disingenuous. You imply that you admire Stalin. Or am I missing some irony here?

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:47 AM

[Ahem, people... this person, with the "don't punish pedophiles" nonsense and the avatar of STALIN, is obviously a troll...

Why would you say that? Just because I am not particularly fond of the punishment as a method by which to reduce crime, I cannot therefore by a Marxist-Leninist, an admirer of Stalin? Is that it? Is it necessary that I agree with everything Stalin did? I must eat Weetabix, too, musn't I?

What is more, I communicate these same beliefs of mine everywhere I go. If I were a "troll", then why would I say the same things precisely among people who AGREE with me - among fellow Marxist-Leninists? If you think anyone who has a Stalin avatar is a troll, I suggest you go to the forums of http://www.socialistfront.org , wherein I have made a good deal of posts, and wherein I am a MODERATOR. If you think I am a troll, then go to http://www.politicsforum.org , or http://www.sovietrevolution.com , or any of the other fora whcih I am in the habit of frequenting - fora wherein I say the SAME things contantly among people who AGREE with me. Saying that I am a "troll" flies in the face of my good reputation. A troll, by definition, posts messages for the sole purpose of being amused by "reactions". Again, read my posts at politicsforum.org etc. - it is quite manifest that I am not a "troll". You would also find there a considerable section of people who agree with me on these issues.

I do not understand these fora, where it is fashionable to call anyone who supports Stalin a "troll" - as if Marxists-Leninists do not exist and when they encounter someone professing to be a Marxist-Leninist, who has an avatar of Stalin, they claim that he must be a troll, since admirers of Stalin are apparently so "rare" - nay even non-existent. Well, we are not as uncommon as you seem to believe. There are plenty of Maoists in the world, for instance - e.g., Marxist geurillas in Peru, and some in Latin America, state-capitalist China - all of whom, as believers in Mao Zedong Thought, are pro-Stalin. Oneparty.co.uk , plp.org, etext/mim , red comrades, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, etc., etc., etc. - we "Stalinists" as you might call us are clearly existent, and every once in a while we find an internet forum, perhaps JREF, or whatever. And it is not absurd to believe that among all these "Stalinists", huge in number, there are some, AS COMMUNISTS, who dislike punishment. You must remember that we do not accept the Western version of the Stalin-era, which claims there to be a Totalitarian dictatorship, in which millions died. We reject this version on good grounds. If there were any evidecne that Stalin did all these terrible things, that he ate babies, or whatever is the accepted lie, I would hate Stalin in a second. If Stalin were in fact Totalitarian, I would hate him. If he killed millions, I would hate him. But alas, there is no evidence for any of this, and if you want to debate this with me, go to http://www.politicsforum.org , go the history forum, wherein we can discuss this with plenty of people who support my view, and plenty who oppose it - where can can get a bit of both versions of history.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol
-I would also like to add that, according to my studies of
criminology, most sexual acts involving adult and child consist
mostly of non-penetrative forms of sexual contact, namely
fondling and kissing. Obviously someone who would do such a
thing to a child has a psychosexual disorder; he is mentally ill. He
must be treated in hospitals of the insane. Even someone who
violently rapes a person should be treated, for he clearly has a
psychosexual disorder, viz. sadism; if the psychosexual disorder
can be removed, he shall not rape again. If he is severely
punished, his disorder is liable to become more severe, and he
might repeat his offence.

I have been working on the issue for years, could you please point to me your surveys on the matter. You can PM me about the issue if you wish.

Thank you in advance.

tamiO

7th October 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

There's no anchor tied to your butt. Why don't you discuss it, if it's such a burning issue?

I'm sorry, I am not feeling well today or else I would have taken up discussion. I should have clarified that. :)

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:56 AM

edit - double post.

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Don't be disingenuous. You imply that you admire Stalin. Or am I missing some irony here?

Of course, as a Marxist-Leninist, I admire Stalin. I am also highly critical of him, consistent with Mao Zedong Thought. Just as admirers of George Washington would say that George Washington was a "man of his time" when confronted with the fact that he owned slaves, so I say the same of Stalin regarding his use of punishment.

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:59 AM

I promise I will respond to all the other responses - again I must sleep. I just thought that the "troll" thing had to be addressed immediately. Now I shall sleep for sure.

Tmy

7th October 2003, 01:44 PM

Whats wrong with punishment? Isnt that what prison is all about.

Like these x-hippees whove been on the run for 30 yrs, they lead productive lives and have put the past behind them. Then they get caught and are tried for their past crimes. Why? To punish them. Theyve been rehabilitated on their own, but we dont forget their past crimes.

Underemployed

7th October 2003, 01:51 PM

You could no more be cured or treated of paedophilia than a heterosexual could be 'cured' of preferring the opposite sex.

Do you believe you could be conditioned out of your own sexual preference? For life?

Punishment in terms of imprisonment is a side effect of the necessity to remove such people from society. Any such 'treatment' in the form of counselling, drugs, could easily be considered worse punishment in the eyes of the offender than incarceration.

7th October 2003, 01:55 PM

Please. Does not believe in punishment, likes uncle joe, defends child molesters. Shall I say 3 hot buttons. This particular troll has done some homework. Now we should hear about homeopathic remedies and JE and we will be all set.

Too obvious for me. I like subtlety in my trolls and a laser like focus on one woossue(tm) (my word woo+issue, clever if I say so myself) at a time. This guy would be like being worried to death by a herd of kittens.

renata

7th October 2003, 02:30 PM

I guess NoZed and I did not give him a good enough spanking last time.

Yes, he is a troll. For a very funny thread that shows him plagiarizing work, refusing to give his sources, providing pretty lame excuses for lacking sources of his claims, and disappearing into the wind look at this

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22560&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Here is my favorite answer to why he refuses to provide sources for his claims, something he promised to do
I was. Then I realised that it would take too much time, time which I do not have. When I posted that it was my bedtime.

A lesson learned from that- never argue against NoZed. :D

NoZed Avenger

7th October 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by renata
A lesson learned from that- never argue against NoZed. :D

Sig! Sig!

Hmmm. I must find the other one again, too. . . .

N/A
:roll:

tamiO

7th October 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by renata

Yes, he is a troll.

I stand corrected then, :)
It sure looked like a decent enough discussion topic, though.
Like I said it's not my best day. I expect to be forgiven for every post I made today. I am going to go crawl back in bd now.

Supercharts

7th October 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

Of course, as a Marxist-Leninist, I admire Stalin. I am also highly critical of him, consistent with Mao Zedong Thought. Just as admirers of George Washington would say that George Washington was a "man of his time" when confronted with the fact that he owned slaves, so I say the same of Stalin regarding his use of punishment.

"Under the lifeless afternoon sky, the Norwegian border town of Kirkenes and its tiny population of immigrants from neighbouring Russia is less than welcoming. The next stop is the North Pole. Kirkenes is a crossing point between the wealth of Scandinavia and the brutal poverty of Russia's old, rusting, northern naval towns.

And it is through here, say Kirkenes police, that Norwegian paedophiles issue visa invitations to Russian families, headed by women they have formed online or letter friendships with, to come and live with them so that they can abuse the children.

In recent months there has also been an increase in Norwegians with child abuse convictions making frequent trips to Murmansk, a crumbling Russian Arctic port six hours' drive away.

'Convicted paedophiles go to Russia from Norway several times a month without any viable work or social explanation for their trip,' said Ketil Haukaas, Kirkenes police chief.

The 'grooming' of Russian families for abuse exploits the economic gap between Russia and Norway. 'Cases like this are hard to prove,' said Haukaas. Police have secured only one solid conviction, which took five years to secure and was upheld on appeal only last June.

'Russians need a Norwegian citizen to stand financial guarantee to get a visa to Norway,' said Haukaas."

From:
http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/IRC/newsdesk_articles.asp?SCID=1018

renata

7th October 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Sig! Sig!

Hmmm. I must find the other one again, too. . . .

N/A
:roll:

The others you are thinking of are in the thread I so thoughtfully linked to. Sheeesh, even you did not read it! It is a funny thread, really, really. I mean who knew the tipic of Ukranian hunger could bring so many laughs!

Actually, it is NoZed nailing this guy to the wall that gets so good, particularly on the second page.

Originally posted by tamiO

I stand corrected then,
It sure looked like a decent enough discussion topic, though.
Like I said it's not my best day. I expect to be forgiven for every post I made today. I am going to go crawl back in bd now.

