PDA

View Full Version : Normalizing Pedophillia



txradioguy
01-08-2013, 03:55 PM
Decadence is on the march! And now, a defense of pedophilia as just another “sexual orientation” has been published in the mainstream left wing UK newspaper The Guardian.* From, “Paedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires Into the Light:”

Paedophiles may be wired differently. This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia “is a sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”.

This isn’t news. We already know that those who abuse children sexually are always dangerous. That is why they must register with the police when released from prison.

Understanding causes is one thing–I’m all for it–but the effort is definitely underway to normalize the behavior:

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s. “There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations…*A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.

The idea, apparently, is to embrace pedophilia as a normal part of the human condition so that we can help those with the “orientation” refrain:

For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. “Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it’s not something we can eliminate,” she says. “If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won’t label paedophiles monsters; it won’t be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us.”

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, “by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else”, and by “respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint”. Only then will men tempted to abuse children “be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed”.

I am sorry, pedophiles can already get help in controlling their urges before they ruin a child’s life–and certainly, many do. Good on them.*But turning the abhorrent and pathological into the somehow acceptable will not protect children. Quite the contrary.

http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/337010/normalizing-pedophilia

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Eupher
01-08-2013, 03:58 PM
It was inevitable, TRG. Once society started down that slippery slope of recognizing homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle" rather than the abnormality it is, we'll apparently go all the way to the bottom to accept pedophilia as the same kind of acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

Grotesque and unacceptable, but there ya go.

txradioguy
01-08-2013, 04:14 PM
It was inevitable, TRG. Once society started down that slippery slope of recognizing homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle" rather than the abnormality it is, we'll apparently go all the way to the bottom to accept pedophilia as the same kind of acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

Grotesque and unacceptable, but there ya go.

Somethings got to be done to stop this idiocy though.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

DumbAss Tanker
01-08-2013, 04:18 PM
It was inevitable, TRG. Once society started down that slippery slope of recognizing homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle" rather than the abnormality it is, we'll apparently go all the way to the bottom to accept pedophilia as the same kind of acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

Grotesque and unacceptable, but there ya go.

GMTA, Eupher.

noonwitch
01-08-2013, 04:27 PM
I think it's very important to keep pedophilia classified as a psychiatric disorder and acting upon it as criminal behavior-it should be classified in the same category as someone who commits a violent rape on an adult and is diagnosed as a sociopath (anti-social personality disorder) or a sadist. It's not just about sexual attraction to children, it's about power and control over a victim. In the case of a pedophile, the perp deliberately chooses a victim who has less ability to fight back than an adult.


Feminists fought hard in the 60s and 70s to redefine rape as a crime of violence, not a crime of passion. Whatever you might think of feminism overall, this led to the courts taking rape more seriously and upping the sentences of those who commit rape of any kind, and even further increasing the sentences for those who rape children. When I started in this field, a child molestor in Michigan faced a maximum sentence of 7-15 years. Now it's 20 to life, which means life to the parole board.

Eupher
01-08-2013, 04:30 PM
Somethings got to be done to stop this idiocy though.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Well, when you've got Hah-vahd University putting out tripe like this:


The understanding of pedophilia has evolved over time...

the medical world is supposed to nod their collective heads in agreement. It's all about the next level of understanding and advocating that today we're just a bunch of cads, but tomorrow we'll be enlightened.

This is how the bastards are selling this bullshit. They're painting a glorious, rosy picture of sweetness and light that is tomorrow, and they're completely shitting all over today.

Ultimately - it won't be tomorrow or next week - all the egghead shrinks who are "experts" in their respective fields will concur that, since they can't actually DO anything about pedophilia, the next logical step is to accept it.

Apache
01-08-2013, 05:18 PM
This...

http://preview.turbosquid.com/Preview/2011/07/15__21_32_58/ScaffoldWithNoose_render-11.jpg9cec4533-efc4-4cda-b840-0bd028108a41Large.jpg


is how you "treat" pedophiles!

Eupher
01-08-2013, 05:29 PM
Works for me, Apache.

Those people can't be rehabilitated. A rope and a pine box is all they're gonna need.

Hawkgirl
01-08-2013, 07:10 PM
Works for me, Apache.

Those people can't be rehabilitated. A rope and a pine box is all they're gonna need.

...after genital castration.

ABC in Georgia
01-08-2013, 08:54 PM
...after genital castration.

100% in agreement Hawkgirl ...

I'll even volunteer to "Bobbit" them myself! Canadians are going to hell re embracing "cultural change" faster than we are here in the US.

~ ABC

noonwitch
01-09-2013, 10:14 AM
...after genital castration.


I hate to be overly graphic, but it comes with the job. A person does not need to have a functioning penis to molest a child or rape someone, in a world where one can buy all manner of fake ones at the Adult Lion superstore on I-94 at the Concord exit. Not to mention the easy availability of things like Coke bottles and such.


Life, no parole for child molestors.

FlaGator
01-09-2013, 10:42 AM
Life without parole for molesters, death for molesters who murder their victims.

NJCardFan
01-09-2013, 11:02 AM
Live without parole for molesters, death for molesters who murder their victims.

Did you know that you can get less time for child molestation than you'd get for having a dime bag of weed? Molest a child in a school and you will get 3-5 at best. Get caught with a bag of weed in a school and you will get 10 years.

