View Full Version : Paedophilia
Ok, this thread is liable(!) to get controversial, but, please, can people try to keep a lid on their feelings for a while before the flaming takes over, so we can at least attempt to have a reasonable discussion? :)
This was prompted by the following comments by downquark1 in the "internet" forum
[Regarding Paedophilles] Of course I do not defend their actions but I imagine the problem is a genetic factor
Now this is something I've wondered about before, for instance when the Pete Townsend arrest happened, there were all sorts of figures bandied about for how many paedophiles there may be and this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/29043.html suggests that over a quarter of a million men in the UK may have accessed the the alleged "child porn" sites mentioned.
I don't know how accurate this figure is, but, taking it as a rough approximation, we're not talking one in a million people, or one in ten thousand or even one in a thousand, but one in *every two hundred* people in the UK alone.
So we're not talking about the odd abberation that can be written off, we're talking about a *statistically significant* number.
The question, then, becomes *why*.
I can understand that it would not necessarily be "bad" for someone to be attracted to a post-pubescent "child" because that is the age at which *nature* says they're ready to breed (no matter what our "age of consent" laws may argue), but there is no reproductive benefit for attraction to a child before the age of puberty, so why does this happen? And why so many?
I'd be interested in seeing other people's ideas about this.
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 20:16
but there is no reproductive benefit for attraction to a child before the age of puberty, so why does this happen? And why so many?
Doesn't the issue with gays raise similar questions? There is no reproductive benefit for attraction to a member of the same sex, (or even buses in some cases :confused: ) Although gays are far far more socially acceptable (in more recent years) you still wonder why that happens, is it genetic?
On the subject of gays being more socially acceptable these days, there was a time when being gay was punishable by death. If the issue with gays has gradually been introduced to society over the decades, laws dropped/modified, could other socially unacceptable things become socially acceptable in decades to come? Not worth thinking about
I personally think this is something genetic, like your genes determine you eye colour, down to your likes/dislikes and in my opinion this would include your sexuality. Guessing I'd say it would be a resessive gene, maybe one that would lay dormant/undetected until triggered??
Atomic22
26-09-2003, 20:42
yeh all wierdos have gene deformaties i think and if they could isolate which genes make you peado/homo etc then newborns could be gene scanned and have corrective gene replacement therapy or sommat :idea:
SnuggleBug
26-09-2003, 20:56
newborns could be gene scanned and have corrective gene replacement therapy or sommat
I'm sure a lot of people would be in favour of that. But then you have the ethnics of scientists playing God. Is it right to interfere with nature, to decide what a person should be like
homealone
26-09-2003, 21:01
I believe paedophilia is a mixture of wanting to be sexually dominant, combined with feelings of inadequacy when interacting with adults. Children are more suggestible than adults & more likely to fulfil a need to be in control, as well as the obvious sexual gratification.
Personally I don't understand how anyone could be sexually attracted to a child, it might sound a bit corny, but imo the mental attractiveness of a partner is as important as the physical - and you only get that with your peers.
hawkmoon
26-09-2003, 21:22
It's not so much a genetic issue, but a lot of it is a hangover from early man.
For example Australopithecus probably had a life span of around 22 years. Therefore as a species they would have started breeding when sexual maturity happened. So the desire in many for those aged 11-13 and up would be explained with this. Many of the primal / base drives that were present in early man are still with us whether we like to admit it or not, in most people we have learnt to over-ride them but they are evident everywhere you look, from football hooligans battling each other through to women dressing up in school uniforms to meet many mens fantasies.
For those who have sexual feelings for much younger the cause is much harder to find. Many apes and monkies take part in what is effectively sex play and this happens between adults and juveniles, adult to adult, even male to male, etc. Psychologists believe it is purely a play / recreational issue that may be done to form bonds (much as the spartians encouraged homosexuality amongst there soldiers). This could be partially behind what motivates these people.
As for socially unacceptable things becoming acceptable, try looking the other way. King John had a 14-year-old wife, this was acceptable during that period. Turn of the century it was also not so unacceptable, we even sent many adolescents out to work.
It is acceptable that 13 or 14 year olds often marry older men in India (where they don't have the economic luxuries present in the west). Should views change amongst younger people, which stays with them into adulthood, or should some event occur that drastically alters our life styles for the worse then the age of consent could be scrapped altogether or lowered.
This is all very interesting but so far we're all skirting the issue of babies - some very, very young children indeed get abused and I don't think that can be explained away by a primal urge to mate with anything fertile, even if she's only 11 or 12.
(Incidentally, girls are only fertile at such a young age relatively recently in human history, thanks to better diet and healthcare.)
I tend to think there are serious psychological issues with the people that do this. There may be genetic factors but I'm not comfortable with the way genes are so easily referred to an as explanation of eveything these days. We need to look at the past history and experiences of the people that do these things.
Silent Wings
26-09-2003, 22:40
just to put my twopennies worth into this debate............
As someone who works for the Police, and who's job it is to updated the PNC, we were only discussing this tonight.
While I was putting on a pile of offenders for indecent assault on children, we realised that it is always done by "White Males" aged anywhere between 20 - 70
The probelm is higher than most of you probably realise, but why is it not commited by others i.e Afro carribeans, asians, orientals........etc.............??
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
there is no reproductive benefit for attraction to a child before the age of puberty, so why does this happen?
Doesn't the issue with gays raise similar questions? There is no reproductive benefit for attraction to a member of the same sex,
I've addressed this in the thread where this first came from, so I won't do it again here to save duplicating discussions.
On the subject of gays being more socially acceptable these days, there was a time when being gay was punishable by death.
And, as mentioned in other threads, there were times when it was de rigeur.
I personally think this is something genetic
But why? It doesn't result in more offspring, it doesn't "protect the tribe".
I'm sure that paedophiles don't *set out* to be that way, they don't sit down and think "I'm going to like little kiddies", there has to be some causative factor, but how could that factor develop?
Originally posted by homealone
I believe paedophilia is a mixture of wanting to be sexually dominant, combined with feelings of inadequacy when interacting with adults. Children are more suggestible than adults & more likely to fulfil a need to be in control, as well as the obvious sexual gratification.
I don't think it's quite that simple.
I recall one documentary where a paedophile said (and I don't think he was just saying it "for the camera") that he really loved the children (in a non-sexual way) and the thought of "hurting them" was as repugnant to him as his behaviour is to us.
Personally I don't understand how anyone could be sexually attracted to a child, it might sound a bit corny, but imo the mental attractiveness of a partner is as important as the physical - and you only get that with your peers.
Yes, but you might equally say "I don't understand how anyone could be sexually attracted to a fat person/ skinny person/ person of a different skin colour..." it may not be "for you", but there are others who differ.