I knew you were not feeling well when you made a post saying you agreed with me!!;) Just because this guy is a troll does not mean it is not an interesting topic. I say start your own thread about it, like AS did to rescue one of GP's points about teenage sexuality.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by renata

Yes, he is a troll.

Please Renata and Nozed don't scare him, at least not until I get a copy of his study...

Thank you.

Huzington

7th October 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Ed
[B]Please. Does not believe in punishment, likes uncle joe, defends child molesters. Shall I say 3 hot buttons. This particular troll has done some homework. Now we should hear about homeopathic remedies and JE and we will be all set.

How was I "defending" child molesters? By advocating getting rid of child molesters by way of treatment? Please.

Suddenly

7th October 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

How was I "defending" child molesters? By advocating getting rid of child molesters by way of treatment? Please.

Blah Blah. Post some kind of hard evidence or a reference to a study where child molesters can be somehow cured on a reliable and consistent basis that would justify releasing them back into the public. Then you might as well post more evidence, cause anyone who deals with these kinds of monsters is not going to be easy to persuade.

For instance the guy last week I had to see regarding some post-conviction stuff. He was convicted because he put his penis in the mouth of an 8 year old girl. After some legal discussion he did show some remorse when he said "I'm sorry I didn't get a piece of A** out of the deal." What kind of therapy outside of that involving a long rope and a tree is going to make this guy safe to be anywhere near children again?

Any indication you aren't talking out your butt might help show you aren't a troll, but if I were you I'd pick troll. Otherwise you really are a massively misinformed Stalinist. :eek:

(but is there any other kind?)

You also said:
Molestation implies coercion, and it is apparent that
sexual acts involving adult and child are not necessarily forms of
molestation, of coercion.

:confused: Apparent? For your sake I hope you really are a troll. I'd hate to think this is a serious statement.

Huzington

7th October 2003, 09:48 PM

TruthSeeker said

Could you please provide the evidence that behavioural conditioning techniques "work" to change the sexual orientation of the pedophile and are associated with decreased rates of reoffense and recidivism?

thank you.

Okay, I never said that they work at decreasing rates of recidivism. I said that they are effective at altering sexual orientation. I am referring to that which has been called masturbatory conditioning.

Rikzilla: Good article, though what is said therein is not entirely correct. A paedophile is satisfactorily 'treated' if he has no sexual drive. Obviously there are methods by which to liquidate the sexual drive in a man.

Andonyx said:

1. If, as you suggest, a paedophile is incapable of understanding that his actions are wrong, and in fact unable to help himself to what he perceives to be natural inclinations...would it not make sense to incarcerate that person at least for the duration of their treatment?

Let us look at the schizophrenic. His illness is as yet incurable. Does this mean that we must give up treating him? Of course not. In like manner, even if the paedophile is incurable, we must nevertheless treat him forasmuch as it is the only humane thing to do.

We can debate ethics if you want, but I think it inadvisable.

Moreover, we can even treat the paedophiles in a way at the genetic level by disallowing such criminals to proliferate. What is more, we can effectively liquidate such illnesses by way of psychosurgery, behavioural therapy, hormonal supplements, drugs of all sorts, etc. - this we can do already. Unless you are going to shoot the man on the spot, or give him a life sentence and keep him confined for the rest of his life, which are both a waste of a potential worker, not to metion inhumane, punishment does not work, it has never worked, and most likely it never will work - not even as a deterrent.

Now paedophiles are of particular importance. For the paedophile (and any other sexual deviant) is an example of a curable criminal. By way of conditioning, his prepubescant sexual predilection can be decidedly liquidated. How does the paedophile become a paedophile? - another important question, if we want to get rid of paedophiles. The answer is this: by way of masturbatory conditioning. You see, conditioning plays such an important role for the criminal - both in inducing him to commit a crime, and in stopping him from commiting crimes. And if, by some improbable chance, conditioning does not correct the sexual deviant, eliminating his sexual drive will indubitably be effective; and this can be done quite easily. Furthermore, we can employ the miracle of psychsurgery if all else fails - and all else shall not fail. The criminal will stay in a hospital of the insane until he is cured.

The only problem is that the masses, for some odd reason, think it unethical: they had rather the criminal be punished than cured. "If you condition him," they say, "you are taking away his free will, which is most immoral." I do not understand these people. Punishment is a manifestation of sadism, which is itself a psychosexual disorder, and which, besides, is far more unethical than curing the person!

Punishment is obsolete.

I mean, what if, as in the case of the sexual deviant, the criminal can be cured? I firmly believe that sadism is curable. Serial murderers and rapists are sadists. And what of thieves, drug dealers, and other lumpen-proletarians? Society creates those and society itself must therefore be corrected. A Socialist society wherein there is a good deal of drug dealers and thieves is not a satisfactory Socialist society. Most people who steal steal because they do not have what they need. True, there is a minority of impulsive thieves. Such would be a manifestation of a mental illness. Such a person must therefore be treated. Drug dealers must not be punished. They can be got rid of by decriminalising drugs, and at the same time curing drug users. They will disappear very quickly.

We must make a distinction between (A) the criminal who commits crimes because of some mental illness (he who has antisocial personality disorder, who is a sexual deviant, who is an impulsive thief, etc), and (B) the criminal who commits crimes because of the errors of the State (the thief typical, the drug dealer, etc). The former can be corrected by treating the individual, the latter can be corrected by treating society itself. (Of course, generally crimes are a mixture of both A and B.)

You seem against prison, but is not prison necessary in cases where punishment is not sought, but the protoection of other citizens from a person deemed unable to grasp societal / moral right and wrongs?

Why do you need a deterrent when it is the State's fault that people commit so many crimes? The State creates many of these devils. Should we deter people from commiting crimes which arise from the State's own incompetence? Or should we eliminate the State's incomptetence? Punishing people to deter criminals is punishing those people for being created by the State. Others have mental illnesses, perhaps genetically predetermined ones. I do not believe in "punishing" the mentally ill for being mentally ill.

[/quote]2. If you are against all forms of punishment...how does classical conditioning fit into your view of learned human behavior?
[/quote]

Splendidly.

Do you believe that human beings are naturally moral / ethical beings who would seek the greatest good instinctually?

No.

Do you believe there are some people who only act for good out of fear of punishment? Or is positive reinforcement alone enough of a bhavior learning mechanism for all of society?

I congratulate you on asking good questions.

I shall therefore change my position for the moment, for the sake of argument. I would say that every criminal who commits a crime which causes irreversible damage and who is manifestly untreatable, should be punished, not for the sake of punishment itself, but to deter others from commiting the same crime. Now the question then is, who are these criminals who cause irreversible damage? Murderers. Of these criminals, which ones are manifestly untreatable? I do not say "incurable" - schizophrenics cannot be cured; this does not mean that we should not treat them. I am talking about the untreatable. Can their illness be mitigated (not necessarily cured) to the point at which their illness induces them to have an aversion to commiting crimes of that nature?

Thank you for the response.

NoZed Avenger

7th October 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by renata

The others you are thinking of are in the thread I so thoughtfully linked to. Sheeesh, even you did not read it! It is a funny thread, really, really. I mean who knew the tipic of Ukranian hunger could bring so many laughs!

So you're saying that the Ukraine topic is a fertile field for comedy, and that it has wheat your appetite for another threshing - or was that too corny?

N/A

The Central Scrutinizer

7th October 2003, 09:51 PM

Huzington

7th October 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Ed
[B]Please. Does not believe in punishment, likes uncle joe, defends child molesters. Shall I say 3 hot buttons. This particular troll has done some homework. Now we should hear about homeopathic remedies and JE and we will be all set.

I personally know many people who do not believe in punishment. As for Stalin, I am highly critical of him. I am not a "Stalinist".

I dislike punishment because I am a Communist - I dislike the state. Who do you think controls the public power?

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:16 PM

Blah Blah. Post some kind of hard evidence or a reference to a study where child molesters can be somehow cured on a reliable and consistent basis that would justify releasing them back into the public. Then you might as well post more evidence, cause anyone who deals with these kinds of monsters is not going to be easy to persuade.

Yes, thank you sir, you are correct - paedophilia as yet cannot be cured. I am all agreement with you here. But I say moreover that it should be treated nonetheless. I have explained this in one of my previous posts.

For instance the guy last week I had to see regarding some post-conviction stuff. He was convicted because he put his penis in the mouth of an 8 year old girl. After some legal discussion he did show some remorse when he said "I'm sorry I didn't get a piece of A** out of the deal." What kind of therapy outside of that involving a long rope and a tree is going to make this guy safe to be anywhere near children again?