Moby
01-09-2013, 11:11 AM
As we say in Texas.....get a rope!

Novaheart
01-09-2013, 11:14 AM
Decadence is on the march! And now, a defense of pedophilia as just another “sexual orientation” has been published in the mainstream left wing UK newspaper The Guardian.* From, “Paedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires Into the Light:”

Paedophiles may be wired differently. This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia “is a sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”.

This isn’t news. We already know that those who abuse children sexually are always dangerous. That is why they must register with the police when released from prison.

Understanding causes is one thing–I’m all for it–but the effort is definitely underway to normalize the behavior:

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s. “There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations…*A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.

The idea, apparently, is to embrace pedophilia as a normal part of the human condition so that we can help those with the “orientation” refrain:

For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. “Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it’s not something we can eliminate,” she says. “If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won’t label paedophiles monsters; it won’t be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us.”

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, “by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else”, and by “respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint”. Only then will men tempted to abuse children “be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed”.

I am sorry, pedophiles can already get help in controlling their urges before they ruin a child’s life–and certainly, many do. Good on them.*But turning the abhorrent and pathological into the somehow acceptable will not protect children. Quite the contrary.

http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/337010/normalizing-pedophilia

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

I just read your article and I don't see where anyone but the author (and you and Eupher) is talking in terms of normalization. Did I miss in the article where it said that the law or society should permit adults to have sex with children?

And if it did, it would be rather idiotic to claim that this was somehow the result of the slippery slope of equal rights for gay people. The stereotype of child molestation is father on daughter not mother on daughter.

FlaGator
01-09-2013, 11:16 AM
Did you know that you can get less time for child molestation than you'd get for having a dime bag of weed? Molest a child in a school and you will get 3-5 at best. Get caught with a bag of weed in a school and you will get 10 years.

I am not talking about what is but what I believe should be when it comes to child molestation. It is sad that our leaders view a few joints of pot as worse that the marring and possible destruction of child's future but this just demostrates for us the screwed up priorities our leaders have and from which they legislate.

marv
01-09-2013, 11:55 AM
Execution is nice, but some folks don't like the idea. The French, IMO, had a good idea with their "Devils Island" though. And there are a lot of islands out there that could be bought for less than the cost of a new prison.

Why not?

Novaheart
01-09-2013, 12:00 PM
Execution is nice, but some folks don't like the idea. The French, IMO, had a good idea with their "Devils Island" though. And there are a lot of islands out there that could be bought for less than the cost of a new prison.

Why not?

More generally speaking and following in your path- it would be a great idea to have prisoners building The Great Wall Of America along the border with Mexico. And of course, in a cost saving measure we would only have to police the US side to ensure that the prisoners didn't escape into the US. If a few wandered off into Mexico (we could make sure there were backpacks waiting with plain clothes and supplies) , well that would be beyond our control.

noonwitch
01-09-2013, 12:07 PM
Execution is nice, but some folks don't like the idea. The French, IMO, had a good idea with their "Devils Island" though. And there are a lot of islands out there that could be bought for less than the cost of a new prison.

Why not?


I'd prefer the island to be in the Pacific near Alaska than in the warm, sunny Carribean. Maybe the Diomedes? Then any escapees are Russia's problem, if they survive the water.

Eupher
01-09-2013, 02:12 PM
I just read your article and I don't see where anyone but the author (and you and Eupher) is talking in terms of normalization. Did I miss in the article where it said that the law or society should permit adults to have sex with children?

And if it did, it would be rather idiotic to claim that this was somehow the result of the slippery slope of equal rights for gay people. The stereotype of child molestation is father on daughter not mother on daughter.

It was inevitable that you would weigh in on this, Nova, as your mantra and your drum beat consists of constantly pushing this "notion" of "gay rights."

Not to rehash all that's been hashed, but your "gay rights" meme is a non sequitur and a straw man. Gays have all the unalienable rights that straights have. How many more "rights" do you think gays should have, above and beyond what straights have? (That's a rhetorical question, btw.)

But beyond your straw man, the point I'm making is that the steady and relentless decline in what I refer to as "traditional values" (you can play with that phrase all you'd like) brought about partly by the gay agenda (which I define as shoving that lifestyle down everybody else's throat) to force legitimacy of that lifestyle to the rest of the world.

In a word, ain't nothin' legitimate about two men having sex. Two women having sex. Men having sex with donkeys. Women having sex with donkeys.

But a gradual acceptance of the gay lifestyle has been, and continues to be, that mantra that you and others push.

The sad fact is, it's working.

It's working to the point that those poor misguided cretins up north of the border, as confused and delusional as they are, now are trying to sell the idea that pedophilia is another sexual orientation (somehow, once again, lending legitimacy to an abhorrent and horrifying practice in much the same manner that those poor misguided cretins reclassified and legitimized homosexuality from a mental illness to just another "sexual orientation").

The reality is, they've thrown up their hands, those so-called "men of science," because they can't quite figure out why a person wants to have sex with a child. They even go to the point of trying to classify these perverts according to their preference of "pre- and post-pubescent" children. Ostensibly, an adult that wants to have sex with a post-pubescent child isn't as sick as an adult who wants to get it on with a 7-year-old.

This article continues that slide down that slippery slope and lands squarely at the bottom of that trash heap that is our human condition these days.

It started with the gays. Now it's with kids.

What's next? How bad can this get?