Originally posted by SnuggleBug
I'm sure a lot of people would be in favour of that. But then you have the ethnics of scientists playing God. Is it right to interfere with nature, to decide what a person should be like If it stops others suffering at their hands. then yes.
Originally posted by homealone
Personally I don't understand how anyone could be sexually attracted to a child, it might sound a bit corny, but imo the mental attractiveness of a partner is as important as the physical - and you only get that with your peers. I second that.
Originally posted by Silent Wings
The probelm is higher than most of you probably realise, but why is it not commited by others i.e Afro carribeans, asians, orientals........etc.............?? Scary.
Originally posted by towny
This is all very interesting but so far we're all skirting the issue of babies - some very, very young children indeed get abused and I don't think that can be explained away by a primal urge to mate with anything fertile, even if she's only 11 or 12.
This was something I was about to bring up in a reply until I noticed you'd already done it.
As I've said, I can (just about) get my head around finding an adolescent child sexually attractive, but what about a five year old or even younger?
And, of course, what about men who like young boys? This isn't the "standard" mode of homosexuality and the vast majority of gays feel the same way about it as anyone would about "straight" child abuse, so why is there such a desire?
I tend to think there are serious psychological issues with the people that do this. We need to look at the past history and experiences of the people that do these things.
Whilst it's a truism that "the abused can become the abuser", that's another answer which I feel is too simplistic. I'm sure that not all (by any means) of paedophiles were abused, indeed, I also think that those who view child porn wouldn't actually commit the abuse *themselves*.
Now whilst that doesn't "excuse" them from effectively "participating" in the act of the abuse, I don't think it's a causative factor in and of itself.
Originally posted by Graham
I don't think it's quite that simple.
Yes, but you might equally say "I don't understand how anyone could be sexually attracted to a fat person/ skinny person/ person of a different skin colour..." it may not be "for you", but there are others who differ. So then it comes down to the prevaling morals and taboos, which I subscribe to. (boring as it may be)
It could be said that the fat/skinny person is is usually also sexually mature. Children are not. Haven't there always/usually been taboos against sexual relations with children?
Originally posted by Silent Wings
While I was putting on a pile of offenders for indecent assault on children, we realised that it is always done by "White Males" aged anywhere between 20 - 70
The probelm is higher than most of you probably realise, but why is it not commited by others i.e Afro carribeans, asians, orientals........etc.............??
Is it that it's not, or that we just don't see that much of it?
Oriental porn websites are filled with pictures of Japanese Schoolgirls and there is a huge demand in the Far East for "Girl Bands" with the emphasis very much on "Girl".
Also I know at least one Afro-Caribbean woman who was abused in this country as a child.
So perhaps it's just that, in this country, there isn't that much "opportunity" for them or that, being minority groups, they only form a minority of reported cases?
downquark1
26-09-2003, 23:11
I've been quoted by Graham - I feel so honoured :blush:
I heard on a radio an actual paedophile admit his problem and say is getting speciallised councilling, of course it's hard to tell but I think he was ashamed of himself. This makes me think it is genetic factor, perhaps.
Originally posted by Ramrod
then you have the ethnics of scientists playing God. Is it right to interfere with nature, to decide what a person should be like
]If it stops others suffering at their hands. then yes. [/B]
It's an interesting point, but it's not really what we're discussing at the moment, so (and without wanting to be seen as trying to stifle the debate), could we agree to table the "gene modification" part for the moment please?
Originally posted by Ramrod
It could be said that the fat/skinny person is is usually also sexually mature. Children are not.
True, although, for instance, to a Westerner, Oriental women look very "child like" (smaller body/ figure, narrower faces etc).
Haven't there always/usually been taboos against sexual relations with children? [/B]
Usually, yes, I'm not sure about "always".
It's an interesting point, but it's not really what we're discussing at the moment, so (and without wanting to be seen as trying to stifle the debate), could we agree to table the "gene modification" part for the moment please? Hey, I didn't start that one. I was just replying to it:)
Originally posted by downquark1
[B]I've been quoted by Graham - I feel so honoured :blush:
:)
I heard on a radio an actual paedophile admit his problem and say is getting speciallised councilling, of course it's hard to tell but I think he was ashamed of himself. This makes me think it is genetic, perhaps.
There again, that could be the effect of society's attitudes.
For instance I recall a C4 (I think) documentary which featured a woman who was "abused" as a child.
I put abused in quotes because, to her, it *wasn't* abuse. Nobody hurt her, nobody forced her to do anything she didn't like. She said that she enjoyed it and liked the attention she got.
It wasn't until some years later that she discovered that society said that it was wrong, it was abuse, it was molestation etc and suddenly, with all this landing on her, she ended up with an incredible guilt complex because she blamed herself, not only for what happend, but because she *had* enjoyed it.
It took her an awful lot of time and counselling to understand that she shouldn't be blaming herself, but IMO being faced with that sort of attitude from society can't help victims.
Originally posted by Graham
True, although, for instance, to a Westerner, Oriental women look very "child like" (smaller body/ figure, narrower faces etc).
Personally, I don't find them sexually attractive.
Usually, yes, I'm not sure about "always". Thats why I included the 'usually':)
downquark1
26-09-2003, 23:27
In regards to the number of people who have look at child porn, I think we should'nt assume they are all Paedophiles. The internet makes people feel invisable and curious so, they would probably look just to see 'what the fuss is about'. Many would do it for the 'rush' of doing something bad.
I'm just pointing out the possible flaws in the statistics.
Originally posted by downquark1
In regards to the number of people who have look at child porn, I think we should'nt assume they are all Paedophiles. The internet makes people feel invisable and curious so, they would probably look just to see 'what the fuss is about'. Many would do it for the 'rush' of doing something bad.
I'm just pointing out the possible flaws in the statistics. True, but if they pay to see it then I feel that they are probably paedophiles.
Originally posted by Ramrod
[Re: Oriental women]
Personally, I don't find them sexually attractive.
Fine, your choice.
Personally I do. I also like big women, black women, white women, blondes, brunettes and redheads, but just because I say that doesn't mean that I like *all* big women, black women, white women, blondes, brunettes and redheads!
Originally posted by downquark1
In regards to the number of people who have look at child porn, I think we should'nt assume they are all Paedophiles.
True, after all, the Police who have to look at this stuff aren't.
However those who *like* child porn *are* all Paedophiles, because the word simply means "child lover".
But we shouldn't assume that they are therfore all (even potential) child *abusers*.
If you say "but if they think about children in that way they must want to abuse children" I'll respond that, by that argument, Agatha Christie was a potential mass murderer because of the number of killings she wrote about in her books!
hawkmoon
27-09-2003, 00:17
Originally posted by Graham
True, after all, the Police who have to look at this stuff aren't.
However those who *like* child porn *are* all Paedophiles, because the word simply means "child lover".
But we shouldn't assume that they are therfore all (even potential) child *abusers*.
