Governor Matthew Blunt of Missouri, USA wants to kill people who forcibly rape children. At the root of Governor Blunt's problem is that violent solutions to problems shut out solutions that have a better chance of working. Violent solutions appeal to the lowest common denominator of thinking, which means that the thinking involved in handling the problem of sex offenses is less complex and competent than the thinking that it takes to wipe one's own backside. This makes for a penal system that is led by people who cannot truly be trusted to be housebroken. In other words, if it can be run by an idiot only an idiot would want to use it.

Here's a real solution and I do advocate it: Anyone who would rape a child might as well have sex with animals. If we're not going to leave them in jail forever or kill them, make it plain to them that they will always have this kind of sexual outlet and they can run wild with it. They can live in a trailer park and have community goats, sheep, and cattle. Every time they have the urge they will be mandated, by law, to take it out on something that is not human. People will be taught that if they have the urge to rape a child, they must run, not walk, to the nearest place where they can use a sheep. The funny thing is that a lot of people who are like this, if they could think it, would rather do anything but rape a child if they can get rid of their urge for a while. And if they get hooked on animals, then they can stay there till they rot.

I think that the game of labeling people and simply playing with them, just using them as targets for our own self-hatred and inability to properly socialized, this game has become so horribly institutionalized, so much a part of us, that most of us cannot and will not abandon that game even to prevent children from rape. Any solution that offers a way out of this game, people reject. Even if it works they will reject it because there is some minor thing wrong with it, even when that minor thing is far less troubling than the rape of a child.

Or do we actually value children less than we do animals or minor violations of morality that involve animals? We have no trouble understanding that if we had to choose between eating a pig and eating a child, we should eat the pig. If a person who is mentally unbalanced wants to force sex upon a child, he or she should go with an animal instead, just as any of us who is hungry would eat the meat of a sheep or a goat. If any of us even thinks we're going to harm a child, go out and do a cow. This practice should be protected by law.

This is serious. I don't want people going around having sex with children. I had a fucked-up childhood, and if that sounds tongue in cheek, well, I don't have a better way to say it. When I turn it around and look at how "they" advocate that we take care of such problems, I can't believe that they are serious. Give a person no sexual outlet at all then expect him to simply restrain himself? Most people can barely be trusted to wipe their asses and you can't trust them to wash their hands and understand why. People just save child molesters and cherish them as eternal targets to vent hate upon. Child molestation is actually a gift to these people, more coveted than their entire taped collection of extreme wrestling. Child molestation leads to more child molestation and more rewards for people who hate.

So give the perverts a way to vent their frustrations and to stay away from children. Like I said, most of them would do anything to stay away from children, and most of society would do anything to keep them away from children, so how about a thing that is this simple?

I'm having some difficulty teasing a real solution to the problem of child molesting out of your post. But I will agree that politically popular punitive penalties are generally going to be counterproductive. And anyone who would propose the death penalty for child molesting is either an idiot, or they really hate children. That's great, let's give the child molester a perverse incentive to murder the child when they are done. The penalty is the same, and there is less chance of being caught that way.

Thank you, Repo Man. The trouble is, I don't see another way to make an improvement right now. I think that psychopathia sexualis needs an outlet and it needs to be firmly established as a way to go, like giving simple directions to simple people. If you want to do THIS, do the OTHER THING instead, then a lot more people who have that urge will do something else instead. Even make it rewarding.

When we have reached the "what else are we going to do?" stage, we have to do some kind of mental triage. Letting them continue with no real way to divert them is worse than saying "we'll open another door and ask them to walk through it, and think of them as good people for taking responsibility."

It is not ok to rape animals. They should go to jail.

Robots. The japanese have made incredible strides in realistic "Love Dolls". They're about $6000.00 or $7000.00 a pop. And some japanese entrepeneurs are starting to rent them out.

Why not just make a law that requires they use a robot? Make them widely available.

I knew that the law did not want a real solution for the problem of child molestation after I found out that people who admit to having desires are jailed or institutionalized, when they seek help from psychiatrists.

