Heartland

James Blast wrote:urges, irresistible urges, so yes a child is born that way

Indeed, we all have urges (see the Gods and Goddesses thread for details)... I just wonder what it is that perverts and mangles some people's urges so badly

Not expecting an answer anytime soon though - I only hope that one day the roots of this problem are better understood, above all so that more can be done to protect kids. I'll step out of this one now, it exhausts me to talk and think about stuff like this still... Good that people on here manage to talk about such an emotive subject like adults though, you wouldn't get that many places.

Hom_Corleone wrote:..and news just in...He is on the plane home. Due in at 0700.

Arse, missed him

What a bunch of clever peeps (seriously!) Obviously I am on one side of the fence but some of your posts are well thought out-not changing my mind though.

It's nice that we can all agree to disagree on this one. It mortifies me that we live in a world were this is rampant, and thanks to the very thing that keeps us connected is still growing.

Anyhoo I could go on but I'll go off on one and be really serious-and who wants that?

My last post makes it look like I've thrown my toys out of the pram.

Not, honest.

weebleswobble wrote:It's nice that we can all agree to disagree on this one.

is what I was trying to say.

I've been thinking it over, and in a hypothetical situation:

Person A sexually abuses person B's child.
Person B kills Person A.
Person B on trial for murder admits killing person A but pleads not guilty on grounds of provocation.

I don't think there's a jury in the world would vote to convict. Including me.

Who the f**k would put you on a jury?

mrs fiend has been on one, so you never know.

A thought for the parents: What if it was your child who grew up to be the adult? Not acting upon it, just being vilified for an urge they could control but didn't choose.

Child abuse is unquestionably reprehensible, but for every child abused, someone else's child was the abuser. I can't help but wonder if the situation would be better if we made a much stronger distinction between paedophile and abuser.

What if society opened up to the fact that some people do feel that way and gave them a route out (be it medicinal, psychological - humane, anyhow) before they ended up at that place? Not praising, not condemning, but acknowledging and responding.

For a truly good person who feels such things and would never act upon it, I can only imagine that the world is an extremely terrifying place - as much as for your average parent.

Motz wrote:What if society opened up to the fact that some people do feel that way and gave them a route out (be it medicinal, psychological - humane, anyhow)

The same route out as at a slaughterhouse, a bolt between the eyes, it's no more than they'd deserve.

boudicca wrote:

James Blast wrote:urges, irresistible urges, so yes a child is born that way

Indeed, we all have urges (see the Gods and Goddesses thread for details)... I just wonder what it is that perverts and mangles some people's urges so badly

It's them things going *PRZZZT!!* and *BRTZOINKS!* in the human attic, Claire...

The same that give us geniuses in science and arts, sadly enough...

IZ.

Andy Christ 666 wrote:

Motz wrote:What if society opened up to the fact that some people do feel that way and gave them a route out (be it medicinal, psychological - humane, anyhow)

The same route out as at a slaughterhouse, a bolt between the eyes, it's no more than they'd deserve.

If we're going to declare all paedophiles to be child abusers, does that make all men rapists?

Motz wrote:If we're going to declare all paedophiles to be child abusers, does that make all men rapists?

If a person (females can be paedophiles too) has sexual thoughts about children (under 16 imo) then they are a risk/threat to children and should be removed from the public.
In answer to the 'does that make all men rapists?' question, no as the majority of men have a thing called self control.
Rapists and paedophiles should not be allowed to exist in society, locking them up costs hundreds of thousands of tax payers money per year.
Lethal injection would be a cost effetive and humane way to deal with them, as well as being a warning/deterrent to all 'would be' rapists and paedophiles.

Andy Christ 666 wrote:In answer to the 'does that make all men rapists?' question, no as the majority of men have a thing called self control.

Last I checked the definition of paedophile mentioned nothing about self-control. Why should one be more vulnerable to a sexual desire for a child than for an adult? It's a ridiculous premise which follows from nothing, as far as I can tell.

Rapists and paedophiles should not be allowed to exist in society, locking them up costs hundreds of thousands of tax payers money per year.
Lethal injection would be a cost effetive and humane way to deal with them, as well as being a warning/deterrent to all 'would be' rapists and paedophiles.

What the hell is a "would be" paedophile?

Did you just ignore my previous post when quoting it? Paedophiles and child abusers are vastly different things whatever your thoughts on the inevitability of one becoming another. If you're referring to a person who has abused children, then you are talking about a child abuser, not just a paedophile.

Motz wrote:

Andy Christ 666 wrote:In answer to the 'does that make all men rapists?' question, no as the majority of men have a thing called self control.

Last I checked the definition of paedophile mentioned nothing about self-control. Why should one be more vulnerable to a sexual desire for a child than for an adult? It's a ridiculous premise which follows from nothing, as far as I can tell.

Rapists and paedophiles should not be allowed to exist in society, locking them up costs hundreds of thousands of tax payers money per year.
Lethal injection would be a cost effetive and humane way to deal with them, as well as being a warning/deterrent to all 'would be' rapists and paedophiles.

What the hell is a "would be" paedophile?