Through the press the two terms have now become interchangeable. The way that paedophiles are portrayed has turned anyone that is labelled as such into an automatic child abuser.
I don't think anyone is really sure why people are driven to sexually abuse young children.
I do know though that it is not a white male only thing, despite what the police statistics might show. Women are just as likely to abuse children sexually. I remember seeing a program (think it was Panorama) where it was reported that around 86% of survivors were not believed when they said the abuser was a woman. The program made the claim that at least 25% of child sexual abuse was by women.
homealone
27-09-2003, 00:54
Originally posted by Graham
Originally posted by Ramrod
[Re: Oriental women]
Fine, your choice.
Personally I do. I also like big women, black women, white women, blondes, brunettes and redheads, but just because I say that doesn't mean that I like *all* big women, black women, white women, blondes, brunettes and redheads!
true, but in context of the thread, to be attractive imo, they have to have tits - chldren don't?
I think that we need to do more to protect children from this sort of thing, like paying ISPs to log IP addresses that access these sort of sites etc.
Paedophilia in all its guises wrecks lives, I know from experience as someone I know has been abused in this way.
I also think that when paedophiles are caught then they should be punished with harder sentences, as at the moment the current deterrents are not enough.:(
homealone
27-09-2003, 01:21
Originally posted by dellwear
I think that we need to do more to protect children from this sort of thing, like paying ISPs to log IP addresses that access these sort of sites etc.
Paedophilia in all its guises wrecks lives, I know from experience as someone I know has been abused in this way.
I also think that when paedophiles are caught then they should be punished with harder sentences, as at the moment the current deterrents are not enough.:(
I'm sure i read in another thread that people were being spammed with addresses of child porn sites - imo we shouldn't need to pay to have them blocked. In the meantime Mailwasher does it for me? (havn't had any personally).
Paedophiles are sick (imo) - and should be able to get confidential treatment, if it helps them to stop wrecking lives, sorry Dell, I'm not belittling anyone's experience, just saying if these people exist, how do we deal with it? - access to proper treatment/counselling might prevent some abuse? - jail gets them off the streets, but may not cure the problem?
Originally posted by homealone
Personally I don't understand how anyone could be sexually attracted to a child, it might sound a bit corny, but imo the mental attractiveness of a partner is as important as the physical - and you only get that with your peers.
yes its hard for me to judge why people would want to do this the only thing that seems likely to me is its mental rather then genetic maybe a certain area of the brain responsible for emotions of that sort didnt grow :shrug:
Originally posted by hawkmoon
those who *like* child porn *are* all Paedophiles, because the word simply means "child lover".
But we shouldn't assume that they are therfore all (even potential) child *abusers*.
Through the press the two terms have now become interchangeable. The way that paedophiles are portrayed has turned anyone that is labelled as such into an automatic child abuser.
Ah, yes, let's hear it for our wonderfully hypocritical tabloid media. The ones that, on one page, print a story decrying these perverts and on the other print a picture of a 15 year old girl with a caption something like "in a week she'll be 16 and stripping off for you!"
I do know though that it is not a white male only thing, despite what the police statistics might show. Women are just as likely to abuse children sexually [...] The program made the claim that at least 25% of child sexual abuse was by women.
Just being picky here, but 25% is not "just as likely"!
Originally posted by homealone
I also like big women, black women, white women, blondes, brunettes and redheads, but just because I say that doesn't mean that I like *all* big women, black women, white women, blondes, brunettes and redheads!
true, but in context of the thread, to be attractive imo, they have to have tits - chldren don't?
Err, be careful what you say or you'll have the Itty Bitty Titty Committee knocking on your door!
Whilst I can, without fear of contradiction say that I (and most men!) probably much prefer the larger bust (and anyone who says that more than a handful is wasted just *doesn't* know what they're talking about!), boobs aren't necessarily the sine qua non of sexual attractiveness.
Originally posted by dellwear
I also think that when paedophiles are caught then they should be punished with harder sentences, as at the moment the current deterrents are not enough.:( [/B]
Without wanting to get into a totally different debate, I really don't think that tougher sentencing works as a deterrant, just as the death penalty (but let's not start that one here!) doesn't work as a deterrant against murder.
I think most if not all abusers know that if they end up in jail they're going to have to be protected from the other inmates (and possibly even the guards), so threatening them with longer sentences is the least of their worries.
However I've just done a search for a site that I recall being mentioned elsewhere and found it. It's called Stop It Now and is at http://www.stopitnow.com/
It has some very interesting and constructive things to say eg:
"Before the STOP IT NOW! helpline, some abusers called authorities and turned themselves in. Abusers in prison tell us that they wish there had been a helpline for them. We know there are abusers who understand what they are doing is wrong; these abusers are the most likely to call for help."
"Contrary to common belief, we know there is a way to stop abusers from ever sexually abusing a child again. Experts in the field of prevention agree that many sex abusers can and will stop their harmful actions if they are reached and receive proper treatment."
The point is that, just as alcohol abusers and drug abusers need help to help them to stop what they are doing, so do child abusers.
It's easy enough for us to glibly say "well, they can just stop", but as a friend who was an alcoholic once said, "you know it's wrong, you know you should stop. You also know that you *can't* stop."
If we can, for a moment, take a step back from the (tabloid inspired?) hysteria regarding child abuse, maybe we can do something to help the people who commit the abuse and offer them assistance rather than just hatred.
Originally posted by Graham
If we can, for a moment, take a step back from the (tabloid inspired?) hysteria regarding child abuse, maybe we can do something to help the people who commit the abuse and offer them assistance rather than just hatred.
but how could we stop them from abusing...... some type of correctional facility ?
Originally posted by kronas
but how could we stop them from abusing...... some type of correctional facility ?
I don't know.
I'd like to think so, but, of course, as soon as anyone proposed it you'd have all the Tabloids screaming that we're being soft on child molesters, the locals saying Not In Our Back Yard. Photographers trying to get pictures of the "perverts" to "warn" people so they can "protect" their children etc etc etc :( :(
Originally posted by Graham
I don't know.
I'd like to think so, but, of course, as soon as anyone proposed it you'd have all the Tabloids screaming that we're being soft on child molesters, the locals saying Not In Our Back Yard. Photographers trying to get pictures of the "perverts" to "warn" people so they can "protect" their children etc etc etc :( :(
the public should know but the other side of the coin is there life is now in danger we have discussed the issue but what is really needed is a solution.......
Originally posted by kronas
but how could we stop them from abusing...... some type of correctional facility ?
Only life in prison could guarentee that.
Making their locations known to the community results in situations like Paulsgrove (Graham will be able to confirm what it was like).
Cars were destroyed, three innocent families had to leave their homes, and all the paedos in the area dissapeared, so the police didn't know where to find them.