Oh, no, of course we can't rape animals. We can shoot them and eat them, but we can't have sex with them. Get real.

I knew that the law did not want a real solution for the problem of child molestation after I found out that people who admit to having desires are jailed or institutionalized, when they seek help from psychiatrists.

Oh, no, of course we can't rape animals. We can shoot them and eat them, but we can't have sex with them. Get real.
Maybe they should shoot them, then have sex with them. Then eat them.

Bestiality/Necromancy/Dinner.

I knew that the law did not want a real solution for the problem of child molestation after I found out that people who admit to having desires are jailed or institutionalized, when they seek help from psychiatrists.

Oh, no, of course we can't rape animals. We can shoot them and eat them, but we can't have sex with them. Get real.

I don't eat or shoot animals, so that doesn't apply.

And just because you rear an animal for food does not make it ok to abuse it.

....Every time they have the urge they will be mandated, by law, to take it out on something that is not human. People will be taught that if they have the urge to rape a child, they must run, not walk, to the nearest place where they can use a sheep. ....

a sheep?! Why the hell not a prostitute? Why an animal?

a sheep?! Why the hell not a prostitute? Why an animal?

Or a robot?

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/NSFW/l01.jpg

or a robot. But isn't that more than a few years away?

or a robot. But isn't that more than a few years away?
Err... no. I can't post the links, but that pic up there? That's a fully functional love doll. They don't move or anything - yet, but they have silicone skin and other - body parts - that supposedly feel very realistic. And they come with artificial, umm... orifices. That work.

Just search on "japanese love dolls". You'll get the idea.

why would a pedophile be attracted to a child that doesn't move. Might as well be into necrophilia.

why would a pedophile be attracted to a child that doesn't move. Might as well be into necrophilia.
How should I know? It was just an idea. Why why would a pedophile be attracted to sheep?

I can't believe I'm actually debating the possible solutions to child molesting as consisting of sheep and robots.

Sheesh.

Governor Matthew Blunt of Missouri, USA wants to kill people who forcibly rape children. ...

I think it should be a death penalty offense as well. I don't care about these men, I care about the children.

I think it should be a death penalty offense as well. I don't care about these men, I care about the children.

Am I on your ignore list or something?

And anyone who would propose the death penalty for child molesting is either an idiot, or they really hate children. That's great, let's give the child molester a perverse incentive to murder the child when they are done. The penalty is the same, and there is less chance of being caught that way.

well then I'm an idiot. I still want them dead.

well then I'm an idiot. I still want them dead.

Satisfying your punitive urge is so important that you would be willing to see more children get murdered?

a sheep?! Why the hell not a prostitute? Why an animal?

Cheaper? Let them have whatever it is they want from a living being that we accept using as meat.

I'm sick of every solution being "unacceptable" while we can't actually protect children from most molesters. Let a solution be acceptable that can actually be advertised as virtuous, as in "animal love" or whatever.

I know it's not a good solution, but men are often treated as molestation suspects when they have no urge whatsoever. What if society knew that most people who wanted to do children went with animals, without advertising it? What is almost all of the molestation simply vanished overnight? A bad solution, if this is bad, is better than solutions that seem to actually aggravate the problem.

I suggest a lobotomy.

An animal? Aren't you aware that the animal would also suffer?


There is one solution to all major crime (obviously not over stolen candy): brutal punishment and execution with an effective police force authorized to use deadly force if they confirm that their target is indeed the criminal. No criminal would get away, let alone think about committing crimes.

Of course, this applies to things like major theft (bank or auto for instance) or murder or rape.

How should I know? It was just an idea. Why why would a pedophile be attracted to sheep?

I can't believe I'm actually debating the possible solutions to child molesting as consisting of sheep and robots.

Sheesh.

We live in an era in which we have been wrestling with the problem of child molestation, with the tools of science, for over fifty years and are actually farther away from a solution than we were before. Actual working programs have been canceled due to lack of funding, brains, or both. When people actually equate dalliances with 14 year old girls, which was once a standard pattern of courtship before marriage, with rape of children, we're already screwed pretty badly. Lowest common denominator thinking and behavior, you know. Most of the people who participate in this mess might as well be sleeping with sheep.