I'm quite sure that you, Nova, don't agree that adults having sex with children of any age is a good idea. I'm immensely relieved at that information.

noonwitch
01-09-2013, 03:22 PM
I just read your article and I don't see where anyone but the author (and you and Eupher) is talking in terms of normalization. Did I miss in the article where it said that the law or society should permit adults to have sex with children?

And if it did, it would be rather idiotic to claim that this was somehow the result of the slippery slope of equal rights for gay people. The stereotype of child molestation is father on daughter not mother on daughter.


It is just the author in this article, but there also have been other articles of late regarding this issue, especially in light of the new DSM V that the American Psychiatric Association is releasing soon, that is rumored to have some major changes in it regarding sexual issues and personality disorders. It's the diagnostic tool used by everyone in the mental health field, and by many in the educational and criminal justice fields, too.

Eupher
01-09-2013, 05:43 PM
It is just the author in this article, but there also have been other articles of late regarding this issue, especially in light of the new DSM V that the American Psychiatric Association is releasing soon, that is rumored to have some major changes in it regarding sexual issues and personality disorders. It's the diagnostic tool used by everyone in the mental health field, and by many in the educational and criminal justice fields, too.

And that's another reason why these kinds of "determinations" are inherently dangerous. From a layperson's POV, this smacks of "well, we can't figure out why the peds are attracted to kids, so the only thing left to do is reclassify the condition so that it's not an illness any more -- it's a choice." :rolleyes:

Now, someone go ahead and tell me that there isn't an agenda here. Shrinks in academia. Shrinks in private practice. Shrinks who actually diagnose mental illnesses and whose reputations are staked on accuracy of same. Oh, and the Bible they use is the DSM.

If you ain't wrong with the DSM, you ain't wrong. :rolleyes:

Hawkgirl
01-09-2013, 07:09 PM
I hate to be overly graphic, but it comes with the job. A person does not need to have a functioning penis to molest a child or rape someone, in a world where one can buy all manner of fake ones at the Adult Lion superstore on I-94 at the Concord exit. Not to mention the easy availability of things like Coke bottles and such.


.

Yes, you are right. I still think we should castrate them without anesthesia, before killing them.

Hawkgirl
01-09-2013, 07:11 PM
Life without parole for molesters, death for molesters who murder their victims.

Rape and Sodomy have long term detrimental effect on children and perpetrators should also be put to death.

Novaheart
01-09-2013, 10:08 PM
It was inevitable that you would weigh in on this,

I have a moral duty to correct the incorrect.



.......your "gay rights" meme is a non sequitur .....

Make up your mind: is it a slippery slope (ie relevant) or non sequitur (ie irrelevant) ?




.....
In a word, ain't nothin' legitimate about two men having sex. Two women having sex. Men having sex with donkeys. Women having sex with donkeys......

How clever.



But a gradual acceptance of the gay lifestyle has been, and continues to be, that mantra that you and others push.

The sad fact is, it's working.


And has no more to do with the acceptance of pedophilia, child molestation, or statutory rape than heterosexuality. In fact it has less, made witness by the case of Debra Lafave. Normally I don't argue in the hypothetical, but I don't think it's speculation that had she been male regardless of good looks and charming personality would still be in prison. You certainly wouldn't have geezers on bulletin boards wondering out loud , "Where were teacher like that when I was 14?"




It's working to the point that those poor misguided cretins up north of the border, as confused and delusional as they are, now are trying to sell the idea that pedophilia is another sexual orientation (somehow, once again, lending legitimacy to an abhorrent and horrifying practice in much the same manner that those poor misguided cretins reclassified and legitimized homosexuality from a mental illness to just another "sexual orientation").

Where in the article did it say that something being a "sexual orientation" meant that it got the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval? Are you under the mistaken impression that homosexuality is legal because it's a sexual orientation? Read the court's opinion. No where does it say that laws against homosexuality are unconstitutional because it's a sexual orientation.



The reality is, they've thrown up their hands, those so-called "men of science," because they can't quite figure out why a person wants to have sex with a child. They even go to the point of trying to classify these perverts according to their preference of "pre- and post-pubescent" children. Ostensibly, an adult that wants to have sex with a post-pubescent child isn't as sick as an adult who wants to get it on with a 7-year-old.

That's a pretty important distinction and one which the laws of the various states generally take into account. Scientifically, it's a legitimate question why a sexually immature person is attractive to a sexually mature person. The stages older than sexual maturity are legally somewhat arbitrary lines which as the article states have and do indeed vary over time, culture, and location.



This article continues that slide down that slippery slope and lands squarely at the bottom of that trash heap that is our human condition these days.


You haven't demonstrated that.




It started with the gays. Now it's with kids.

What's next? How bad can this get?

I'm quite sure that you, Nova, don't agree that adults having sex with children of any age is a good idea. I'm immensely relieved at that information.

Again, you haven't demonstrated that. One of the favorite accusations against Mohammed was that he was a pedophile. In truth, he probably wasn't out of step with surrounding cultures. We don't hate Thailand, but the King of Siam had many wives. Were any of them what we would consider children? In the US we have had 12 year old brides, and in Mexico they apparently still do. We don't approve of this, but what precisely has it to do with gay rights or homosexuality? Homosexuality was a felony or a capital crime while all of this was going on.

txradioguy
01-10-2013, 03:34 AM
I just read your article and I don't see where anyone but the author (and you and Eupher) is talking in terms of normalization. Did I miss in the article where it said that the law or society should permit adults to have sex with children?