I don't want to understand them.Harsh I know but how soon would understanding turn into finding excuses for them.They are usually very adept at manipulation which is pretty much a requisite for them to do what they do.They can go to tremendous lengths and efforts to get what they want.If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible.Therefore I refuse to try and understand why anyone would want sex with a child.
After watching the documentary recently about The Babes in the Woods killer,who had actually got away with the murders but decided twenty odd years later that he would 'confess' to a crime that wasn't even regarded as a crime at the time it was committed,I realised that he was 'enjoying 'confessing his crime because he was reliving the pleasure he had obtained from the incident.He didn't come across as confused or pathetic in anyway to me.
Incog.
:(
downquark1
27-09-2003, 12:30
I don't want to understand them.Harsh I know but how soon would understanding turn into finding excuses for them.They are usually very adept at manipulation which is pretty much a requisite for them to do what they do.They can go to tremendous lengths and efforts to get what they want.If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible.Therefore I refuse to try and understand why anyone would want sex with a child. Even those who don't actually act?
Originally posted by Incognitas
I don't want to understand them.Harsh I know but how soon would understanding turn into finding excuses for them.They are usually very adept at manipulation which is pretty much a requisite for them to do what they do.They can go to tremendous lengths and efforts to get what they want.If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible.Therefore I refuse to try and understand why anyone would want sex with a child.
The voice of reason again Incoc, Thanks
I can tell you from first hand experience of the abuser in my friends case that he isn't sorry, he doesn't see the problem, how on earth are you going to 'correct' him. It cant be done. I'm sorry but these sort of people need putting down.
The police couldn't convict him because it was such a long time ago and my friend didn't tell anyone at the time because he was scared, so there was nothing for the police to corroborate. This means that this man (who incidentally is a monster) is still walking the streets, he has a 15 year old daughter who doesn't know about all this, and he lives near a school. How on earth do any of us know what he is up to? We don't. He is a menace to society, and needs to be dealt with, and if what you say Graham is true , that prison is no deterrent then it should be used to protect us and our children from them.
My friends life was ruined by what happened to him, this man did disgusting things to him and now he has to live with them every day of his life. What does the abuser have to live with, nothing. This man doesn't even think its a problem. As far as I'm concerned he should be locked up for life (and I mean until he dies). Slightly of topic but, my personal opinion is that if he and others like him were to be locked up for the rest of their lives then they should be put down, just like you would a dog that is ill. I don't mean by hanging, or electric chair, just an injection of analgesia that will after a short time kill them. If they can no longer be an active valuable member of society, they why pay thousands and thousands each year of their natural life to protect us from them.
Originally posted by Xaccers
Only life in prison could guarentee that.
this does seem the only viable solution to the problem and i agree with a life sentence and i mean life no parole........
Originally posted by Silent Wings
just to put my twopennies worth into this debate............
As someone who works for the Police, and who's job it is to updated the PNC, we were only discussing this tonight.
While I was putting on a pile of offenders for indecent assault on children, we realised that it is always done by "White Males" aged anywhere between 20 - 70 The probelm is higher than most of you probably realise, but why is it not commited by others i.e Afro carribeans, asians, orientals........etc.............??
Very interesting. I've lived and worked in both Zimbabwe, a long time, and Kenya. I think this is a problem also found in these countries. This suggests that such acts of indecent assault are known everywhere.
Some Black African males in those countries engage in indecent assault or child homicide. Don't know if any reliable statistics are available but I would think many, many cases go unreported. Schoolgirls and maybe even boys in boarding schools may indeed suffer abuse from their teachers.
The AIDS problem has led many adult males committing what we would see as offences on girls of 9, 10, 11 etc. I think these are issues no one talks about and some may not even realise the seriousness of what they are doing. Maasai' think nothing of seeking a yet another wife who may be a girl of 11 and literally drag them out of school, this I'm sure goes on elsewhere.
But I think it would be error to see this as a White male issue, but perhaps you are not suggesting that.
hawkmoon
27-09-2003, 17:03
Originally posted by Graham
Ah, yes, let's hear it for our wonderfully hypocritical tabloid media. The ones that, on one page, print a story decrying these perverts and on the other print a picture of a 15 year old girl with a caption something like "in a week she'll be 16 and stripping off for you!"
Just being picky here, but 25% is not "just as likely"!
You have a point, but I think the report was stating that it was no lower than 25% rather than that was the upper limit. Unfortunately no-one really knows the number of such abuses, but it was clear in the report that women often got the benefit of the doubt that their male counterparts didn't get. .
Atomic22
27-09-2003, 19:52
Originally posted by kronas
this does seem the only viable solution to the problem and i agree with a life sentence and i mean life no parole........
no kronas it isnt the only viable solution.... i believe the death sentence would be their just desserts , and not getting away with a simple needle or electric shock........hanging in public so they can see themselves swinging before they burn in hell:afire:
Originally posted by Atomic22
no kronas it isnt the only viable solution.... i believe the death sentence would be their just desserts
:tu:
downquark1
27-09-2003, 20:20
Originally posted by Atomic22
no kronas it isnt the only viable solution.... i believe the death sentence would be their just desserts , and not getting away with a simple needle or electric shock........hanging in public so they can see themselves swinging before they burn in hell:afire: Are we talking about offenders or Paedophiles here??
Atomic22
27-09-2003, 20:47
Originally posted by downquark1
Are we talking about offenders or Paedophiles here??
all paedophiles are offenders because they offend to become a paedophile
if you mean offenders of other crimes....murderers , terrorists , kidnappers etc yes they should be hung
thieves and muggers should have their fingers chopped off
rapists their nuts
etc etc :grind:
Originally posted by Incognitas
[B]I don't want to understand them.Harsh I know but how soon would understanding turn into finding excuses for them.They are usually very adept at manipulation which is pretty much a requisite for them to do what they do.They can go to tremendous lengths and efforts to get what they want.If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible.Therefore I refuse to try and understand why anyone would want sex with a child.
I can tell that you feel very strongly about this, but I really don't think you've understood, especially where you say "If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible."
Nobody is suggesting that what they do should be "legitimised". Nobody is saying that what they want to do *should* be acceptable, however if we *can* help someone to overcome what drives them to paedophilia don't you think that's a better solution than just "lock them up and throw away the key"?
Originally posted by dellwear
[B]The voice of reason again Incoc, Thanks
I can tell you from first hand experience of the abuser in my friends case that he isn't sorry, he doesn't see the problem, how on earth are you going to 'correct' him. It cant be done. I'm sorry but these sort of people need putting down.
Unfortunately I don't consider *this* to be "the voice of reason".
he has a 15 year old daughter who doesn't know about all this, and he lives near a school. How on earth do any of us know what he is up to? We don't. He is a menace to society, and needs to be dealt with,
How on earth do you *know* he is "a menace to society" if we "don't know what he is up to"?
and if what you say Graham is true , that prison is no deterrent then it should be used to protect us and our children from them.