Good point. But I maintain that such behaviour is not likely to occur if the man lacked a sexual drive and was conditioned to be repulsed by children. Is it possible, you ask, to condition someone to be repulsed by a class of people? Good question on your part, and certainly you desire evidence for this. But you see I am thinking from a completely different perspective - with a certain behaviourist scepticism of "mind" and hence "motivation". Such behaviour can only be learned, according to this doctrine. Of course, owing to certain biological differences even among homo sapiens, the probability is not identical among all men- and therefore differences become manifest in learned behaviour regardless of experience, i.e. owing to biological differences, some people are more likely be paedophiles than others: but nonetheless it is learned behaviour. Cats are more likely to be "bad" toward mice owing to certain biological characteristics of the cat: but nonetheless it is learned behaviour, for the cat can just as well learn to love the mouse starting, though the probablity that he would learn to see it as food is greater. For how can it be otherwise? Are you to say that paedophilia is genetic? Can it be anything else than learned behaviour? And therefore it must be corrected by way of conditioning. I am not saying that it can be cured. I have made complementary arguments in a previous post.

Another point I would like for you to consider is that most paedophiles do not like being paedophiles. Most likely therefore they will welcome treatment. Perhaps they could be corrected before they commit a crime? This is worth considering; I think you will agree.

Further, and I believe more satisfacory, arguments are made in my previous post. Thank you for responding.

Otherwise you really are a massively misinformed Stalinist. :eek:

I am not a Stalinist.

Apparent? For your sake I hope you really are a troll. I'd hate to think this is a serious statement.

For the veracity of this statement I refer you to a book which I have been reading called The Sexual Life of Children. Turn to chapter six, and you will find these words therein:

"The recent study by Kilpatrick (1992) differs from other studies in that it includes no clinical or offender population and allows for respondents to give positive and neutral, as well as negative, responses to their childhood sexual experiences. The sample population was 501 Southern adult women who were asked to recall their childhood sexual experiences. Sixty-seven percent of the white respondents and 36 percent of the black respondents reported having sexual experiences as children. Kilpatrick found that the larger proportion of women (67%) remembered having participated voluntarily rather than involuntarily in sexual activity, and most reported having been active in initiating such activity, while a smaller proportion (33%) felt that they had in some way been pressured or forced. Thirty-eight percent of the women found their experiences to be pleasant, 37 percent neither pleasant nor unpleasant, and 25 percent found the experiences to be unpleasant. Sixty-eight percent reported having had overall positive responses to their sexual experiences, while negative reactions of anger, fear, or shock were reported by 32 percent."

Thank you for responding.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 10:23 PM

Suddenly

Have you ever had a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester that you have represented in court?

Huzington

7th October 2003, 10:29 PM

I said:

Another point I would like for you to consider is that most paedophiles do not like being paedophiles. Most likely therefore they will welcome treatment. Perhaps they could be corrected before they commit a crime? This is worth considering; I think you will agree.

I would also like to add, that if paedophiles see paedophila as a mental illness, and not as a crime, they will be more inclined to seek help for their disorder - and less inclined therefore to have a sexual relationship with a child to begin with. I think this is a valid point.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 10:46 PM

Really?

Well, most paedophiles also believe that they don't belong in jail and they ended-up there because of a conspiracy...

Huzington

7th October 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Really?

Well, most paedophiles also believe that they don't belong in jail and they ended-up there because of a conspiracy...

That is a good point, though I am curious about how you have such knowledge about their belief in such a "conspiracy".

So what we have is this: paedophiles commit sexual crimes and do not think they deserve to be jailed. Clearly most of them will not believe that their sexual preference is wrong. Therefore they will commit sexual crimes. Unless they are corrected beforehand? I.e., unless they believe it is a mental illness deserving treatment. But again you might say that it is incurable with present day knowledge. That is a good point also, but I have addressed it in of my previous messages and so far it has not been criticised.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

That is a good point, though I am curious about how you have such knowledge about their belief in such a "conspiracy".

From my professional experience and if I remember well Suddenly has mentioned a similar observation of his once.

Do we have any statistics regarding how many paedophiles resort to psychiatrists for professional help before being arrested for committing this crime?

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

Clearly most of them will not believe that their sexual preference is wrong.

You are wrong.

Have you ever visited a chat room where those people are discussing their experiences?

Huzington

7th October 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

You are wrong.

Have you ever visited a chat room where those people are discussing their experiences?

That is irrelevant. How am I wrong? I would like to know why so that I may abandon that belief of mine. So far it seems correct to me, that paedohiles do not "know" that their behaviour is morally incorrect.

Huzington

7th October 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[B]

From my professional experience and if I remember well Suddenly has mentioned a similar observation of his once.

I do not question you, but as you know that is to me but hearsay.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

I do not question you, but as you know that is to me but hearsay.

Exactly as your surveys on the matter.

If you have discussed with a paedophile, if you have read any reports about them, if you have visited a chat room where anonymous users discuss about this issue, you would have realized that what these people feel above all is guilt.

Pay a visit to the site of the the organization that advocates their right of expressing their sexuality ( The Free Spirits) and you will discover that what those people try is to refute the sentiment of guilt.

So, they know very well that what they are doing is wrong.

Regarding the question if they believe that they suffer from a mental illness I asked if you are aware of any statistics regarding how many of them resort to professional help before being arrested for committing the crime.

Also, I asked Suddenly( because he practices Law in the States and he has an experience on the matter) to inform us if he has ever seen a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester.

Huzington

7th October 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Exactly as your surveys on the matter.

If you have discussed with a paedophile, if you have read any reports about them, if you have visited a chat room where anonymous users discuss about this issue, you would have realized that what these people feel above all is guilt.

Pay a visit to the site of the the organization that advocates their right of expressing their sexuality ( The Free Spirits) and you will discover that what those people try is to refute the sentiment of guilt.

So, they know very well that what they are doing is wrong.

[...]

Also, I asked Suddenly( because he practices Law in the States and he has an experience on the matter) to inform us if he has ever seen a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester.

Actually, first of all, I have been to boychat, boylinks (how do you think I found The Sexual Life of Children?), allboys, boylovers united, boywrite, Christian boylove forum, logicalreality, etc. - and I personally know many female fans of "shotakon" which are Japanese comic books that depicts sexual relationships involving preteen boys. I am acquainted with these people. (I only go to these forums/chats to study paedophiles.)

And I still think that you are wrong. They do not feel guilt at all. They do not think it wrong as they ought to. They believe that it does not hurt the child, that the child is active in initiating sexual contact. This is what they generally believe. Such, at any rate, is my experience on such fora.

Regarding the question if they believe that they suffer from a mental illness I asked if you are aware of any statistics regarding how many of them resort to professional help before being arrested for committing the crime.

I thought you were asking anyone who knows the answer. I do not know the answer to this question.

Regardless of whether offences would be committed after treatment or not, I still hold that punishing him who ought to be treated is morally incorrect. Disorganised behaviour is part of the behaviour of him who is a schizophrenic. Sexual contact with children is merely part of the behaviour of him who is a paedophile, which is likewise a disorder. Why punish someone for exhibiting the behaviour typical of his disorder? Is this not a valid point?

Look at all these ethical considerations which we have made. Ethical considerations are unavoidable. I think that this discussion is therefore pointless without a thorough discussion of the morality of punishment. Do you agree?

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

And I still think that you are wrong. They do not feel guilt at all. They do not think it wrong as they ought to. They believe that it does not hurt the child, that the child is active in initiating sexual contact. This is what they generally believe. Such, at any rate, is my experience on such fora.

Allow me to disagree using as an argument the sources you provide as evidence of your expertise. The fora you listed exist exactly to refute the prevailing idea among paedophiles that what they do is wrong that's why they focus in presenting various aspects of the issue apart from the sexual intercourse.

I thought you were asking anyone who knows the answer. I do not know the answer to this question.

It's ok. I was addressing to you because you claimed a specialized knowledge, it's an open forum, if anybody has some clues on that he will reply.

Regardless of whether offences would be committed after treatment or not, I still hold that punishing him who ought to be treated is morally incorrect. Disorganised behaviour is part of the behaviour of him who is a schizophrenic. Sexual contact with children is merely part of the behaviour of him who is a paedophile, which is likewise a disorder. Why punish someone for exhibiting the behaviour typical of his disorder? Is this not a valid point?