I would far rather that Uncle Perv thinks, every time he thinks "I'm going to tap my 14 year old niece", that instead "I can do it with an animal in private and not have to worry about anyone bothering me." And then if he thinks that there's a lot to be said for not doing teenagers, like they don't smell so good, they have messed up personal habits, and after all, it's a teenager, then he's pulling away from this god-awful child molestation.

But hey, if the general pubic doesn't want to give up the child molestation game, who am I to try to change it? Maybe someone who thinks that instead of throwing stuff at child molesters, we should actually stop the molestation? Maybe we should let people know before they commit a crime that they can get help and sexual relief? Maybe we can find out how many of these people want something, they don't know what, but it has to be living and they don't want to put their stuff in a teenage girl either. I know damn well I don't want my haploid chromosomes even as close as the next room.

Why throw rocks at them anyway? Science knows that there is a lot in the natural makeup of any animal that involved on Earth that causes tendencies to rape and of course to have sex with recently sexually mature animals, or to simply just do anything in sight. I think that the people who say "you can't do that!" are usually just mean. There is a difference. If it were for the benefit of the children we would have already seen a lot of success in whatever programs are being used.

I'm with Norsefire. If the convicted person is proven guilty, then an automatic execution (preferably public) shall take place. In the case of very gruesome rape/murder cases, torture should be used beforehand.

An animal? Aren't you aware that the animal would also suffer?


There is one solution to all major crime (obviously not over stolen candy): brutal punishment and execution with an effective police force authorized to use deadly force if they confirm that their target is indeed the criminal. No criminal would get away, let alone think about committing crimes.

Of course, this applies to things like major theft (bank or auto for instance) or murder or rape.

I think that I would rather see your hypothetical police force dying en masse in extreme pain. It's one thing that is actually worse than child molestation. It helps keep countries retarded and backward.

What makes you think that the animal would suffer?

I suggest a lobotomy.

Any real science behind that?

For that matter, is there any real science behind the idea that child molestation is that bad for children? Or is it the usual stuff that we get when scientists are only permitted to give the answers that they are told to give?

I'm with Norsefire. If the convicted person is proven guilty, then an automatic execution (preferably public) shall take place. In the case of very gruesome rape/murder cases, torture should be used beforehand.

If you manage this, could you manage to put me at the head of the line to die? I don't want to live in your world.

I am a decent human being and I have been forced to witness atrocities performed by people who wouldn't make decent institutionalized retards, who regard those atrocities as representative of the height of civilized thinking. It has sapped my will to live.

I was being facetious.

IMO, brutal punishment does not work, incarceration does not work, the system of legal accountability that we have is inadequate and pointless.

Child abuse is a real problem and we must look for better solutions to this problem. But abusing animals is not a solution, it is just a deferment of the problem.

Effects of abuse?

Children become confused, cannot understand the situation, become sexualised, maladjusted, anti-social and self-destructuve.

I'm with Norsefire. If the convicted person is proven guilty, then an automatic execution (preferably public) shall take place. In the case of very gruesome rape/murder cases, torture should be used beforehand.

I disagree. When you take the step of torturing and executing a man for crime, you lose your humanity. We are better than this.

What do you mean "how is the animal suffering"? He is being molested. So children who are molested don't suffer? According to that reasoning, why even bother to stop it? Of course they suffer!



And how is the police force worse than child molestation: let's see

Ideal police force

+effective at stopping crime
+punishing those who deserve it
+making people think twice about committing crime
+stopping crime before it happens


child molestation

-children getting violated
-children getting scarred for life
OR

-animals getting violated

I was being facetious.

IMO, brutal punishment does not work, incarceration does not work, the system of legal accountability that we have is inadequate and pointless.

Child abuse is a real problem and we must look for better solutions to this problem. But abusing animals is not a solution, it is just a deferment of the problem.

Effects of abuse?

Children become confused, cannot understand the situation, become sexualised, maladjusted, anti-social and self-destructuve.