And if he is found guilty of his crimes and convicted by a court of law then, yes, I agree he should be locked up until he is no longer a danger.
As for the rest of this, it's verging too much on the death penalty debate which is off-topic for this thread.
General request, people.
Ok, some people have very strong views on this and quite rightly so, but now you've expressed your views that offenders should be killed/ castrated/ whatever, can we set that aside and move on because it's not really conducive to a reasoned debate.
Thanks.
homealone
27-09-2003, 21:52
Originally posted by Graham
I can tell that you feel very strongly about this, but I really don't think you've understood, especially where you say "If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible."
Nobody is suggesting that what they do should be "legitimised". Nobody is saying that what they want to do *should* be acceptable, however if we *can* help someone to overcome what drives them to paedophilia don't you think that's a better solution than just "lock them up and throw away the key"?
we should try to be dispassionate about this - imho. I saw the stuff about the death penalty debate while I was typing - I agree.
Graham, I thought Incog made a good point, people will "play the system"?
<edit>ditto ^
downquark1
27-09-2003, 22:02
Originally posted by Atomic22
all paedophiles are offenders because they offend to become a paedophile
if you mean offenders of other crimes....murderers , terrorists , kidnappers etc yes they should be hung
thieves and muggers should have their fingers chopped off
rapists their nuts
etc etc :grind: You obviously have misunderstood the term. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children, an offender is someone who has harmed the children. They do not go hand in hand. The ones who don't offend are never brought into the public eye.
Lord Nikon
27-09-2003, 22:45
ahem?
IIRC (and I could be wrong here) There was no proof that gary glitter had done anything to children... there was merely a quantity of indecent photos on his computer which featured them, in this respect he was a non-offending paedophile. yet he has been hounded globally over it, done time over it, lost his career over it....
I don't condone paedophilia, but thought I would mention a case where a non offender was pursued as an offender.
Originally posted by Graham
Unfortunately I don't consider *this* to be "the voice of reason".
Graham you never consider my points valid so whats new, but this doesn't mean that they aren't.
I'm not going to say that we should give them counselling and set them free to do it again, thats just irresponsible, how many people lives should they be allowed to ruin?
I would also like to bring you attention to some points:
How on earth do you *know* he is "a menace to society" if we "don't know what he is up to"?
We know that he is a menace to society because he has said that he doesn't see what the issue is, he doesn't think there is anything wrong with what he did to the person I know. He is also in my opinion likely to do it again, due to the fact that he doesn't understand that it is wrong.
And if he is found guilty of his crimes and convicted by a court of law then, yes, I agree he should be locked up until he is no longer a danger.
You are very fond of this quote aren't you Graham, its a nice little comment to hide behind when things aren't going your way. :rolleyes:
For you information, the person who was abused has been to the police and they have been through the humiliation of explaining in the minutest detail what was done to him, when and how, but because he was to scared to tell anyone at the time (when he was 7) they can't corroborate his story. This means that it is the abusers word against the abused, and the crown prosecution service just won't take the risk that it may not get through court. So much your your court of law, eh! :dozey:
As for the rest of this, it's verging too much on the death penalty debate which is off-topic for this thread. [/B]
Yes you are right and that is not for this thread, but my view is that people like this should not be able to walk the streets, they should be removed for our protection. My mother works at a regional secure unit, here in Leicester, and she has dealt with murders, rapists and child abusers, unfortunately most of these people will never be safe to be put back on the streets. Why should I, and you pay to keep these people in prison or secure units if they will never EVER be a productive member of society again.
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
ahem?
IIRC (and I could be wrong here) There was no proof that gary glitter had done anything to children... there was merely a quantity of indecent photos on his computer which featured them, in this respect he was a non-offending paedophile. yet he has been hounded globally over it, done time over it, lost his career over it....
I don't condone paedophilia, but thought I would mention a case where a non offender was pursued as an offender.
He downloaded indecent pictures of children, thats illegal and makes him an offender.
As an aside to this, if there was no customers for these horrid websites then there would probably be less children abused.
What people do to these children is sickening, and ANYONE who has ANYTHING to do with it should be prosecuted, whether they are in the pictures or just looking.
Originally posted by Graham
I can tell that you feel very strongly about this, but I really don't think you've understood, especially where you say "If they think that getting our sympathy through understanding them will get them legitiimacy then they will try to be as understood as possible."
Nobody is suggesting that what they do should be "legitimised". Nobody is saying that what they want to do *should* be acceptable, however if we *can* help someone to overcome what drives them to paedophilia don't you think that's a better solution than just "lock them up and throw away the key"?
And if you can't persuade them that what they are doing is wrong then what is the solution?Because make no mistake there are those who see no wrong in having sex with children and are even campaigning to change society's attitude towards lowering the age of consent and making paedophilia more acceptable.There are those who think we(the majority of today's society) are out of step and that given enough time attitudes towards paedophilia can be changed in favour of it.I have heard of one group in the US but their name escapes me for the moment.I did try to google for it but the results were so disgusting.If I find it I will let you know.
Frankly I don't understand quite what it is you think I don't understand.That I should have understanding?I can't.That I should have sympathy?For their victims yes.For paedophiles,no.
By the way I don't subscribed to the idea that it is genetic.I think it is very much learned behaviour witnissed by the fact that many victims of such abuse become abusers themselves.
One of the saddest situations I found myself in was listening to an abused child extol her fathers virtues and proud of the fact that she was her Daddie's 'special little girl'.She couldn't wait for him to come home from prison.
Sometimes there is a tremendous downside to being a teacher.:(
Incog.
:(
Originally posted by Incognitas
One of the saddest situations I found myself in was listening to an abused child
Incog, I have like you supported someone who has been abused, and to be honest it has been one of the hardest things I have ever done.
These abusers are animals and should be treated as such :(
Lord Nikon
28-09-2003, 00:26
Originally posted by dellwear
He downloaded indecent pictures of children, thats illegal and makes him an offender.
Yes, he did, however, he wasn't involved in the taking of the photos.
As an aside to this, if there was no customers for these horrid websites then there would probably be less children abused.
Ok, here we have a disagreement, there is no proof that the situation has got worse since the inception of the internet, only that it has become a situation which is more prominent, and the internet gets cited as a source.
What people do to these children is sickening,
On this, 110% agreed...
and ANYONE who has ANYTHING to do with it should be prosecuted, whether they are in the pictures or just looking. [/B]
Hmm.. here we have a disputable area....
One where there are multiple trains of thought...
Those who TAKE the photos.... no argument with you there
But the ones who look at them..... this is the debatable part.