Look at all these ethical considerations which we have made. Ethical considerations are unavoidable. I think that this discussion is therefore pointless without a thorough discussion of the morality of punishment. Do you agree?

I am not sure if you have the nature of punishment in mind when you are talking about its morality.

For people that are aware of the pain that these people cause it will be a relief to discover that paedophilia is a serious dissorder that has the potential to be cured in the future.

When it comes to courts of Law though I have discovered that psychiatrists have difficulties while testifying to give definite answers regarding the mental health of the accused even to cases that seem to be typical cases of a disordered person( mother that murder their children for example). I cannot think of a shrink that he would be willing to testify in defense of a child molester.

You have based your premise in your opening post on opinions that paedophiles express about themselves in web-sites and in a book that you learned about its existence in a paedophiliac forum.I am sure that you will recognize that we need more than that.

The topic you touch is definetely interesting and needs to be studied before we proceed in changes of the current legislation, if this is what you suggest.

Graham

8th October 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The guy out of Home Improvement is a sex perv? :eek:

Just in case anyone else goes away with this impression, I would like to confirm that the Tim Allen mentioned in the letter Rikzilla quoted is an entirely different person to he of Home Improvement fame.

He is the husband of one Darina Allen, a sort of Martha Stewart-type figure in Ireland.

almost a thousand pornographic images of children, some as young as five years old, were recovered from computers which were seized from his home and his cookery school last May. 92 of these images were printed or had been stored on discs.

He received a nine-month suspended sentence and a 240-hour community service order. He also made a €40,000 contribution to the Edith Wilkins Foundation charity for street children in India.

The leniency of the sentence was widely condemned (at least amongst everyone I know) and it was suggested that his (minor) celebrity status and "contacts" got him favourable treatment.

His wife and four children were very supportive of him during the trial, incidentally. The children, I believe, are now in their teens or possibly even older.

Anyway, just so everyone knows - Home Improvement Tim Allen Good Other Tim Allen Bad

Graham

Richard G

8th October 2003, 08:08 AM

A real live commie. Look at this. Hey man, does the KGB know your out of your cage, freely expressing ideas on a public bulletine board?

You had better give more thought to the welfare of the omnipotent State before you go spouting off with those radical ideas.

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

Yes, thank you sir, you are correct - paedophilia as yet cannot be cured. I am all agreement with you here. But I say moreover that it should be treated nonetheless. I have explained this in one of my previous posts.

My problem was that you opposed imprisionment. I would hope you realize the need to keep these people under wraps.

Good point. But I maintain that such behaviour is not likely to occur if the man lacked a sexual drive and was conditioned to be repulsed by children. Is it possible, you ask, to condition someone to be repulsed by a class of people? Good question on your part, and certainly you desire evidence for this. But you see I am thinking from a completely different perspective - with a certain behaviourist scepticism of "mind" and hence "motivation". Such behaviour can only be learned, according to this doctrine. Of course, owing to certain biological differences even among homo sapiens, the probability is not identical among all men- and therefore differences become manifest in learned behaviour regardless of experience, i.e. owing to biological differences, some people are more likely be paedophiles than others: but nonetheless it is learned behaviour. Cats are more likely to be "bad" toward mice owing to certain biological characteristics of the cat: but nonetheless it is learned behaviour, for the cat can just as well learn to love the mouse starting, though the probablity that he would learn to see it as food is greater. For how can it be otherwise? Are you to say that paedophilia is genetic? Can it be anything else than learned behaviour? And therefore it must be corrected by way of conditioning. I am not saying that it can be cured. I have made complementary arguments in a previous post. There is a famous case where a man who led an exemplary life all of a sudden couldn't controll his urges. He wound up turning himself into the cops because he believed he couldn't controll himself and he was going to rape the 13 year old babysitter. Turned out he had a tumor in his head, and once it was removed he went back to normal. This would suggest an organic brain problem.

Child molesters come in so many different forms that to suggest there is a simple answer such as removing sex drive or conditioning against children is quite daft. First of all, a lot of this kind of molestation is not sexual. Nor is it because the like children, quite the opposite. Plus you suggest conditioning in some predictable manner would be effective. There is no evidence I am aware of that this can be true.

Another point I would like for you to consider is that most paedophiles do not like being paedophiles. Most likely therefore they will welcome treatment. Perhaps they could be corrected before they commit a crime? This is worth considering; I think you will agree. Most paedophiles believe they are doing nothing wrong, based on the dozens I have dealt with.

Further, and I believe more satisfacory, arguments are made in my previous post. Thank you for responding. If we lived in fantasy future world where child molester type tendancies could be 100% accurately screened for and corrected, then sure, maybe. Until that day it isn't realistic, and even if it were it is such an invasive violation of basic and fundimental right that it would have to be voluntary.

For the veracity of this statement I refer you to a book which I have been reading called The Sexual Life of Children. Turn to chapter six, and you will find these words therein:

"The recent study by Kilpatrick (1992) differs from other studies in that it includes no clinical or offender population and allows for respondents to give positive and neutral, as well as negative, responses to their childhood sexual experiences. The sample population was 501 Southern adult women who were asked to recall their childhood sexual experiences. Sixty-seven percent of the white respondents and 36 percent of the black respondents reported having sexual experiences as children. Kilpatrick found that the larger proportion of women (67%) remembered having participated voluntarily rather than involuntarily in sexual activity, and most reported having been active in initiating such activity, while a smaller proportion (33%) felt that they had in some way been pressured or forced. Thirty-eight percent of the women found their experiences to be pleasant, 37 percent neither pleasant nor unpleasant, and 25 percent found the experiences to be unpleasant. Sixty-eight percent reported having had overall positive responses to their sexual experiences, while negative reactions of anger, fear, or shock were reported by 32 percent."

Thank you for responding.

Read this study again. Not all "underage sex expriences" are child molestation. Some could be between 17 year olds. Without a definition of "underage sex experience" this is a worthless study for what you claim.

It also would have a simplistic view of what coercion means. Many child molesters do not use physical force, they tend to convince their victims that what they are going to do is OK, fun, and a part of growing up. Seducing a person not old enough to understand is no less coercion than is physicial force. The victim will be a terrible judge in these cases as to whether they acted of their own free will. There is also a lot of trouble with post-hoc persuasion by a Child Molester where he/she convinces the child that the child really wanted this.

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Suddenly

Have you ever had a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester that you have represented in court?

In defense, yes, but usually to argue that the crime was not voluntary. Usually this is a (to put it breifly) defense that the person disassociates and acts out childhood trauma (the defendant was once likewise abused) so the crime he is accused of is actually part of the injury the defendant once suffered. Quite persuasive given the right set of facts and a good expert.

The only other times you see a shrink is at sentencing usually to argue that the person is not a paedophile, and just a bad actor/was drunk/whatever. Once a judge thinks a defendant is a paedophile that person is going to get a much longer sentence.

Suezoled

8th October 2003, 08:30 AM

and while all this "debate" (head banging against a brick wall, more like) is going on, who is the real victim? The kids. The people whom the pedophile preys on. So, while the pedophile is being championed by some people as a sick patient, let's totally ignore the people who get hurt by this; kids, their families, the other people they MIGHT grow up to molest themselves.

Treat the pedophile? Don't punish them?

Maybe it's easier for some people to sympathize with the perpatrator; he is only asking for them to keep silent and not confront him about what he did. The victim is the one who is asking others to feel, to hear his voice, to acknowledge his pain.

Let's have a National Be Kind to Pedophiles Day.

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

In defense, yes, but usually to argue that the crime was not voluntary. Usually this is a (to put it breifly) defense that the person disassociates and acts out childhood trauma (the defendant was once likewise abused) so the crime he is accused of is actually part of the injury the defendant once suffered. Quite persuasive given the right set of facts and a good expert.

This is interesting. I have never seen a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester in case the perpetrator suggests that his actions are part of a suffered injury. ( I have seen priests testifying in defense of such persons though... ) Maybe the reason why they avoid it is because for every shrink that is willing to testify this the prosecutor brings two shrinks to testify the opposite. The only case an accused can claim past injury is if he has a medical record before being arrested. There are few cases like that, personally I have never seen one.

The only other times you see a shrink is at sentencing usually to argue that the person is not a paedophile, and just a bad actor/was drunk/whatever. Once a judge thinks a defendant is a paedophile that person is going to get a much longer sentence.

Do shrinks testify as to whether the accused was sober or not when he was committing the crime? Why do you use a shrink for that?