If you can make animals permanent sexual outlets for child molesters, then the children are saved. What are we going to do, try to have it both ways and just let the children be molested while we are too squeamish to let it happen to animals?

Chemical castration.

I disagree. When you take the step of torturing and executing a man for crime, you lose your humanity. We are better than this.

It depends. For a crime? It also depends. For a severe crime? Of course you don't lose your humanity! It's called justice. That criminal lost his humanity; that criminal scarred and horrified and created tragedy for another individual: he deserves his punishment, no matter how brutal.

It depends. For a crime? It also depends. For a severe crime? Of course you don't lose your humanity! It's called justice. That criminal lost his humanity; that criminal scarred and horrified and created tragedy for another individual: he deserves his punishment, no matter how brutal.

So now we do exactly the same thing and we're just having a go at it ourselves.

Your victim has no reason to try to rejoin society after that and "society" looks really bad to sensible people.

If you can make animals permanent sexual outlets for child molesters, then the children are saved. What are we going to do, try to have it both ways and just let the children be molested while we are too squeamish to let it happen to animals?

No, because you aren't focusing on the root of the issue: the child molesters themselves. Both the animals and children can be spared if only the disgusting pedophiles are slain, brutal in fashion the way they deserve it, and to prevent any more crime. Seriously, my proposition is a win-win deal. The children win, the animals win, society wins, the criminals lose.

I disagree. When you take the step of torturing and executing a man for crime, you lose your humanity. We are better than this.

What humanity is left when a child has been raped? The only solution to people who have transgressed all limits of possible forgiveness is death. I think your problem is that you value life too much. If one violates or ends another person's life, then he has no right to live. Besides, are you more likely to commit a crime in your world or mine? Look no further than global statistics when it comes to passive laws regarding these types of barbaric crimes.

So now we do exactly the same thing and we're just having a go at it ourselves.

Your victim has no reason to try to rejoin society after that and "society" looks really bad to sensible people.

How are we doing the same thing? Look, let me point it out: we are punishing the man who made a child's life hell, that is bad?


With such a strong police force, who is the victim? The criminals, as they should be.

It depends. For a crime? It also depends. For a severe crime? Of course you don't lose your humanity! It's called justice. That criminal lost his humanity; that criminal scarred and horrified and created tragedy for another individual: he deserves his punishment, no matter how brutal.

There is a difference between a desire to reduce crime and the desire to punish an individual for committing it.

IMO and from what we see in the world, punishment does not work to reduce crime, the reverse, because a threat of punishment makes the criminal more extreme. A man who kidnaps a child is more likely to kill him/her if he anticipates a severe punishment. So your method would result in more dead children, not less child abuse.

Any real science behind that?

For that matter, is there any real science behind the idea that child molestation is that bad for children? Or is it the usual stuff that we get when scientists are only permitted to give the answers that they are told to give?
Clearly "child molestation" is worse than anything you could ever do. Hell. We glorify murderers in novels, song, and movies. Bank robbers. Organized crime. Drug dealing. When was the last time you saw Antonio Banderas play the suave, debonair, smart-talking child molester on the run from the cops? Missed that one, did you? Me too.

Anyway, the idea that a kid could consent to any such thing is also absurd. Right? And the next time any parent accidentally catches their young son or daughter having mini orgasms with themselves, the kid should be executed for molesting themselves.

Right?

What humanity is left when a child has been raped? The only solution to people who have transgressed all limits of possible forgiveness is death. I think your problem is that you value life too much. If one violates or ends another person's life, then he has no right to live. Besides, would you rather commit a crime in your world or mine? Look no further than global statistics when it comes to passive laws regarding these types of barbaric crimes.

I couldn't agree more. When such a criminal does such an inhumane, disgusting thing as rape an innocent child, scarring them for life! OF course they deserve only the most brutal punishment.

What humanity is left when a child has been raped? The only solution to people who have transgressed all limits of possible forgiveness is death. I think your problem is that you value life too much. If one violates or ends another person's life, then he has no right to live. Besides, are you more likely to commit a crime in your world or mine? Look no further than global statistics when it comes to passive laws regarding these types of barbaric crimes.