One train of thought is that the people who only look are getting their gratification there, and will not progress on to taking the photos themselves (as a discreet way of describing it)
Another thought is that the people viewing the content will progress on to taking photos themselves.....
It is a grey area whether or not the internet has contributed to this, or whether it has stopped kids being abused because the people had found their "fix" online....
regardless of the thoughts... the fact remains that children should be safe from the threat of people like that, but unfortunately I doubt they will ever be...
Originally posted by Atomic22
no kronas it isnt the only viable solution.... i believe the death sentence would be their just desserts , and not getting away with a simple needle or electric shock........hanging in public so they can see themselves swinging before they burn in hell:afire:
hanging is something i would be over joyed with and would pleasure me enough to see those sick people die but alas its not the way we do things anymore just let them rot in jail for the rest of there lives life SHOULD mean life
Maybe life in prison should be renamed death in prison?
You stay in until you die.
Unlike quick death penalties, if you find out someone's been wronfully committed you can release them.
Downloading photographs or videos featuring paedophiles and their victims is no different than committing the crime.The fact that they get vicarious pleasure at a distance does not lessen the fact that for every picture there is a VICTIM.They may not be 'doing' but they are participating.Every download for money just perpetuates the crime by encouraging the paedophile rings to look for new victims to make money from.
As far as I'm concerned there must be zero tolerance for this crime. No if's,buts or maybe's.The minute you equivocate is the minute you let peadophiles think that they can change society's mind and rules.
However I DO NOT subscribe to the hanging,drawing and quartering attitude displayed in the thread thus far.Just zero tolerance.
The most important aspect is to protect the most vunerable of our society which is not the adults but the children and to provide the victims with the UNDERSTANDING that they truly deserve.
Incog.:(
downquark1
28-09-2003, 09:52
I'm not sure about Graham but I think we've completely missed the point of what I was saying.
Is it possible to be a Paedophile, yet not look at the porn or abuse children. Like I said, they have councilling for this type of thing. Is that exceptable?? Or should they be hanged for having this gene/physological disorder without doing anything wrong?
Have been reading this thread with interest.... but have not contributed so far because i don't feel that this forum format would allow me to to do so effectively.
However.... having just completed some research (through my work) for a friend who has done a thesis on this very subject... covering aspects such as etiology, behaviour and treatment... if anyone is interested in medical/academic articles (pdf) on the subject, if you pm me with your email address, i can forward them on to you :)
Just as a quickie contribution.... drug treatment has been found to be very effective in curbing desires, i suppose the drugs have a sort of emotional/mental castration effect. The recidivism rates are high on release from prison or treatment centres though :shrug:
That's me done :)
Originally posted by downquark1
I'm not sure about Graham but I think we've completely missed the point of what I was saying.
Is it possible to be a Paedophile, yet not look at the porn or abuse children. Like I said, they have councilling for this type of thing. Is that exceptable?? Or should they be hanged for having this gene/physological disorder without doing anything wrong?
DQ, if they have done nothing, not abuses a child, not downloaded files, or anything else that we would consider 'inappropriate' then no, of course they shouldn't be punished. We don't punish psychopaths just because they may have an urge to kill someone, or rape them. People SHOULD however be punished in the most serious ways when they overstep the boundry, whether that be down loading indecent pictures, or actually committing the crime.
I also think that Incog is right, venerable people do need protecting from this sort of behaviour, no, personally I do subscribe to the death penalty for this sort of crime, but to be honest, as long as the abusers are taken from the streets I really don't care what happens to them, as long as it can be considered a deterrent to others who may consider committing the crime.
But as both Kink and I have said, these people may never be safe to allow back into OUR society :(
Originally posted by dellwear
[Snippity snipped]..............
But as both Kink and I have said, these people may never be safe to allow back into OUR society :(
Mmmmmm.... well yes.... i suppose the studies that i've read so far do hint at that.... but there are others that show that chemical castration works very well :)
Damn it.... am now going to have to read the docs i've collected for my friend and colleagues properly so i don't get misquoted :D
As DQ says.... counselling does exist.... some is effective.... but what does it really do?
I can't believe i'm going to spend my last day off work going through pdfs on paedophilia now :cry:
And all because i couldn't help but stick my nose in on a thread i'd tried NOT to post in.....:spin:
downquark1
28-09-2003, 15:30
The point is, all the public hatred of paedophiles stops them coming forward for councelling. If they felt save they could come forward, and get councilling before they commit the crime.
Originally posted by Graham
Ah, yes, let's hear it for our wonderfully hypocritical tabloid media. The ones that, on one page, print a story decrying these perverts and on the other print a picture of a 15 year old girl with a caption something like "in a week she'll be 16 and stripping off for you!"
I seem to remember reading in Private Eye a few years ago, that on her 16th Birthday, the Sport printed topless photos of some model. They were prosecuted because if they printed the photos on her 16th birthday, she was underage when they were taken.
They still seem to do that sort of thing though.
Back on topic. I don't know why Paedophiles are the way they are, whether it is a physical or mental condition. I do know that I don't understand why a man would be sexually attracted to kids.
I also don't know how we stop the problem. However, the current lynch mob mentality that the papers seem to be promoting is NOT the right way to go about it. Mobs can be wrong, and mobs will force a Paedo out of the area. If this happens, the authorities can lose track of him.
Of course, if mobs are wrong, then they are persecuting the wrong person.
Originally posted by scastle
[Snippity snip].............I do know that I don't understand why a man would be sexually attracted to kids.
........[Snippity snipped]
And women i'm afraid..... not as many perhaps, but significant numbers nonetheless... and a understudied phenomena :(
This is being increasing addressed from what i can see.... but only over the past 5 years or so.
Please excuse the lack of formatting in this post, but it keeps being thrown back with the message "You have included too many images in your signature or in your previous post"
I presume this is because it doesn't like the way I use quotes, but I hope that someone can fix this because otherwise messages lose context.
Graham you never consider my points valid so whats new, but this doesn't mean that they aren't.
dellwear. I do not have a closed mind. If you have argued a valid point I will accept it. Just because I don't accept what you say doesn't mean that it's something personal. For you to assume or imply otherwise is ridiculous.
QUOTE:I'm not going to say that we should give them counselling and set them free to do it again, thats just irresponsible, how many people lives should they be allowed to ruin?
Neither am I. But by the same token I don't make the automatic assumption that, if we set them free they *will* "do it again" or "ruin" other lives.
That is the difference between being open minded and closed minded.
QUOTE:How on earth do you *know* he is "a menace to society" if we "don't know what he is up to"?
QUOTE:We know that he is a menace to society because he has said that he doesn't see what the issue is, he doesn't think there is anything wrong with what he did to the person I know. He is also in my opinion likely to do it again, due to the fact that he doesn't understand that it is wrong.
You are making a whole bunch of assumptions here based on hearsay, supposition and innuendo. There is no logical basis for your conclusions.