Fraeybol, I hope you don't mind our discussing the differences between the systems, given the opportunity :)

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Exactly as your surveys on the matter.

If you have discussed with a paedophile, if you have read any reports about them, if you have visited a chat room where anonymous users discuss about this issue, you would have realized that what these people feel above all is guilt.

Pay a visit to the site of the the organization that advocates their right of expressing their sexuality ( The Free Spirits) and you will discover that what those people try is to refute the sentiment of guilt.

So, they know very well that what they are doing is wrong.

Regarding the question if they believe that they suffer from a mental illness I asked if you are aware of any statistics regarding how many of them resort to professional help before being arrested for committing the crime.

Also, I asked Suddenly( because he practices Law in the States and he has an experience on the matter) to inform us if he has ever seen a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester.

I've never come across a child molester who admitted what he/she was doing was morally wrong, but my clients are uniformly uneduacated as well as poor. They know it illegal, but most won't admit that maybe they shouldn't have done it. I suspect some of them know it is wrong, but just can't deal with the fact so they deny the act in some way. One guy I remember wouldn't understand that the fact he paid the parents to have sex with the 10 year old girl didn't make it legal. I really mean "wouldn't." He wasn't interested in reality.

So its a complicated issue. Child molesters are not a monolithic lot. There are several different types that act somewhat differently.

I've almost never come across an already imprisoned child molester without a conspiracy theory of some sort of judicial malfeasance that lead to their conviction. I would feel comfortable in saying that if you compare those in prison for "child molestation" against other major violent crimes that wild conspiracy theories are much more common among the child molesters. I've seen enough of each that for my observations to be a statistical abberation is quite unlikely.

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

This is interesting. I have never seen a shrink testifying in defense of a child molester in case the perpetrator suggests that his actions are part of a suffered injury. ( I have seen priests testifying in defense of such persons though... ) Maybe the reason why they avoid it is because for every shrink that is willing to testify this the prosecutor brings two shrinks to testify the opposite. The only case an accused can claim past injury is if he has a medical record before being arrested. There are few cases like that, personally I have never seen one. It is a bit of a new theory that has to do with how the brain develops as a child. The general idea is that a child that suffers trauma doesn't have the capacity to deal with it in an analytical fashion, so the child expresses it creatively, through drawings and acting out. The theory is that this acting out and drawing is not a voluntary act, and a occurs in a disassociated state. Some people grow out of it, some people don't.

Do shrinks testify as to whether the accused was sober or not when he was committing the crime? Why do you use a shrink for that? No. The shrink would be there to claim that something other than paedophilia motivated the crime. The legal reality here is if the judge believes someone convicted of a sex crime is a paedophile, and thus incurable, he's going to give a maximum sentence. The shrink testifies more to the absence of a psychological disorder than anything else.

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

I've never come across a child molester who admitted what he/she was doing was morally wrong, but my clients are uniformly uneduacated as well as poor. They know it illegal, but most won't admit that maybe they shouldn't have done it. I suspect some of them know it is wrong, but just can't deal with the fact so they deny the act in some way. One guy I remember wouldn't understand that the fact he paid the parents to have sex with the 10 year old girl didn't make it legal. I really mean "wouldn't." He wasn't interested in reality.

So its a complicated issue. Child molesters are not a monolithic lot. There are several different types that act somewhat differently.

I've almost never come across an already imprisoned child molester without a conspiracy theory of some sort of judicial malfeasance that lead to their conviction. I would feel comfortable in saying that if you compare those in prison for "child molestation" against other major violent crimes that wild conspiracy theories are much more common among the child molesters. I've seen enough of each that for my observations to be a statistical abberation is quite unlikely.

I was ready to reply to your message but you were faster.

I disagree :) They know that it's illegal and they feel a tremendous guilt about their actions. I don't know if it's because the society makes them feel that way, the point is that guilt is what characterizes their attitude that's why most of them keep denying their crimes on the basis that they'd never do such a repulsive crime. Most of them go as far as bringing priests to testify what sort of good christians they have been all of their lives and there is not way that they have committed such a crime.

I agree about the conspiracy theory thing but usually they claim that those that accuse them for such crimes have alterior motives.

Child molesters don't feel comfortable with their sexuality that's why they don't dare to fight " for their right to be attracted to minors"without talking about sex( which would be a crime) in public and they use only Internet for that.

The stigma is strong and none of them is willing to accept it.

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Suezoled
and while all this "debate" (head banging against a brick wall, more like) is going on, who is the real victim? The kids. The people whom the pedophile preys on. So, while the pedophile is being championed by some people as a sick patient, let's totally ignore the people who get hurt by this; kids, their families, the other people they MIGHT grow up to molest themselves.

Treat the pedophile? Don't punish them?

Maybe it's easier for some people to sympathize with the perpatrator; he is only asking for them to keep silent and not confront him about what he did. The victim is the one who is asking others to feel, to hear his voice, to acknowledge his pain.

Let's have a National Be Kind to Pedophiles Day.

Can you explain how "punishment" helps the victim?

How does treating the problem "ignore" the victim?

It isn't about sympathy, it is about common sense. A jail term for a seizure will hardly cure an epileptic, nor will it keep other epileptics from having seizures. If (and I mean if) evidence points to child molestation being an irresistable urge driven by identifyable organic factors in the brain, what moral basis does punishment have?

Of course, anyone that thinks an identified paedophile should ever be allowed around children absent compelling proof of a cure is just nuts, IMHO. This doesn't require the sequestration be punitive however, just that they are kept away.

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
It is a bit of a new theory that has to do with how the brain develops as a child. The general idea is that a child that suffers trauma doesn't have the capacity to deal with it in an analytical fashion, so the child expresses it creatively, through drawings and acting out. The theory is that this acting out and drawing is not a voluntary act, and a occurs in a disassociated state. Some people grow out of it, some people don't.

Wow, I can't even imagine how this theory will be presented here. For the moment this new fruit hasn't arrived here.

Under which circumstances does the judge accept it?I believe that there are other factors that he takes into consideration as well. How the procecution responds?

( If you need a lot of time to reply to these, let it go please!)

No. The shrink would be there to claim that something other than paedophilia motivated the crime. The legal reality here is if the judge believes someone convicted of a sex crime is a paedophile, and thus incurable, he's going to give a maximum sentence. The shrink testifies more to the absence of a psychological disorder than anything else.

I see. And again how the prosecution responds? Do they bring their own experts?

( The same stands here. I don't want to waste your time)

nightwind

8th October 2003, 09:10 AM

I can see where there are different degrees of this disorder and that treatment might be beneficial in cases, as opposed to jail. Or there might be some kind of combination according to the harm done. I am really not sure of what studies that are out there concerning harm.

Certainly if it goes hand in hand with being a child killer, I believe that they need to be locked up for a long time, but if it is something much less severe, then mandatory treatment might be better, and they might be helped. Whereas if just thrown in jail for this, and eventually getting out, they may have the same problem.

Wasn't there a book written a few short years ago, on the harm or lack thereof regarding pedophilia? Seems like I remember some folks getting upset about a book that looked at studies on pedophilia, or something related.

Also, didn't Congress surpress or censor some kind of study done on this. Seems like I remember that also, but would have to research. Not sure exactly why they did, whether it involved controversial treatments, etc.

I have always thought it rather curious that in some countries you can go to jail for crimes such as sex with underaged, and have to be treated, etc. but in other countries it is accepted, and no one goes to jail, or is treated because there age of consent is lower, and therefore no crime. But I do know that there is a big difference between what is considered pedophilia, and just underage sex.

I have also heard that there are many pedophiles who do not act out on their fantasies. So they really do not commit a crime. Should they be treated? Guess that would be their personal choice. Although seems like I remember some gossip columnist turning a guy in who wanted to be treated, and I guess he was probably sent to jail. So I guess this might keep someone from asking for treatment.

Now some crimes, that are so heinous like serial killers, who have killed many people, I'm not really sure they need treatment, since they will be locked up forever, and really just need to be punished. I am not sure that they deserve treatment, no matter how inhumane that sounds.

This is a interesting thing to think about, and do believe that these issues need to be looked at.

Interesting discussion.

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Wow, I can't even imagine how this theory will be presented here. For the moment this new fruit hasn't arrived here.

Under which circumstances does the judge accept it?I believe that there are other factors that he takes into consideration as well. How the procecution responds?

( If you need a lot of time to reply to these, let it go please!)