I guess you missed a lot since one of the advocates for kid diddling is quoted throughout the article. The original article appeared in the U.K. Guardian.


And if it did, it would be rather idiotic to claim that this was somehow the result of the slippery slope of equal rights for gay people. The stereotype of child molestation is father on daughter not mother on daughter.

First off Gays have the same rights under the Constitution as I do.

Secondly...Pedo's can also be mother molesting song or grandchild. Lose they streotype mindset.

Third...10 years ago most people would have said that gay marriage was nonsense and would never happen.

Now look what's going on in this country.

Right now we're saying that normalization of pedophillia will never happen...but the inroads are already being made.

txradioguy
01-10-2013, 03:37 AM
It was inevitable that you would weigh in on this, Nova, as your mantra and your drum beat consists of constantly pushing this "notion" of "gay rights."

Not to rehash all that's been hashed, but your "gay rights" meme is a non sequitur and a straw man. Gays have all the unalienable rights that straights have. How many more "rights" do you think gays should have, above and beyond what straights have? (That's a rhetorical question, btw.)

But beyond your straw man, the point I'm making is that the steady and relentless decline in what I refer to as "traditional values" (you can play with that phrase all you'd like) brought about partly by the gay agenda (which I define as shoving that lifestyle down everybody else's throat) to force legitimacy of that lifestyle to the rest of the world.

In a word, ain't nothin' legitimate about two men having sex. Two women having sex. Men having sex with donkeys. Women having sex with donkeys.

But a gradual acceptance of the gay lifestyle has been, and continues to be, that mantra that you and others push.

The sad fact is, it's working.

It's working to the point that those poor misguided cretins up north of the border, as confused and delusional as they are, now are trying to sell the idea that pedophilia is another sexual orientation (somehow, once again, lending legitimacy to an abhorrent and horrifying practice in much the same manner that those poor misguided cretins reclassified and legitimized homosexuality from a mental illness to just another "sexual orientation").

The reality is, they've thrown up their hands, those so-called "men of science," because they can't quite figure out why a person wants to have sex with a child. They even go to the point of trying to classify these perverts according to their preference of "pre- and post-pubescent" children. Ostensibly, an adult that wants to have sex with a post-pubescent child isn't as sick as an adult who wants to get it on with a 7-year-old.

This article continues that slide down that slippery slope and lands squarely at the bottom of that trash heap that is our human condition these days.

It started with the gays. Now it's with kids.

What's next? How bad can this get?

I'm quite sure that you, Nova, don't agree that adults having sex with children of any age is a good idea. I'm immensely relieved at that information.

C'mon Euph...it's Nova...you KNOW he's gonna come in and dfend this crap.

He can't help himself.

FlaGator
01-10-2013, 09:13 AM
C'mon Euph...it's Nova...you KNOW he's gonna come in and dfend this crap.

He can't help himself.

Nova understands that pedophilia is abhorant and he doesn't want it linked to his sexual and social preferences but to state that no one is saying that pedophilia is on its way to normalization because of the door opened by same sex marriage is delusional. They have been saying this since the idea of same sex marriage became a social concern. It has been mentioned that same sex marriage was opening the doors to normalization of pedophilia, incest and bestiality since this whole debate started and now we are starting to see these abominations as the ensuing fruits of the normalize of same sex marriage.

noonwitch
01-10-2013, 09:53 AM
Nova understands that pedophilia is abhorant and he doesn't want it linked to his sexual and social preferences but to state that no one is saying that pedophilia is on its way to normalization because of the door opened by same sex marriage is delusional. They have been saying this since the idea of same sex marriage became a social concern. It has been mentioned that same sex marriage was opening the doors to normalization of pedophilia, incest and bestiality since this whole debate started and now we are starting to see these abominations as the ensuing fruits of the normalize of same sex marriage.


I share that same concern with Nova, that people will start to classify pedophilia with homosexuality. There needs to be a clear difference in the way society treats consenting adults who are attracted to the same sex from how society treats someone who chooses victims who are either unable to resist or unable to give consent due to age or capacity. The sexual abuse of children always needs to be treated as a crime, the same way raping an adult victim at gunpoint is a crime. Homosexual relationships between consenting adults should not be criminally sanctioned.

Odysseus
01-10-2013, 11:46 AM
...after genital castration.
You just need a smaller noose.

I hate to be overly graphic, but it comes with the job. A person does not need to have a functioning penis to molest a child or rape someone, in a world where one can buy all manner of fake ones at the Adult Lion superstore on I-94 at the Concord exit. Not to mention the easy availability of things like Coke bottles and such.


Life, no parole for child molestors.

At a minimum. I think that our whole concept of parole is flawed. We should require parole board members to share the remainder of a sentence of any perp that they release who repeats the offense. If you aren't sure enough to risk you own life and liberty, then you should be exoposing the rest of us to risk.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

noonwitch
01-10-2013, 11:53 AM
You just need a smaller noose.


At a minimum. I think that our whole concept of parole is flawed. We should require parole board members to share the remainder of a sentence of any perp that they release who repeats the offense. If you aren't sure enough to risk you own life and liberty, then you should be exoposing the rest of us to risk.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


A lot has to do with how things are presented to the parole board by the prison officials. We used to have a Youth Parole Board for juveniles, prior to around 1992 or so. It was ended due to some notorious cases, mostly sex offenders, who re-offended almost immediately after release by the YPRB.