QUOTE:And if he is found guilty of his crimes and convicted by a court of law then, yes, I agree he should be locked up until he is no longer a danger.
QUOTE:You are very fond of this quote aren't you Graham, its a nice little comment to hide behind when things aren't going your way.
What on *earth* are you talking about?
I'm not "hiding behind" anything, it's the *fundamental basis* under which our entire system of justice operates!
QUOTE:For you information, the person who was abused has been to the police and they have been through the humiliation of explaining in the minutest detail what was done to him, when and how, but because he was to scared to tell anyone at the time (when he was 7) they can't corroborate his story. This means that it is the abusers word against the abused, and the crown prosecution service just won't take the risk that it may not get through court. So much your your court of law, eh!
And that's a terrible shame and your friend deserves every sympathy.
And now let's take the emotion out of the argument and sit down and think logically and coherently about the situation.
What if your friend *hadn't* been abused, but, for some reason, held a grudge?
They make up some story about this person abusing them as a child, put in lots of terrible and gruesome details and go to the Police.
The Police say "right! We'll get the bugger!" Arrest him, lock him up, interrogate him for hours on end, force him into signing a confession, stick him in front of a tame Judge and he gets banged up for ten years *FOR SOMETHING HE DIDN'T DO!!!*
*NOW* do you start to understand *WHY* we have such things as the presumption of innocence??
And if you can't persuade them that what they are doing is wrong then what is the solution?
Then *if* they're found guilty and convicted, lock them up and throw away the key. I'm just trying to point out that this may not always be the *best* solution.
QUOTE:Because make no mistake there are those who see no wrong in having sex with children and are even campaigning to change society's attitude towards lowering the age of consent and making paedophilia more acceptable.
There are groups out there campaigning for everything you can think of and quite a lot of things you never would think of in a million years. This doesn't mean that they have a hope in hell of getting their way.
Frankly I don't understand quite what it is you think I don't understand.That I should have understanding?I can't.That I should have sympathy?For their victims yes.For paedophiles,no.
And if "the abused becomes the abuser"? Where does your sympathy lie then?
Just because they go on to commit abuse doesn't mean they were any *less* a victim, does it?
But if we can *stop* them going on to being an abuser *before* they do it, wouldn't you say that would be a more sensible option?
Downloading photographs or videos featuring paedophiles and their victims is no different than committing the crime.
And what if you downloaded photos of murder victims? Does that make *you* "no different than a murderer"?
And what if you downloaded photos of murder victims? Does that make *you* "no different than a murderer"?
No of course not.BUT if I downloaded the actual photos of a 'murderer 'committing his crime for the delectation of others for money and never reported it or did anything to get the 'murderer' convicted and continued to download pictures of the 'murderer' committing each of his 'murders' then I would be guilty because it would not be protecting his FUTURE victims.
substitute paedophile for murderer and see what I mean.
What do you think the pictures that paedophiles download actually show?What do you know that I don't?
Incog.
Stuart W
29-09-2003, 23:19
Going back to the "is it in your genes" thing....
If someone is born in to paedophilia on a genetic level, surely they would have to carry out the urges?
When my first child was born he didn't sleep for more than 3 consecutive hours for nearly a year. I can honestly say I understand how people "shake" their own children to death! There were times when I was so tired and deprived of rest that I could quite easily have shaken him to death in frustration.
OK, wandering off topic, but go with me on this....
Now, obviously, I never acted out my feelings towards my son, but it did make me think about things differently.
I talked about it with my partner and she told me she often had urges to drop him down the stairs, not because she was tired, just because he was so fragile she felt tempted.
This is common in new parents, the urge to kill the offspring, but it is never acted upon under 'normal' conditions with 'normal' parents. (I use the term 'normal' in its most vague means as I don't think there is any such thing as a normal parent.)
Now, slowly drawing things back on topic...
I had urges to kill my defenceless child. They were quite strong urges, but I had no problem resisting them. I never felt I could carry it out at any time.
When I was a child and went through puberty, I thought about having sex with my mates mums / sisters a lot! This is also a common phenomena. Again, I never actually acted any of this out!!
So, it's fair to say that I am not alone in having either of these feelings, nor am I alone in the ability to resist them.
However, if it were writen into my genes to do any of the above, I would have undoubtedly done it. Anything at genetic level cannot be altered by the concious (spelling??) mind.
It is in my genes to have hazel eyes & light brown hair. It's also in my genes to start balding in my mid 30's. There's frack all I can do about either without resorting to contact lenses & wigs!
What I'm saying is, if it's genetic, it will be carried out. As such, I don't think paedophilia is genetic.
Also, convicred paedophiles usually turn out to have been victims of paedophilia in their childhood. That isn't genetic, that's psychological.
I would imagin that a lot of males would find a teenager (pre 16) sexualy attractive.... before you start the "Not me mate" speech, think about the times you have seen someone at a distance and thought "S/he's nice, I'd love to give him/her one!" and later found out they are only 14 yrs old.... OK, when you find out the age, it becomes a no-go, but the point is, you thought about it first.
I agree with an earlyer post to the tune of post-puberty = sexual attraction regardless of age. It makes sence as they are then a potential mate.
Going below the puberty age, esp. todlers / babies etc. is a very serious psychological problem which IMHO can only be cured by death.
Oh, as for the gay thing.... babies / todlers cannot reproduce therefor cannot be natural, man + man cannot reproduce therefor cannot be natural......
Well, man + man cannot reproduce.. agreed (obviously!) but not natural? well... it very well could be natures way of controling the population.
Intercours between 2 adults of the same sex will prevent more babies for sure.
However, intercourse with a small child does not have the same effect. If anything it would increase population with children growing up to believe that it is normal to try to have intercourse with anyone at any age.
to clear up
Now I am in my mid 30's I no longer find teenagers sexualy attractive. When I see a 17yr old in a little skirt with her boobs hanging out I no longer think "Phwoar!!" I think "I bet she's cold!" or more often "If she was my daughter there's no way I'd let her out like that!".
I also no longer fantasise about my friends mums / sisters!
I apreciate that the mates mums & sisters thing is a classic example of "taboo" i.e. wanting something you know you can't have. I also apreciate that paedophilia is an extreem case of the same thing. The main difference is, most of us at some point in our lives have fancied / will fancy someone we know we cannot have. We don't act on it though.
Convicted Paedophiles should be forced to wear a chemical implant which stops them getting the urges .
So as not to breach their human rights totally they could be tagged say if they want to have a sexual relationship.
With current technology we can monitor criminals down to the nearest 5 Metres.
Using this procedure would not only protect the public but learn the paedophile to control his "feelings".
downquark1
30-09-2003, 16:07
The main difference is, most of us at some point in our lives have fancied / will fancy someone we know we cannot have. We don't act on it though. Although that is a very good point, some people do act on it, then rape occurs. This could be the same for paedophiles, there could be many more, but we only know about the ones who have 'acted'.