I am definitely more likely to commit a crime in your world.

I couldn't agree more. When such a criminal does such an inhumane, disgusting thing as rape an innocent child, scarring them for life! OF course they deserve only the most brutal punishment.
Yep. The more brutal the better. Right?

What humanity is left when a child has been raped? The only solution to people who have transgressed all limits of possible forgiveness is death. I think your problem is that you value life too much. If one violates or ends another person's life, then he has no right to live. Besides, are you more likely to commit a crime in your world or mine? Look no further than global statistics when it comes to passive laws regarding these types of barbaric crimes.

Do give me an example of a place where proactive punishment results in reduced crime.

There is a difference between a desire to reduce crime and the desire to punish an individual for committing it.

IMO and from what we see in the world, punishment does not work to reduce crime, the reverse, because a threat of punishment makes the criminal more extreme. A man who kidnaps a child is more likely to kill him/her if he anticipates a severe punishment. So your method would result in more dead children, not less child abuse.

Both desires are in one: make the criminal think twice.



Punishment does not work when it is as such as passive as that in the United States. But a brutal punishment, an effective police force authorized to use deadly force if necessary, then where would that man be? He wouldn't even kidnap the child in the first place.

Yep. The more brutal the better. Right?

Of course, concerning crimes that are as vile and evil as murder, or especially rape.

Both desires are in one: make the criminal think twice.



Punishment does not work when it is as such as passive as that in the United States. But a brutal punishment, an effective police force authorized to use deadly force if necessary, then where would that man be? He wouldn't even kidnap the child in the first place.

This is all imaginary presupposition. None of it reflects reality.

Both desires are in one: make the criminal think twice.



Punishment does not work when it is as such as passive as that in the United States. But a brutal punishment, an effective police force authorized to use deadly force if necessary, then where would that man be? He wouldn't even kidnap the child in the first place.
The punishment for horse theiving and cattle rustling in the early american west was death.

Horse theivery and cattle rustling remianed rampant and the perpetrators were some of the most violent people alive.

....is there any real science behind the idea that child molestation is that bad for children? ...

SERIOUSLY?! :eek:

Do give me an example of a place where proactive punishment results in reduced crime.

M.E.

Anything else you'd like to add?

How are we doing the same thing? Look, let me point it out: we are punishing the man who made a child's life hell, that is bad?


With such a strong police force, who is the victim? The criminals, as they should be.

You haven't the slightest idea how to heal a child after such trauma, do you? You also don't believe the ones who say that they weren't traumatized, I am sure.

There is a lot of stupid stuff that goes on in the so-called normal course of a child's life that is also scarring, and we single out sex to be worse than the continual abuse of the type that I and millions of others did suffer. Over and over again, on a continuing basis, deliberately, my body and my hopes for a future were used as weapons against me to inflict as much pain against me as several people could figure out how to do. I also saw this done to several others in the same small class, so I am speaking about there abuse, too. Being raped would have been more like a change of pace. It is well established, also, that the response of a child's caretakers helps make the negative effects on the child a lot worse. Who do we blame, the person who inflicted the wound, or the person who poured salt and excrement into the wound afterward?

And, no, I don't believe that it is abusive for humans to have sex with animals if they can do it without physical harm to either party. Animals do it rough. They play rough with each other. Many of them have much larger penises than humans do. They won't "suffer."

This is all imaginary presupposition. None of it reflects reality.

The reality is, or at least would be using common sense, is that any man would be deterred from committing crime if he knew what terrible punishment await. And secondly, with an effective police force authorized to use deadly force, I'd say alot of criminals would be stopped in their tracks while making drug trades, robbing a bank, etc

And who's to say it wouldn't work with rape? It would, far more than "27 years for the rapist" like it is today. I think a rapist would fear brutal torture and execution more than 27 years. And I think should the rapist be seen, and confirmed, he would be taken out with much more ease by simply shooting him to pieces rather than chasing him for hours and days.

SERIOUSLY?! :eek:

Seriously. When was a sober scientific evaluation done?