Novaheart
01-10-2013, 12:01 PM
I think that our whole concept of parole is flawed.

Without hope of or process for parole, what incentive do convicts have to behave themselves. Prison is supposed to punish criminals, not subject them to torture. Allowing hopeless convicts to prey on other convicts is nothing less than the state practicing torture by proxy. Frankly, I can't believe that a courts hasn't already ordered the prisons to protect inmates and compensate those who have been harmed in custody.

Novaheart
01-10-2013, 12:05 PM
A lot has to do with how things are presented to the parole board by the prison officials. We used to have a Youth Parole Board for juveniles, prior to around 1992 or so. It was ended due to some notorious cases, mostly sex offenders, who re-offended almost immediately after release by the YPRB.

We recently had a guy attack a 16 yo girl at her bus stop. He was in a re-entry facility run by Goodwill Industries. It made no sense, which leads one to believe that the court and corrections missed the fact that this person is an animal.

FlaGator
01-10-2013, 12:14 PM
I share that same concern with Nova, that people will start to classify pedophilia with homosexuality. There needs to be a clear difference in the way society treats consenting adults who are attracted to the same sex from how society treats someone who chooses victims who are either unable to resist or unable to give consent due to age or capacity. The sexual abuse of children always needs to be treated as a crime, the same way raping an adult victim at gunpoint is a crime. Homosexual relationships between consenting adults should not be criminally sanctioned.

There is a train of thought that links all of these activities together under the heading of deviant behavior. At one point the majority of society considered homosexual behavior as aberrant but that societal view has changed. Who is to say that society doesn't change its view on pedophilia, incest and bestiality? If society does change its perspective does that mean that these activities are now acceptable? Why is incest bad today but OK tomorrow? Are right and wrong so easily transmutable now? If society decides what is right and what is wrong is there really such a thing as right and wrong or are they just fluid concepts that are determined by which way the wind is blowing?

Novaheart
01-10-2013, 12:38 PM
There is a train of thought that links all of these activities together under the heading of deviant behavior. At one point the majority of society considered homosexual behavior as aberrant but that societal view has changed. Who is to say that society doesn't change its view on pedophilia, incest and bestiality? If society does change its perspective does that mean that these activities are now acceptable? Why is incest bad today but OK tomorrow? Are right and wrong so easily transmutable now? If society decides what is right and what is wrong is there really such a thing as right and wrong or are they just fluid concepts that are determined by which way the wind is blowing?

If a state legalizes right turn on red, what's to stop them from making it legal to run over old people in the crosswalk?

FlaGator
01-10-2013, 12:54 PM
If a state legalizes right turn on red, what's to stop them from making it legal to run over old people in the crosswalk?

Nothing is to stop them

NJCardFan
01-10-2013, 01:47 PM
If a state legalizes right turn on red, what's to stop them from making it legal to run over old people in the crosswalk?

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/strawman.jpg

txradioguy
01-10-2013, 03:17 PM
Oh and before the hand wringers get too hysterical and start to claim we're all homophobic...the experts quoted in the original article trying to rationalize pedophillia as normal are the ones who made the link between it and gay marriage.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Eupher
01-10-2013, 03:55 PM
I have a moral duty to correct the incorrect.

:biggrin-new: Thank God. I don't know what I'd do if you weren't there to "correct" things.


Make up your mind: is it a slippery slope (ie relevant) or non sequitur (ie irrelevant) ?

definition of "slippery slope" - a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences.

definition of "non sequitur" - An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

Hmmm. I looked twice just to make sure. Nothing in either of those definitions about "relevant" or "irrelevant."

Nice try, but it's not going to work today.


How clever.

I spend my life thinking of snarky little things. I figure the least I could do is entertain you with them.


And has no more to do with the acceptance of pedophilia, child molestation, or statutory rape than heterosexuality. In fact it has less, made witness by the case of Debra Lafave. Normally I don't argue in the hypothetical, but I don't think it's speculation that had she been male regardless of good looks and charming personality would still be in prison. You certainly wouldn't have geezers on bulletin boards wondering out loud , "Where were teacher like that when I was 14?"

Hmmm. (A second "hmmm.") We have first hand evidence of the acceptance of pedophilia, according to those who are most inclined to give that opinion legitimacy -- at least to those of you who worship such things. Were you asleep when you read the OP? The shrinks in Canada can't figure out just how that happens, so they write "ACCEPT" into their bible, along with a nice little footnote that says "sexual orientation."

You know - that business of living creatures that helps one to procreate the species.

Oops. Sorry, I forgot. You don't do that. :apologetic:


Where in the article did it say that something being a "sexual orientation" meant that it got the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval?

It doesn't. But it ain't far off. It didn't take you gays but 40 years to convince everybody your desire to have sex with a member of your own sex was something approximating "normal." I have to hand it to you -- you did a great job with that.


Are you under the mistaken impression that homosexuality is legal because it's a sexual orientation? Read the court's opinion. No where does it say that laws against homosexuality are unconstitutional because it's a sexual orientation.

Nobody said anything about homosexuality being illegal. We're talking about pedophilia and how the shrinks in Canada think it's a sexual orientation (their word, not mine). Stay on topic.