Here, the judge is but a gatekeeper of thit type of evidence, and it is a case by case basis as to whether an expert can testify. The general idea here is to permit and leave it to the prosecutor to bring their own witness and let the jury decide. These cases are often called "The Battle of the Experts" because they are determined by which expert the jury believes.

I see. And again how the prosecution responds? Do they bring their own experts?

( The same stands here. I don't want to waste your time)

Usually.

Huzington

8th October 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
My problem was that you opposed imprisionment. I would hope you realize the need to keep these people under wraps. There is a famous case where a man who led an exemplary life all of a sudden couldn't controll his urges. He wound up turning himself into the cops because he believed he couldn't controll himself and he was going to rape the 13 year old babysitter. Turned out he had a tumor in his head, and once it was removed he went back to normal. This would suggest an organic brain problem.

Child molesters come in so many different forms that to suggest there is a simple answer such as removing sex drive or conditioning against children is quite daft. First of all, a lot of this kind of molestation is not sexual. Nor is it because the like children, quite the opposite. Plus you suggest conditioning in some predictable manner would be effective. There is no evidence I am aware of that this can be true. [. . .]

If we lived in fantasy future world where child molester type tendancies could be 100% accurately screened for and corrected, then sure, maybe. Until that day it isn't realistic, and even if it were it is such an invasive violation of basic and fundimental right that it would have to be voluntary.

I am not suggesting any of that. I merely made mention to two possible types of treatment - not cures. I am not here concerned with whether it is absolutely correctable or not.

Read this study again. Not all "underage sex expriences" are child molestation. Some could be between 17 year olds. Without a definition of "underage sex experience" this is a worthless study for what you claim.

An interesting study was conducted by Sandfort (1982). He interviewed twenty-five Dutch boys who, when they were interviewed, were involved in paedophilic relationships which lasted up to six years. Each of the boys liked the man with whom he had sexual a sexual relationship; some loved the man.

Of this study Floyd M. Martison, in his The Sexual Life of Children, said: ". . . They did not appear to feel coerced into continuing the relationship. . . . [T]hey received from the pedophile friendship. . . ."

Informing us that most studies of child sexuality consist almost entirely of clinical or offender populations, that almost every study only asks for "negative reactions of children" to their sexual experiences, Mr. Martison makes it clear that we have a highly distorted view on the matter.

He therefore cites a study of a different sort which includes no clinical or offender population by Kilpatrick (1992). Unlike most studies, respondents were actually allowed to give not only negative answers, but neutral and positive answers. It was found that sixty-seven per cent remembered having participated voluntarily in sexual activity and most were active in initiating sexual activity! "Sixty-eight percent reported having had overall positive responses to their sexual experiences. . . . Seventy-two percent felt that their child sexuality was not harmful, and 83 percent felt it was not abusive." Completely discordant with the popular paradigm which is accepted with absolutely no criticism, it was found that the "type or age of partners did not appear to be significantly related to the women's functioning as adults", an assumption which, he adds, challenges the view that "all children are victimized by any type of sexual experience with a person who is five or more years older."

Many other studies show the same thing: for instance, Goldman and Goldman (1988) found that one thousand Australian children had either positive or neutral feelings concerning their sexual experiences.

Now here are some sexual experiences from the same book (Chapter Six):

"My first sexual experience with another boy came at the age of five or six, when I would play with this boy who was about sixteen. He would ask me if I wanted to go into his house for something to eat. . . . I would go. Next he would ask me if I would go into the bedroom with him. Upon entering the bedroom, he would undress and ask me to do the same. . . . After undressing, he would tell me to bend over and then he would insert his erect penis into my anus. . . . He would then stimulate my penis. . . . We also masturbated each other. . . . I also spent some time in oral-genital contact. I did find the whole experience quite pleasing and continued to engage in these activities for a week or two. . . ."

"I [eleven years old] had become friendly with a boy five years younger than myself and soon started thinking of sex. We began by fondling each other's genitals and soon proceeded to playing games involving our sex organs. This relationship went on for a month; we attempted to engage in penile-anal intercourse."

"My [a girl] earliest experience with sex occurred when I was approximately five years old. . . . A buddy of my brother's came over who was eleven years old. . . . He asked me if I wanted to play doctor. . . . I said yes. . . . He was the doctor and I the patient. I was about to have a baby and he was going to operate. He unzipped my pants, took them off, and proceeded to do the same with his. He tried to have intercourse. . . . I thought it was perfectly all right."

Most paedophiles believe they are doing nothing wrong, based on the dozens I have dealt with.

Yes; that is what I have been saying.

max

8th October 2003, 10:22 AM

castrate the buggers, that's what I say

Suddenly

8th October 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

An interesting study was conducted by Sandfort (1982). He interviewed twenty-five Dutch boys who, when they were interviewed, were involved in paedophilic relationships which lasted up to six years. Each of the boys liked the man with whom he had sexual a sexual relationship; some loved the man.

Of this study Floyd M. Martison, in his The Sexual Life of Children, said: ". . . They did not appear to feel coerced into continuing the relationship. . . . [T]hey received from the pedophile friendship. . . ."

Informing us that most studies of child sexuality consist almost entirely of clinical or offender populations, that almost every study only asks for "negative reactions of children" to their sexual experiences, Mr. Martison makes it clear that we have a highly distorted view of childhood sexuality.

He therefore cites a study of a different sort which includes no clinical or offender population by Kilpatrick (1992). Unlike most studies, respondents were actually allowed to give not only negative answers, but neutral and positive answers. It was found that sixty-seven per cent remembered having participated voluntarily in sexual activity and most were active in initiating sexual activity! "Sixty-eight percent reported having had overall positive responses to their sexual experiences. . . . Seventy-two percent felt that their child sexuality was not harmful, and 83 percent felt it was not abusive." Completely discordant with the popular paradigm which is accepted with absolutely no criticism, it was found that the "type or age of partners did not appear to be significantly related to the women's functioning as adults", an assumption which, he adds, challenges the view that "all children are victimized by any type of sexual experience with a person who is five or more years older."

Many other studies show the same thing: for instance, Goldman and Goldman (1988) found that one thousand Australian children had either positive or neutral feelings concerning their sexual experiences.

Now here are some sexual experiences from the same book (Chapter Six):

<snipped>

Again, as I said earlier:

It also would have a simplistic view of what coercion means. Many child molesters do not use physical force, they tend to convince their victims that what they are going to do is OK, fun, and a part of growing up. Seducing a person not old enough to understand is no less coercion than is physicial force. The victim will be a terrible judge in these cases as to whether they acted of their own free will. There is also a lot of trouble with post-hoc persuasion by a child molester where he/she convinces the child that the child really wanted this.

Note the last sentence. This isn't a question of pleasant experience, or that the victim may later sat they liked it, or that it was the victim's idea. Many of those identify these kinds of feelings as the worst part of the violation they as adults realized they suffered.

Also note of the three examples you give towards the end all are examples of child - child sexual conduct, not adult - child.

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 10:40 AM

I think that the problem with this issue is that I am not sure that we will ever be in the positition to have a survey that would make us conclude to definite answers.

Such a survey would require a sample of more than 1000 children that they would be sexualy abused for a long period, let's say from childhood to puberty and then have their lives as adults monitored for years.

The rest belong to the sphere of the anecdotes that we take into consideration of course but alone they cannot constitute any kind of proof.

Suddenly, thank you!

I admit that I prefer the " Battle of the experts" from the "Battle of the Priests" in a court room...

Huzington

8th October 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Note the last sentence. This isn't a question of pleasant experience, or that the victim may later sat they liked it, or that it was the victim's idea. Many of those identify these kinds of feelings as the worst part of the violation they as adults realized they suffered.

I agree with this. But it in fact says little about those studies. And I have my own experiences as a child and am therefore inclined to be somewhat sceptical of this.

Also note of the three examples you give towards the end all are examples of child - child sexual conduct, not adult - child.

Also note the age difference. At least in my country, being five years older is sufficient to be considered as a paedophile.

Huzington

8th October 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that the problem with this issue is that I am not sure that we will ever be in the positition to have a survey that would make us conclude to definite answers.

Such a survey would require a sample of more than 1000 children that they would be sexualy abused for a long period, let's say from childhood to puberty and then have their lives as adults monitored for years.

That would be exceedingly flawed. You are limiting your study the those who are decidedly abused and already presupposing abuse. I wonder if you would even permit the respondents to give positive answers in such a study - almost all studies disallow the "victims" to respond positively. And hence we have a distorted picture on the matter. I think you can agree with me here.