...I would far rather that Uncle Perv thinks, every time he thinks "I'm going to tap my 14 year old niece", that instead "I can do it with an animal in private and not have to worry about anyone bothering me." ....

Since when are pedophiles attracted to animals? That will not stop the sexual urge to rape a child.
That's like telling a straight guy to have sex with another man. Its not what he wants.

The punishment for horse theiving and cattle rustling in the early american west was death.

Horse theivery and cattle rustling remianed rampant and the perpetrators were some of the most violent people alive.

Well sure, but where was the effective police force? Remember, they are also vital to the strategy against crime.

Both desires are in one: make the criminal think twice.



Punishment does not work when it is as such as passive as that in the United States. But a brutal punishment, an effective police force authorized to use deadly force if necessary, then where would that man be? He wouldn't even kidnap the child in the first place.

It really is a shame that all of the criminologists in the world have never thought of this. Crime solved.

May we hear your solution to wars and famines next please?

The punishment for horse theiving and cattle rustling in the early american west was death.

Horse theivery and cattle rustling remianed rampant and the perpetrators were some of the most violent people alive.

Damn straight.

I want violence out of the equation.

Seriously. When was a sober scientific evaluation done?
How would you propose to conduct such a study?

The reality is, or at least would be using common sense, is that any man would be deterred from committing crime if he knew what terrible punishment await. And secondly, with an effective police force authorized to use deadly force, I'd say alot of criminals would be stopped in their tracks while making drug trades, robbing a bank, etc

And who's to say it wouldn't work with rape? It would, far more than "27 years for the rapist" like it is today. I think a rapist would fear brutal torture and execution more than 27 years. And I think should the rapist be seen, and confirmed, he would be taken out with much more ease by simply shooting him to pieces rather than chasing him for hours and days.

Ha! Like I said, imaginary presupposition.

In the real world, brutal punishments make the crimes more brutal and the criminal more violent.

Since when are pedophiles attracted to animals? That will not stop the sexual urge to rape a child.
That's like telling a straight guy to have sex with another man. Its not what he wants.

We can find out how many can be satisfied using a warm hole that is readily available. I want to take children out of the equation.

Maybe assisted suicide is an answer but I'm not all that sure that even a consensual death is a better answer than diverting the sex drive.

You haven't the slightest idea how to heal a child after such trauma, do you? You also don't believe the ones who say that they weren't traumatized, I am sure.

There is a lot of stupid stuff that goes on in the so-called normal course of a child's life that is also scarring, and we single out sex to be worse than the continual abuse of the type that I and millions of others did suffer. Over and over again, on a continuing basis, deliberately, my body and my hopes for a future were used as weapons against me to inflict as much pain against me as several people could figure out how to do. I also saw this done to several others in the same small class, so I am speaking about there abuse, too. Being raped would have been more like a change of pace. It is well established, also, that the response of a child's caretakers helps make the negative effects on the child a lot worse. Who do we blame, the person who inflicted the wound, or the person who poured salt and excrement into the wound afterward?

And, no, I don't believe that it is abusive for humans to have sex with animals if they can do it without physical harm to either party. Animals do it rough. They play rough with each other. Many of them have much larger penises than humans do. They won't "suffer."

This isn't about the child right now, it's about the criminal. I don't know how to deal with the child, but since when are the children the topic of this discussion? Anyway, for the people who do know how to deal with the traumatized children, let them do their job

And let the police do theirs to the disgusting piece of shit that would rape an innocent child, let the police make that man regret his action and punish him severely for it, and let's see if he repeats, if he indeed gets the chance to. Let's see a bank robber or drug dealer attempt to commit their crimes when they know that at any moment an AK47 clip will be unloaded on them by a brave, vigilant police guard.

It really is a shame that all of the criminologists in the world have never thought of this. Crime solved.

May we hear your solution to wars and famines next please?

Okay, so you DON'T think that a police force should be heavily armed and authorized with deadly force, and disgusting criminals of this nature should be brutally punished?

...let the police make that man regret...
Or woman...

Ha! Like I said, imaginary presupposition.

In the real world, brutal punishments make the crimes more brutal and the criminal more violent.