That's a pretty important distinction and one which the laws of the various states generally take into account. Scientifically, it's a legitimate question why a sexually immature person is attractive to a sexually mature person. The stages older than sexual maturity are legally somewhat arbitrary lines which as the article states have and do indeed vary over time, culture, and location.

You sound like a liberal with your worship of science. :evil-grin: t's much more basic than that. It's a question of right versus wrong.

(I try to keep things simple.)


Again, you haven't demonstrated that. One of the favorite accusations against Mohammed was that he was a pedophile. In truth, he probably wasn't out of step with surrounding cultures. We don't hate Thailand, but the King of Siam had many wives. Were any of them what we would consider children? In the US we have had 12 year old brides, and in Mexico they apparently still do. We don't approve of this, but what precisely has it to do with gay rights or homosexuality? Homosexuality was a felony or a capital crime while all of this was going on.

Damn, you do love to go off topic, don't you? Nobody said anything about Mohammed, or said anything about how many wives Yul Brynner had. I don't particularly care.

But while we're on the topic, the LDS founder and Big Prophet Guy, Joseph Smith, definitely liked 'em young too. So we Americans aren't immune from pedophilia.

Which is why I'm concerned. The Canadian shrinks have thrown up their hands and have surrendered. When and how long is it going to take for American shrinks to do the same?

txradioguy
01-18-2013, 03:08 AM
And right on cue...Nova's fellow travelers at the DUmp are discussing the same article...albeit with different and not so surprising opinions on the issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022194724

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

noonwitch
01-18-2013, 09:54 AM
There is a train of thought that links all of these activities together under the heading of deviant behavior. At one point the majority of society considered homosexual behavior as aberrant but that societal view has changed. Who is to say that society doesn't change its view on pedophilia, incest and bestiality? If society does change its perspective does that mean that these activities are now acceptable? Why is incest bad today but OK tomorrow? Are right and wrong so easily transmutable now? If society decides what is right and what is wrong is there really such a thing as right and wrong or are they just fluid concepts that are determined by which way the wind is blowing?


Again, my argument is about victimization in a criminal sense. There is no victim when two consenting adults have a sexual relationship, whether they are gay or straight. Pedophiles and those who practice beastility victimize helpless people or creatures. If incest involves pedophelia or rape, it is criminally sanctioned.


The DSM serves two functions: providing a standardized tool for diagnosing mental health conditions, and providing "V-Codes" for billing insurance companies and medicaid for services to treat those conditions. If homosexuality is listed as a disorder, then insurance companies and medicaid will have to pay for therapy for every gay person in their program who seeks it.

As pedophelia is considered incurable, no insurance company nor medicaid will cover treatment for it. The purpose of putting it in the DSM is mainly for diagnostic purposes, and for prison shrinks to use for reporting purposes, as they are not billing by the case, for the most part.

FlaGator
01-18-2013, 10:52 AM
Again, my argument is about victimization in a criminal sense. There is no victim when two consenting adults have a sexual relationship, whether they are gay or straight. Pedophiles and those who practice beastility victimize helpless people or creatures. If incest involves pedophelia or rape, it is criminally sanctioned.


The DSM serves two functions: providing a standardized tool for diagnosing mental health conditions, and providing "V-Codes" for billing insurance companies and medicaid for services to treat those conditions. If homosexuality is listed as a disorder, then insurance companies and medicaid will have to pay for therapy for every gay person in their program who seeks it.

As pedophelia is considered incurable, no insurance company nor medicaid will cover treatment for it. The purpose of putting it in the DSM is mainly for diagnostic purposes, and for prison shrinks to use for reporting purposes, as they are not billing by the case, for the most part.

I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

txradioguy
01-18-2013, 11:19 AM
I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

What you are saying makes sense to normal people. But you're talking to a Lib. There are no definite lines with them...no absolutes or rights and wrongs.

Only millions of shades of gray.

You might as well be speaking Farsi to noooner for all the comprehension she'll have of what you said.

noonwitch
01-18-2013, 12:22 PM
I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.



There are the moral standards of right and wrong that one chooses to live his or her life according to, and then there are the standards of right and wrong that the community decides to sanction criminally. To make something a crime, there has to be a clear victim.

txradioguy
01-18-2013, 12:23 PM
There are the moral standards of right and wrong that one chooses to live his or her life according to, and then there are the standards of right and wrong that the community decides to sanction criminally. To make something a crime, there has to be a clear victim.

And you prove my point brilliantly. :rolleyes:

Wibbins
01-18-2013, 12:37 PM
I will pray for people that have these dark desires, I think the problem in today's society is that we eat so many things with hormones inside them that children are hitting puberty earlier than they should and subsequently they're wearing big girl clothes like form fitting pants ugh, 12 year old girls are looking like they're 16 and acting like them too.

Also, it doesn't help that liberals are wanting pre-teens to "explore their sexuality" which means if it feels good do it and do it often. This leads to a breakdown of what sex means and what place it has in society which is between a man and woman in marriage for procreation and marital bonding. Outside of this it's a selfish act only meant for short term pleasure which in turn destroys the bond that could be possible had the 2 not have been sexual active before marriage. Couple this with the notion that liberals say marriage is about "love" and we now have a generation that thinks if you "love" someone then you should have sex with them and then get married and as soon as the "love" ends then the only logical notion is that of divorce. Oh, don't worry this "love" feeling comes after the sex just like queer "love" so of course liberals then equate the 2 and that's where we have the backwards notion of same-sex "marriage".