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

That would be exceedingly flawed. You are limiting your study the those who are decidedly abused and already presupposing abuse.

Well, according to my limited knowledge on the subject this is how behavioral surveys are perfomed.

I wonder if you would even permit the respondents to give positive answers in such a study - almost all studies disallow the "victims" to respond positively. And hence we have a distorted picture on the matter. I think you can agree with me here.

No I can't agree with you . You want me to take for granted the intellectual dishonesty of those that perform such studies and this is a very serious accusation that I hope that you won't leave unsupported.

Huzington

8th October 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
A real live commie. Look at this. Hey man, does the KGB know your out of your cage, freely expressing ideas on a public bulletine board?

I could not care less about oppressive state-capitalist post-Stalin USSR with the KGB.

You had better give more thought to the welfare of the omnipotent State before you go spouting off with those radical ideas.

A Communist is by definition someone opposed to the State. We consider the State as an instrument of exploitation.

renata

8th October 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Fraeybol

I personally know many people who do not believe in punishment. As for Stalin, I am highly critical of him. I am not a "Stalinist".

I dislike punishment because I am a Communist - I dislike the state. Who do you think controls the public power?

BS!

You said

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22872

Stalin said, "We are . . . one hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten." And this is precisely what he had done.

Stalin, starting in 1928, had concentrated on building brick factores, coal mines, cement plants, oil refineries, power stations, steel mills, and so forth. In the Urals-Kuzbadd region a new industry of iron and steel had begun. In Stalingrad an enormous tractor plant had opened. With the lenient use of labour camps, Stalin had put an end to unemployment, whilst the rest of the world had suffered from mass unemployment. The figure of the 1914 level of industrial production had increased by seven times. Stalin had nationalised all Soviet farmland. Giant farms on which workers worked collectively and efficiently had replaced the Kulaks. The USSR had become industrialised in less than ten years; it had overtaken Britain as an industrial nation by 1939.

Through the limitless genius of a single leader, and the enthusiastic willingness of a formerly exploited people, within a short space of time the USSR had escaped the confines of the mediaeval ages and settled itself in the space age

This guy started threads
-Disputing Ukrainian hunger (a thread in which he plagiarized work of others and refused to provide sources- for excellent work by NoZed with my humble assistance please see my earlier post for the link. Do not be put off by the awful puns by NoZed later on)
-Glorifying Stalin
-Colonies of immortals that may appear in 50 years by decreasing body temperature
-Subliminal messages
-Pedophilia

He is like reverse Jedi Knight.

Huzington

8th October 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by renata

BS!

You said

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22872

This guy started threads
-Disputing Ukrainian hunger (a thread in which he plagiarized work of others and refused to provide sources- for excellent work by NoZed with my humble assistance please see my earlier post for the link. Do not be put off by the awful puns by NoZed later on)
-Glorifying Stalin
-Colonies of immortals that may appear in 50 years by decreasing body temperature
-Subliminal messages
-Pedophilia

He is like reverse Jedi Knight.

This is 100% irrelevant.

If you want to discuss Stalin with me, go to the history forum at politicsforum.com where it is relevant. I never "glorified" Stalin. As for subliminal messages, they are clearly a reality. Have not you heard of MKULTRA? Paedophilia . . . what is wrong with opposing it, which is what I am doing? I did not provide my sources for certain claims because I considered them as so obvious and well known that they did not deserve sources. Many of the claims I made could be found in any book on the subject, from The Black Book of Communism to Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union. Yes, I am pro-Stalin. So what of it?

But all this is irrelevant. What are you trying to do?

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 12:03 PM

I am sorry but why does this member is allowed to use two different user names?

Did he logged -in with a different identity before Linda announced that sock-puppets are not encouraged?

Huzington

8th October 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry but why does this member is allowed to use two different user names?

Did he logged -in with a different identity before Linda announced that sock-puppets are not encouraged?

I requested a name change because I am called "Huzington" in every other internet forum I frequent such as the ones in my signature.

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 12:12 PM

So now do you post only under this name?

Ok. Thanks.

Huzington

8th October 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
So now do you post only under this name?

Of course. I have only registered once.

renata

8th October 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

This is 100% irrelevant.

If you want to discuss Stalin with me, go to the history forum at politicsforum.com where it is relevant. I never "glorified" Stalin. As for subliminal messages, they are clearly a reality. Have not you heard of MKULTRA? Paedophilia . . . what is wrong with opposing it, which is what I am doing? I did not provide my sources for certain claims because I considered them as so obvious and well known that they did not deserve sources. Many of the claims I made could be found in any book on the subject, from The Black Book of Communism to Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union. Yes, I am pro-Stalin. So what of it?

But all this is irrelevant. What are you trying to do?

My hobby is catching at outing liars..when I get to do it on the same thread, it is a bonus. Your claims about your attitudes about Stalin were obviously a lie. As were your promises to get sources for your claims in the Ukrainian hunger thread. Let me recall, how did that go again....(courtesy of NoZed)

“Okay, I will read through my post again and look about through literature and the internet for the sources.”

(Please list your sources.) “That is what I am doing.”

(Still no sources) “You have not any patience”

“I have to find my sources.”

“And as for my sources, it is quite pointless. . . .”

And, finally, explaining why he did not just say he would not post the sources

"I was. Then I realised that it would take too much time, time which I do not have. When I posted that it was my bedtime."

There was only one other poster here this reluctant to support his blatherings with facts.... Are you sure you are not bizarro world JK? Quick, say something about feminazis!

On the other hand, the forum was kind of quiet since JK disappeared, so having his evil twin here might be entertaining. Carry on.

Huzington

8th October 2003, 12:33 PM

My hobby is catching at outing liars..when I get to do it on the same thread, it is a bonus. Your claims about your attitudes about Stalin were obviously a lie. As were your promises to get sources for your claims in the Ukrainian hunger thread.

Which claim about my attitudes about Stalin is "obviously a lie"?

NoZed Avenger

8th October 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Huzington

I did not provide my sources for certain claims because I considered them as so obvious and well known that they did not deserve sources.

Ok, here is yet another new statement regarding your 'sources' on the Ukraine thread noted above. Let me see, this would be version number 5 of your "new" stories about your sources -- or was it 6? Let's count:

(1)“Okay, I will read through my post again and look about through literature and the internet for the sources.”

(Please list your sources.) (2) “That is what I am doing."

(Still no sources) “You have not any patience” ( Arguably still no. 2)

(3) “I have to find my sources.”

(4)“And as for my sources, it is quite pointless. . . .”

(5) Then I realised that it would take too much time, time which I do not have. When I posted that it was my bedtime."

So it would be new version of the story nunber 6.0. . . .

Except even that undercounts your changes in story, because you originally listed a huge amount of text without attributing your source at all -- that would make THAT "version" of events number (6).

Then, when Renata called you on it, you stated that it had been sent to you by a friend using an instant message (7)

Then, you stated that it was during a "conversation" with that friend, so that you couldn't go back and find the source. (8)

You never did explain how your recreation of your "friend's" conversation with you managed to be almost precisely word-for-word what was written in the source that Renata found -- which, by the way, is NOT either of the sources you give above. (9)

So, this new version of your sotry is that you simply felt no need to give sources that were so obvious -- despite previous, contradictory claims from you that you would source them; that your friend knew the sources, not you; and that it was too much trouble to find them).

Anyone that really wants to see the progression of that argument should check the thread linked by Renata, above. Fraeybol is the same person as Huzington, if you missed the announcement concerning his name change.

N/A

Cleopatra

8th October 2003, 01:32 PM

We are surrounded by sock-puppets...

I think I need a faint cold cup of tea...

renata

9th October 2003, 12:26 AM

:roll: :roll:

NoZed, you naughty thing! In one thrust you kill this thread and create a sig to embarass the hell out of me! Well done :)

What is left for me to do other than gather my shreds of dignity, bump this notice of your triumph to the top, and lobby for other praise, hopefully more effusive and embarassing than my own... What did you drug us foreign ladies with that day, I wonder?

Denise

9th October 2003, 12:57 AM

I think my hearty laughter just broke a blood vessel of something!:D

NoZed Avenger

9th October 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by renata
:roll: :roll:

NoZed, you naughty thing!

Hmmm. Potential sig there, too. . . .

But let me encourage all the skeptichicks out there who have delayed proclaiming their deep and abiding love for me to go ahead and get a good spot in the signature block before they're all gone.