Did you just ignore my previous post when quoting it? Paedophiles and child abusers are vastly different things whatever your thoughts on the inevitability of one becoming another. If you're referring to a person who has abused children, then you are talking about a child abuser, not just a paedophile.

The self control comment was in answer to your 'does that make all men rapists?' question, nowt to do with paedophiles.
You've misinterpeted my post, it was meant as 'would be rapists as well as paedophiles'.
No, I did'nt ignore your previous post, I read it, quoted it and gave my opinion.
I know paedophiles and child abusers are different, paedophillia is sexual abuse, whereas child abuse can be phsyical harm, psychological harm or both.

walk away, now

please

Andy Christ 666 wrote:I know paedophiles and child abusers are different

Correct so far

Andy Christ 666 wrote:paedophillia is sexual abuse

Actually it isn't. Paedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children

I know where Motz is coming from. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder. Not all paedophiles act on their urges and become abusers. That's where the 'are all men rapists' thing came from. Do you see?

Apols if I'm wrong Motz, but that's how I interpreted what you said.

I think a cart went before a horse somewhere around post #84
but many excellent points made in post #81 Mike

I thankee

DerekR wrote:

Andy Christ 666 wrote:paedophillia is sexual abuse

Actually it isn't. Paedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

I know that sexual preference is psychological, you can't choose what sexuality you are, but being straight or gay is'nt a risk to children.

DerekR wrote:I know where Motz is coming from. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder. Not all paedophiles act on their urges and become abusers. That's where the 'are all men rapists' thing came from. Do you see?

I do see, but put it this way, if you found out that a member of your family or a friend had a 'sexual preference for prepubesent children' but had'nt acted on their impulses,
would/could you stand to be around them or would you have nothing else to do with them? I know I could'nt.

James, I'll would've walked away if my first few comments/opinions were respected rather than disected.
If peoples opinions differ to mine that's their choice,
*I'll respect their choice to be wrong.*

*light hearted joke, no offence should be taken.*

Andy Christ 666 wrote:

DerekR wrote:

Andy Christ 666 wrote:paedophillia is sexual abuse

Actually it isn't. Paedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

I know that sexual preference is psychological, you can't choose what sexuality you are, but being straight or gay is'nt a risk to children.

OK bored or not, I'm really not getting drawn into this any further. You incorrectly stated above that paedophilia by definition was sexual abuse, I corrected you. Nobody mentioned anything about being gay/straight so I have absolutely no idea where you are going with that.

Andy your 'bolt to the head' comment needs no dissecting, it's mob rule - a person is proved guilty when they 'don't float', get the picture?

You corrected me DerekR and I stand corrected.

Andy Christ 666 wrote:I know that sexual preference is psychological, you can't choose what sexuality you are, but being straight or gay is'nt a risk to children.

The above meant exactly what it stated, ie agreeing that you can't choose your sexual orientation, nothing more, nothing less.

Ah, you're refering to a 'witch hunt' James, no, I meant if someone is proven to be a paedophile who has molested/raped a child, then they should given the death penalty rather than spend a few years in prison, then sign on to a sex offenders register, where there will be a risk of them offending again.

but prove it

I see where you're coming from, but I would want absolute proof before I gave that judgement, even then I would doubt if man walked on the Moon

I think I hate society rising up in an ugly force more than I hate crims, this is my burden, but I really get the fear when an innocent man (and they are usually men) gets 'removed' by society. Paul Raven/Gadd/Glitter has proved he is not repentant nor willing to seek help, he deserves our scorn.
The story of Neds/Chavs burning a paediatrists really made me see just how knobheaded mob rule can be.
I believe a person can be rehabilitated, these heinous crimes need to be addressed. I also do not believe in second chances, so go argue that one...

I do not have the answers

as Phil Oakey sang "I'm only human... flesh and blood, a man"

James Blast wrote:but prove it

I see where you're coming from, but I would want absolute proof before I gave that judgement, even then I would doubt if man walked on the Moon

Of course, the proof would need to be 100% correct before action was taken and only when proven.

I'm pretty sure man did'nt walk on the moon though, it was filmed in the desert in area 51 alledgedly.

sorry Andy, I went off on one and edited/added to it again

James Blast wrote:sorry Andy, I went off on one and edited/added to it again

No need to appologise, it's a valid edit/add on.
How many times does the press wrongly name someone as a rapist/paedo on the front page only to retract it a week later on page 22 in a 2 sentence piece that nobody reads?
The damage already is done, the person has been hounded out of their home or worse by a mob even though they've been innocent all along.
It is worrying to think that some people revert to neanderthal thinking just because someone is 'thought' to be guilty.

Andy Christ 666 wrote:I'm pretty sure man did'nt walk on the moon though, it was filmed in the desert in area 51 alledgedly.

Off Topic but they did. Moon landing "hoax" theory has about as much foundation as flat-earthism. I've started another topic about it if you want.

Back on topic:

James Blast wrote:I think I hate society rising up in an ugly force more than I hate crims, this is my burden, but I really get the fear when an innocent man (and they are usually men) gets 'removed' by society.

That.

Anyone who is in favour of the death penalty, had it been in force they would have executed Stefan Kisco (spelling? ), the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, Barry George, need I go on?