This. is. not. coincidence. This has been planned from the very beginning, you can NOT have a socialist/communist society and a strong family unit. God impresses on my heart that this is what Satan does, since he cannot destroy God he must destroy God's Creation and what is more devastating than destroying the relationship/bond between a husband and wife which is in the image of God and His Church? Nothing.

DumbAss Tanker
01-18-2013, 01:25 PM
I will pray for people that have these dark desires, I think the problem in today's society is that we eat so many things with hormones inside them that children are hitting puberty earlier than they should and subsequently they're wearing big girl clothes like form fitting pants ugh, 12 year old girls are looking like they're 16 and acting like them too.


That and the other stuff you discuss may have a lot to do with the problem of runaway underage sex and exploitation, but it isn't really what paedophilia is about, though it's frequently misused to describe sex that simply involves someone who is sexually mature but below an arbitrary legal age limit. The paedophilia these freaks are trying to normalize is the real thing in psychiatric terms, meaning a sexual attraction to sexually-IMMATURE features of a child.

Novaheart
01-18-2013, 02:26 PM
I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

How ominous~

BTW, that's my niece you are talking about. She's bright, a math wiz, a theater major, and spends way too much money on clothes, nails and hair. She performs in serious theatrical productions and will even sing and dance as long as her mother and I aren't paying too close attention. She can drive but prefers not to. She has had a rather sheltered life, but is adjusting to a nonsheltered life quite well. I worry that she will be kidnapped off BART, not that she will jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. She grew up without a father, it's true... she and some large percentage of her peers. She also grew up in a closely knit family with her maternal grandparents, and an uncle who has been a daily part of her life in a parenting role... a level of family involvement not shared by a large percentage of her peers. She went to Quaker elementary school and was home schooled several years and is finishing at a nonscary public high school.

Exactly what is it that you think is wrong with my niece?

Edit to add:

Less confrontationally- I have never seen one of those articles or study-analysises which could reasonably be considered from an objective source. They are always either anti-gay groups trying to prove that children of gay people are messed up, or gay people trying to prove that gay parents are perfect.

I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of. They will often say things like

"Children of same parent households are more likely to experiment with drugs." (I made that up since you haven't actually cited a study)

How do they arrive at that conclusion? If 95% of the children studied (which are almost always a self selected group) are lifelong residents of San Francisco city proper and New York city proper then they should be compared to children of heterosexual couples who live in the same city and demographic. Unless you do that, then you could also determine that the children of San Francisco are more likely to experiment with drugs because they are more likely to eat tofu and soy milk on a weekly basis.

A habit of the anti-gay groups is to compare self selected gay groups to unrelated or normed heterosexual groups. A classic case of this is when they use San Francisco stats for gay men and compare them to national numbers for presumably heterosexual men or "population as a whole". As I often say, using SF stats is like counting drunks in a bar to determine alcoholism rates. The numbers out of San Francisco aren't normal for anyone. But those anti-gay groups never bother to compare the stats for heterosexuals who live there against Indiana. Guess what? If you studied heterosexuals in San Francisco in the 1980's you would have found high rates of drug use and STD's relative to Podunk as well.

FlaGator
01-18-2013, 04:08 PM
There are the moral standards of right and wrong that one chooses to live his or her life according to, and then there are the standards of right and wrong that the community decides to sanction criminally. To make something a crime, there has to be a clear victim.

You highlight the problem, there should only be one set of moral standards and everyone should be held accountable to them. To do otherwise it to venture in the the ethical desert of of moral relativism and the post-modern philosophy of post modernism that denies the existence of absolute truth.

G. K. Chesterton posed the question "If truth is relative then to what is it relative?"

If there are multiple sets of morals then whose morals win out in a conflict of morals? Does society's morals trump the individual's morals? If a society's moral win out then what happens when the morals of two society's clash (example: western morality vs. Islamic morality)? In a war of values does might make right? If Islamic values triumph then are all the western morals proven to be immoral? Has same homosexuality gone from being morally acceptable to an immoral act punishable by death because Islamic views are implemented at the point of a sword (or an AK-47)?

FlaGator
01-18-2013, 04:24 PM
How ominous~

BTW, that's my niece you are talking about. She's bright, a math wiz, a theater major, and spends way too much money on clothes, nails and hair. She performs in serious theatrical productions and will even sing and dance as long as her mother and I aren't paying too close attention. She can drive but prefers not to. She has had a rather sheltered life, but is adjusting to a nonsheltered life quite well. I worry that she will be kidnapped off BART, not that she will jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. She grew up without a father, it's true... she and some large percentage of her peers. She also grew up in a closely knit family with her maternal grandparents, and an uncle who has been a daily part of her life in a parenting role... a level of family involvement not shared by a large percentage of her peers. She went to Quaker elementary school and was home schooled several years and is finishing at a nonscary public high school.

Exactly what is it that you think is wrong with my niece?

Edit to add:

Less confrontationally- I have never seen one of those articles or study-analysises which could reasonably be considered from an objective source. They are always either anti-gay groups trying to prove that children of gay people are messed up, or gay people trying to prove that gay parents are perfect.