Go ahead -- you know you want to. Don't live in denial any longer.

N/A

PS 10 points to those who see the easy way to make a quote from the entire message even more embarassing. I shall take the high road and not mention it.

Checkmite

9th October 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Huzington

Yes, thank you sir, you are correct - paedophilia as yet cannot be cured. I am all agreement with you here. But I say moreover that it should be treated nonetheless. I have explained this in one of my previous posts.

...

Good point. But I maintain that such behaviour is not likely to occur if the man lacked a sexual drive and was conditioned to be repulsed by children. Is it possible, you ask, to condition someone to be repulsed by a class of people? Good question on your part, and certainly you desire evidence for this. But you see I am thinking from a completely different perspective - with a certain behaviourist scepticism of "mind" and hence "motivation". Such behaviour can only be learned, according to this doctrine. Of course, owing to certain biological differences even among homo sapiens, the probability is not identical among all men- and therefore differences become manifest in learned behaviour regardless of experience, i.e. owing to biological differences, some people are more likely be paedophiles than others: but nonetheless it is learned behaviour. Cats are more likely to be "bad" toward mice owing to certain biological characteristics of the cat: but nonetheless it is learned behaviour, for the cat can just as well learn to love the mouse starting, though the probablity that he would learn to see it as food is greater. For how can it be otherwise? Are you to say that paedophilia is genetic? Can it be anything else than learned behaviour? And therefore it must be corrected by way of conditioning. I am not saying that it can be cured. I have made complementary arguments in a previous post.

In the most basic sense, this post is absolutely correct. Theoretically, if a pedophile is conditioned to be repulsed by children, he will no longer abuse children. That point conceded, how useful is it to us?

I'm reminded of an episode of Star Trek (the new generation one) I saw a long, long time ago when I still liked it. In it, a being with god-like powers, named "Q", is punished by his peers for being a jerk, and is made mortal for a time. While helping some human engineers work on a problem - something like an asteroid heading for a planet or some such like - they ask him for a solution, and he makes a matter-of-fact reply like "It's simple - just suspend the gravitational constant of the universe long enough to move it." - something he may have been able to do once, but couldn't anymore because he is now human; so his "solution" is for all intents and purposes worthless.

It's obvious and undeniable that somebody conditioned to hate children won't be likely to abuse them; however, is such conditioning possible - or practical? It takes years for people to develop attitudes and modes of thinking; to change them in a short period requires something DRASTIC. How would such conditioning be done? Through negative reinforcement, Clockwork Orange style? That sort of treatment hasn't been shown to be effective in the least. Even if it was, what's the difference between prison (punishment for one's actions) and the negative conditioning proposed (punishment for one's thoughts)? Punishment is punishment.

How can somebody who is repulsed by children function in a society in which children have such a prominent role? He will be unable to work anywhere except an office setting; he will be unable to watch movies or television, or attend popular entertainment venues due to his repulsion. Children are everywhere.

There are other issues - cost, staff, training, etc. It's wonderful that you've found the key...condition them to be repulsed by children!...but although you offer gobs of data in "support" of conditioning as the way to go, your solution is a non-solution, because you offer absolutely nothing in the way of detail.

Stumpy

10th October 2003, 04:26 PM

The whole issue of paedophilia has become offender focussed. I find the whole thing dehumanizing in terms of the victims, they tend to get overlooked - it's easy to forget that these are real people, suffering about as much as a person can.

You know, my working week is spent tracking paedophiles and recovering the images from their computer hard drives. I utterley reject the claim that the offender's don't comprehend that they are harming the victim. The merest glace at the images tells a totally different story. There is a noticeable trend in the more recent images to get "harder", the trend is definately towards elements of torture being depicted.

I witness the exchanges in the "pre-teen" chat rooms, I interview the paedophiles. It is axiomatic that they seek to minimise what they are doing, the self-pity and self-justification that they peddle takes no account of the victim whatsoever. They DO know that what they are doing is fundamentally wrong, as such they have to justify it - to themselves at least. Hence it is fairly standard that the offender will claim that the child "enjoys it" or that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in what they are doing. A number do claim to be childhood victims themselves, they know how horrific the experience is and are not slow to express that horror. It seems incongrous to then claim that the offenders don't understand the suffering that they are inflicting.

The whole pre-teen chat room thing serves the same purpose. Paedophiles gather themselves into bigger groups in order to feel more secure. They re-inforce each others desires as they seek to justify the unjustifiable with each other.

The victims views are seldom taken into account or known. Of the 10 - 15 million estimated images circulated on the net, I only know of 75 cases where the victim has been identified.

Until there is some solid empirical evidence that treating paedophiles is viable, the prison option is the best that we currently have available (IMHO) - coupled with the post-release monitoring that we have in the UK.

regards

Stumpy

NoZed Avenger

10th October 2003, 06:48 PM

Bump. Because Stumpy's post (and work) deserves it.

N/A

Thanks, Stumpy, for doing what must be an emotionally draining experience. I doubt I'd have the fortitude to tackle it.

renata

10th October 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Bump. Because Stumpy's post (and work) deserves it.

N/A

Thanks, Stumpy, for doing what must be an emotionally draining experience. I doubt I'd have the fortitude to tackle it.

Yes, Stumpy, great work.

And, NoZed, you did not at all bump it in order to take advantage of my late night sleepy posting and continue to encourage posters to butcher my post into yet another sig for you. And I am sure you can make something embarassing of this sentence as well.

NoZed Avenger

10th October 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by renata
And, NoZed, you did not at all bump it in order to take advantage of my late night sleepy posting and continue to encourage posters to butcher my post into yet another sig for you. And I am sure you can make something embarassing of this sentence as well.

Perish the thought.

Gratuitous bumps are beneath me.

N/A

NoZed Avenger

10th October 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Gratuitous bumps are beneath me.

N/A

Its not my style at all.

N/A

NoZed Avenger

10th October 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Its not my style at all.

N/A

Not something I would do. At all.

N/A

JAR

10th October 2003, 09:17 PM

Oh no, not another communist.

The vast amount of leftists on this forum is starting to disenchant me with the skeptics movemement.

I've gone from loving the Bible to hating it and then after going on this forum, I've gone back to loving it.

[Edited to add: Now I'm going to go upstairs and watch that Charlton Heston movie called "The Ten Commandments."]

JAR

10th October 2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats wrong with punishment? Isnt that what prison is all about.

Like these x-hippees whove been on the run for 30 yrs, they lead productive lives and have put the past behind them. Then they get caught and are tried for their past crimes. Why? To punish them. Theyve been rehabilitated on their own, but we dont forget their past crimes.
The way I see it, we punish people who commit crimes to discourage people from committing crimes.

What we shouldn't do is accuse people of crimes they didn't do and then punish them for what they didn't do in order to discourage people from committing the same crimes, and all the while knowing that the people we accused didn't commit any crimes. That's the ends justifies the means logic which scares me.

renata

10th October 2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Not something I would do. At all.

N/A

:D :D
At least wait to bump it until the thread sinks! Or until there is another recall or democratic debate and I am drunk from desperation and prone to making silly suggestive posts! Or, alternatively, Democrats self destruct by saying something stupid which would be in

3

2

1

NoZed, I want to censored due to graphic and inappropriate nature right now!

I may have a hangover tomorrow.

rikzilla

11th October 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by JAR
Oh no, not another communist.

The vast amount of leftists on this forum is starting to disenchant me with the skeptics movemement.

I've gone from loving the Bible to hating it and then after going on this forum, I've gone back to loving it.

[Edited to add: Now I'm going to go upstairs and watch that Charlton Heston movie called "The Ten Commandments."]

Hey man,

I'm with you! Of course I never really "loved" the Bible, nor do I hate it. It just is. I have two copies, but the spirit hasn't moved me to go crack either of them open in several years now.

No, rather my involvement with skeptics has shown me that hard-core atheists have alot more in common with hard-core religionists than they would care to admit. Just two different brands of jerk in my book!

I may go back to church again someday for the companionship of people intent on doing good works/community service...that kind of thing....but never for the dogma. I don't believe in the Christian God,...but I'm not a jerk to anyone about it.

...and as far as Stumpy is concerned.... There is not enough I can say to you to show my heartfelt gratitude for the work that you and those like you are doing. I was also once a victim of these creepy bastards. It makes me feel sick just typing these words, because it is not something that I EVER talk about. My wife of 18 years doesn't even know. Keep up the good work, I only wish that they could be hanged instead of just jailed.

-z