Like I said, it would more than likely reduce crime far more than the American form of policing.

Ha! Like I said, imaginary presupposition.

In the real world, brutal punishments make the crimes more brutal and the criminal more violent.

Let me guess: we should learn to love the murderers and rapists.

Where do you live? Give someone an inch, and they will most certainly take a mile. An ironfist approach is the only way to stop (or at least, lower) these types of crime.

Or woman...

Yes, or woman, but I said man because like "mankind" to represent any human being.

Okay, so you DON'T think that a police force should be heavily armed and authorized with deadly force, and disgusting criminals of this nature should be brutally punished?
What country do you live in? The police have no authority to judge anyone. Ever heard of due process? Trials? Evidence?

How would you propose to conduct such a study?

First, when was a study done that proves any of the contentions made by the mob?

Use real evaluations, double-blind, of children who were involved in sexual activities versus those who were not. Revisit Kinsey's work and see if anything can be salvaged from that. Use proper control groups and try to find some measure of sanity, emotional stability, or whatever, that doesn't make an issue of sex. Do something about the contamination of the subjects under study by all of the group sexual neuroses that we have.

Let me guess: we should learn to love the murderers and rapists.

Where do you live? Give someone an inch, and they will most certainly take a mile. An ironfist approach is the only way to stop (or at least, lower) these types of crime.

Before they were murderers and rapists they were someone's child.

Let me guess: we should learn to love the murderers and rapists.

Where do you live? Give someone an inch, and they will most certainly take a mile. An ironfist approach is the only way to stop (or at least, lower) these types of crime.

And there you go, at least Kadark understands. So, SAM, should we learn to just "get along" with those vile pieces of human filth? Or should we do our damn best to stop them and punish them?

Before they were murderers and rapists they were someone's child.

Sure, and now they are murderers and rapists.

What country do you live in? The police have no authority to judge anyone. Ever heard of due process? Trials? Evidence?

Nor do they in the ideal police force. Remember, I stated clearly "if the police force confirm that their target is indeed the criminal"

Evidence and trials are not needed. Only cases that require detective work should need such. But if a police guard PLAINLY spots the bank robber, without a doubt in his head, what should stop him from justice?

And there you go, at least Kadark understands. So, SAM, should we learn to just "get along" with those vile pieces of human filth? Or should we do our damn best to stop them and punish them?

They call us crazy, but they themselves would prefer to see rapists and murderers freely walk the streets.

And there you go, at least Kadark understands. So, SAM, should we learn to just "get along" with those vile pieces of human filth? Or should we do our damn best to stop them and punish them?

Should we use them as an excuse to turn all civilized principles into a vicious regime that ultimately winds up destroying itself? It's stuff like this that turned a lot of places in this world into useless pestholes, not to name any particular religion because a lot of them do it. Christianity actually started to drag itself out of the mud when it stopped acting like this, and you can bet your bottom dollar that not only will child molestation go on unabated under your regime, it will take more extreme forms, will be done far more secretively, and nature will build a better mouse, meaning that we will have smarter and more evil child molesters. So have at it, but I'm going to stop you.

Let me guess: we should learn to love the murderers and rapists.

Where do you live? Give someone an inch, and they will most certainly take a mile. An ironfist approach is the only way to stop (or at least, lower) these types of crime.

I think we need to be more creative in solving our problems than just continuously rehashing "solutions" that have never worked and which create even more problems.

First, when was a study done that proves any of the contentions made by the mob?

Use real evaluations, double-blind, of children who were involved in sexual activities versus those who were not. Revisit Kinsey's work and see if anything can be salvaged from that. Use proper control groups and try to find some measure of sanity, emotional stability, or whatever, that doesn't make an issue of sex. Do something about the contamination of the subjects under study by all of the group sexual neuroses that we have.
I actually am more on your side here than not. I think the incredible overreaction society has to a young teen being "touched" by and adult must have some deep seated roots that I am not aware of. There are a bunch of people here that do not have childern or grandchildren and have no idea at what age they become sexual. And what behaviors they engage in, directed toward adults.