I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of. They will often say things like

"Children of same parent households are more likely to experiment with drugs." (I made that up since you haven't actually cited a study)

How do they arrive at that conclusion? If 95% of the children studied (which are almost always a self selected group) are lifelong residents of San Francisco city proper and New York city proper then they should be compared to children of heterosexual couples who live in the same city and demographic. Unless you do that, then you could also determine that the children of San Francisco are more likely to experiment with drugs because they are more likely to eat tofu and soy milk on a weekly basis.

A habit of the anti-gay groups is to compare self selected gay groups to unrelated or normed heterosexual groups. A classic case of this is when they use San Francisco stats for gay men and compare them to national numbers for presumably heterosexual men or "population as a whole". As I often say, using SF stats is like counting drunks in a bar to determine alcoholism rates. The numbers out of San Francisco aren't normal for anyone. But those anti-gay groups never bother to compare the stats for heterosexuals who live there against Indiana. Guess what? If you studied heterosexuals in San Francisco in the 1980's you would have found high rates of drug use and STD's relative to Podunk as well.

I will indulge the thread jack for a moment:

Your statement: I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of.

Therein lies the problem. I suspect that you will only approve a methodology that validates you pre-conceived notions. Before you get all defensive I am probably also guilty of this.

I never said there was anything wrong with your niece. Is there something wrong with here or is this another straw man?

The other issue with your post was that I was not addressing the validity of the studies on same sex parents. I suspected before you even posted that this would be what you would comment on instead of participating in the larger topic of whether acts between consenting adults have repercussions beyond the consenting parties.

Novaheart
01-18-2013, 05:07 PM
I will indulge the thread jack for a moment:

Your statement: I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of.

Therein lies the problem. I suspect that you will only approve a methodology that validates you pre-conceived notions. Before you get all defensive I am probably also guilty of this. .

I already showed what I would approve. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare the children of same sex couples to those of heterosexual couples, or children of a gay parent to children of a straight parent that's fine. Good information is at most harmless. But it would only make sense to try to compare samples as otherwise similar as possible. There is an economic and philosophical difference between people who move to the sticks when they have kids and people who stay in the city when they have kids. Wouldn't you agree?





I never said there was anything wrong with your niece. Is there something wrong with here or is this another straw man?


Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

Sorry, I missed the qualifier "some studies". I have no doubt that some studies show that. Any that might have the signature of the Family Research Institute, American Family Association, the LDS Church , Mark Regnerus, or Paul Cameron aren't going to be taken seriously. I have been debunking these kinds of studies for decades. I will say that while the blatant bias goes unchecked, the style has improved. I'm still stunned when otherwise intelligent people quote them.


The other issue with your post was that I was not addressing the validity of the studies on same sex parents. I suspected before you even posted that this would be what you would comment on instead of participating in the larger topic of whether acts between consenting adults have repercussions beyond the consenting parties.

If a person wanted to waste the time and money, he could easily prove that heterosexuals should not be having or raising children. Our prisons are full of the children of heterosexual relationships.

FlaGator
01-18-2013, 05:14 PM
I already showed what I would approve. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare the children of same sex couples to those of heterosexual couples, or children of a gay parent to children of a straight parent that's fine. Good information is at most harmless. But it would only make sense to try to compare samples as otherwise similar as possible. There is an economic and philosophical difference between people who move to the sticks when they have kids and people who stay in the city when they have kids. Wouldn't you agree?





Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

Sorry, I missed the qualifier "some studies". I have no doubt that some studies show that. Any that might have the signature of the Family Research Institute, American Family Association, the LDS Church , Mark Regnerus, or Paul Cameron aren't going to be taken seriously. I have been debunking these kinds of studies for decades. I will say that while the blatant bias goes unchecked, the style has improved. I'm still stunned when otherwise intelligent people quote them.



If a person wanted to waste the time and money, he could easily prove that heterosexuals should not be having or raising children. Our prisons are full of the children of heterosexual relationships.

If that read "some heterosexuals" then I would agree with the statement. As it stands that statement is totally deserving of ridicule.

You still haven't addressed the larger issue of moral relativity

noonwitch
01-22-2013, 05:12 PM
You highlight the problem, there should only be one set of moral standards and everyone should be held accountable to them. To do otherwise it to venture in the the ethical desert of of moral relativism and the post-modern philosophy of post modernism that denies the existence of absolute truth.

G. K. Chesterton posed the question "If truth is relative then to what is it relative?"

If there are multiple sets of morals then whose morals win out in a conflict of morals? Does society's morals trump the individual's morals? If a society's moral win out then what happens when the morals of two society's clash (example: western morality vs. Islamic morality)? In a war of values does might make right? If Islamic values triumph then are all the western morals proven to be immoral? Has same homosexuality gone from being morally acceptable to an immoral act punishable by death because Islamic views are implemented at the point of a sword (or an AK-47)?


Again, you are making an argument for "morals". I am making an argument for what should be the law of the land, in a nation of many faiths, but with a secular government charged with protecting the rights of all.

How do you decide whose morals prevail and become enshrined as the law? That's why we have a representative democracy, and that is why the laws of the USA are ever-changing even if God's law remains the same. Most Americans don't consider gays to be evil criminals anymore , and the changes in the law reflect that. A similar change is slowly being enacted regarding the possession of marijuana.

It ultimately comes down to victims, when it comes to the law. If there is no victim, there is no crime. That's pretty much what people think these days and want the laws to reflect. And, with a representative democracy, that's what they get.