Please excuse the lack of formatting in this post, but it keeps being thrown back with the message "You have included too many images in your signature or in your previous post"
I presume this is because it doesn't like the way I use quotes, but I hope that someone can fix this because otherwise messages lose context.
dellwear. I do not have a closed mind. If you have argued a valid point I will accept it. Just because I don't accept what you say doesn't mean that it's something personal. For you to assume or imply otherwise is ridiculous.
QUOTE:I'm not going to say that we should give them counselling and set them free to do it again, thats just irresponsible, how many people lives should they be allowed to ruin?
Neither am I. But by the same token I don't make the automatic assumption that, if we set them free they *will* "do it again" or "ruin" other lives.
That is the difference between being open minded and closed minded.
QUOTE:How on earth do you *know* he is "a menace to society" if we "don't know what he is up to"?
QUOTE:We know that he is a menace to society because he has said that he doesn't see what the issue is, he doesn't think there is anything wrong with what he did to the person I know. He is also in my opinion likely to do it again, due to the fact that he doesn't understand that it is wrong.
You are making a whole bunch of assumptions here based on hearsay, supposition and innuendo. There is no logical basis for your conclusions.
QUOTE:And if he is found guilty of his crimes and convicted by a court of law then, yes, I agree he should be locked up until he is no longer a danger.
QUOTE:You are very fond of this quote aren't you Graham, its a nice little comment to hide behind when things aren't going your way.
What on *earth* are you talking about?
I'm not "hiding behind" anything, it's the *fundamental basis* under which our entire system of justice operates!
QUOTE:For you information, the person who was abused has been to the police and they have been through the humiliation of explaining in the minutest detail what was done to him, when and how, but because he was to scared to tell anyone at the time (when he was 7) they can't corroborate his story. This means that it is the abusers word against the abused, and the crown prosecution service just won't take the risk that it may not get through court. So much your your court of law, eh!
And that's a terrible shame and your friend deserves every sympathy.
And now let's take the emotion out of the argument and sit down and think logically and coherently about the situation.
What if your friend *hadn't* been abused, but, for some reason, held a grudge?
They make up some story about this person abusing them as a child, put in lots of terrible and gruesome details and go to the Police.
The Police say "right! We'll get the bugger!" Arrest him, lock him up, interrogate him for hours on end, force him into signing a confession, stick him in front of a tame Judge and he gets banged up for ten years *FOR SOMETHING HE DIDN'T DO!!!*
*NOW* do you start to understand *WHY* we have such things as the presumption of innocence??
Graham I really am not up to responding to your comments today, but I suggest that you re- read your post to me and see if you can see what a fool you look. I have included it for your convenience.
You really have not read my comments at all otherwise you wouldn't;t have come up with such blatantly stupid patronising responses, which make you look like a troll.
Graham I'm afraid that other people WILL have different views on subjects but instead of trying to obliterate their argument (I use the word loosely) you should perhaps try and understand what it is they are trying to say and why they feel this way. I'm not the only person on here to say this to you (Russ??), maybe you should take some heed. :)
Atomic22
30-09-2003, 18:36
letting them rot in jail costs the taxpayer money...why should i pay for them to be wet nursed for the rest of their lives when a rope is cheaper
: And what if you downloaded photos of murder victims? Does that make *you* "no different than a murderer"?
QUOTE:No of course not.BUT if I downloaded the actual photos of a 'murderer 'committing his crime for the delectation of others for money
To the best of my knowledge, although I fully admit that I can't categorically back this up, the idea that there's some international network of paedophiles that do this "for the money", is erroneous.
Yes, there are websites that charge money for access to pictures etc, but I doubt if most of the perpetrators who took the pictures on those sites actually get a "cut" of the income.
QUOTE: and never reported it or did anything to get the 'murderer' convicted and continued to download pictures of the 'murderer' committing each of his 'murders' then I would be guilty because it would not be protecting his FUTURE victims.
You may *feel* guilty. But there's little in law that I know of that could be used to actually *find* you guilty and convict you, except, perhaps, "witholding information" or "obstructing justice" which tend to be general "catch all" offences when the prosecutors can't find anything else to do you for.
QUOTE: What do you think the pictures that paedophiles download actually show? What do you know that I don't?
I have a good idea of what the pictures show. I don't know what you know, so it's difficult to say what I know that you don't!
Going back to the "is it in your genes" thing....
If someone is born in to paedophilia on a genetic level, surely they would have to carry out the urges? [...] I thought about having sex with my mates mums / sisters a lot! This is also a common phenomena. Again, I never actually acted any of this out!!
However, if it were writen into my genes to do any of the above, I would have undoubtedly done it. Anything at genetic level cannot be altered by the concious (spelling??) mind.
Sorry, but I don't see that.
It's in your genes to want to have sex, to spread those genes far and wide. Any species that didn't have that "genetic imperative" would soon die out.
But you can make a *conscious* choice as to who you have sex with (or even to not have sex altogether).
In the same way, even if someone *finds* a child sexually attractive, it doesn't automatically mean they're going to abuse them.
QUOTE: Also, convicred paedophiles usually turn out to have been victims of paedophilia in their childhood. That isn't genetic, that's psychological.
Yes, many abusers were abused, but not *all*. So it's not quite as simple as that portrays.
Graham I really am not up to responding to your comments today, but I suggest that you re- read your post to me and see if you can see what a fool you look. I have included it for your convenience.
Thank you for re-quoting my whole post, even though I am, of course, entirely familiar with the contents on the grounds that I wrote the bloody thing! :rolleyes:
QUOTE: You really have not read my comments at all otherwise you wouldn't;t have come up with such blatantly stupid patronising responses, which make you look like a troll.
Curiously enough, I *did* read your comments and responded to them in a way that I saw fit according to my views.
Unfortunately you have, so far, failed to respond to what *I* said and have, instead, decided to descend in to personal insults and abuse, which, I believe, are tactics generally used by sillicaceous lifeforms...!
So please excuse me while I just trit-trot along...
QUOTE: Graham I'm afraid that other people WILL have different views on subjects
Why are you afraid of this? I'm not. I *know* others will, I'm quite happy for them to have other views. I've mentioned this quite a few times.
QUOTE: but instead of trying to obliterate their argument (I use the word loosely) you should perhaps try and understand what it is they are trying to say and why they feel this way.
If you hold a view, if you believe in something, you should be able to back it up.
If you can't back it up, if it doesn't stand up to a challenge, maybe it's *YOU* who needs to re-examine what your beliefs are.
If you think that someone challenging what you say is "trolling" or "trying to obliterate their argument" then I think you have no idea about the nature of a debate.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.