Evidence and trials are not needed.
I'm voting for you in the next election.


:eek:

They call us crazy, but they themselves would prefer to see rapists and murderers freely walk the streets.

Actually, we want to see law enforcement behave as civilized people, and we want it to mean something when people don't commit crimes and when they do live as civilized people. The first time I see a legal public beheading in America, maybe it's already not safe to say what I would do, but I'm going to take that one out on someone.

When they were allowed to lynch people they always targeted black men who had consensual sex with white women who were of age and couldn't care less about child molesters because half of them diddled their own daughters.

I think we need to be more creative in solving our problems than just continuously rehashing "solutions" that have never worked and which create even more problems.

Don't you see, Sam, that strict punishments for appropriate crimes do work? Sorry if I've come off as rude, but in all seriousness, the public needs to fear their actions. Without a little fear, chaos most definitely ensues.

I'm voting for you in the next election.


:eek:

Hey, you might as well quote the whole thing. I said, should the police guard plainly see the criminal without a doubt, why SHOULDN'T he apprehend him, with deadly force if the crime is severe enough?

the public need to fear their actions. Without a little fear, chaos most definitely ensues.
And who decides what actions are to be feared? The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.

I actually am more on your side here than not. I think the incredible overreaction society has to a young teen being "touched" by and adult must have some deep seated roots that I am not aware of. There are a bunch of people here that do not have childern or grandchildren and have no idea at what age they become sexual. And what behaviors they engage in, directed toward adults.

I firmly believe the issue of consent is paramount. A child is incapable of evaluating a sexual overture (even one made by themselves) or even understanding what it implies. The five year old who shows me his dick is not indicating a desire to get laid.

Actually, we want to see law enforcement behave as civilized people, and we want it to mean something when people don't commit crimes and when they do live as civilized people. The first time I see a legal public beheading in America, maybe it's already not safe to say what I would do, but I'm going to take that one out on someone.

When they were allowed to lynch people they always targeted black men who had consensual sex with white women who were of age and couldn't care less about child molesters because half of them diddled their own daughters.

You don't treat uncivilized people with civility. You give to them what they gave to others.

Should we use them as an excuse to turn all civilized principles into a vicious regime that ultimately winds up destroying itself? It's stuff like this that turned a lot of places in this world into useless pestholes, not to name any particular religion because a lot of them do it. Christianity actually started to drag itself out of the mud when it stopped acting like this, and you can bet your bottom dollar that not only will child molestation go on unabated under your regime, it will take more extreme forms, will be done far more secretively, and nature will build a better mouse, meaning that we will have smarter and more evil child molesters. So have at it, but I'm going to stop you.

Where do you get this stuff? I only stated, that a well-armed police force with the authorization to use deadly force and punishments to be brutal would effectively reduce, if not stop, crime, ESPECIALLY compared to the American system of policing. How is that a "vicious regime". That is far more civilized than a disgusting pedophile raping an innocent child against their will and scarring them for life in tragedy!

Don't you see, Sam, that strict punishments for appropriate crimes do work? Sorry if I've come off as rude, but in all seriousness, the public needs to fear their actions. Without a little fear, chaos most definitely ensues.

No my dear Kadark, it does not. Where does it work? The most severely retributional societies have the most violent crimes.

You don't treat uncivilized people with civility. You give to them what they gave to others.

Those words.....deserved to be quoted, indeed well said!

I actually am more on your side here than not. I think the incredible overreaction society has to a young teen being "touched" by and adult must have some deep seated roots that I am not aware of. There are a bunch of people here that do not have childern or grandchildren and have no idea at what age they become sexual. And what behaviors they engage in, directed toward adults.

You should look at the works of Wilhelm Reich, particularly The Function of the Orgasm and The Cancer Biopathy. The roots are easy to trace if someone bothers to do them, sort of like bothering to do the math. It is also rooted in a mental negativity against everything that is rooted in seeing a lot of evil in small evils.

I don't want to deal with teenage or younger sex at all, and I would love to get away from having it shoved in my face. I would especially love to get away from having it used as an excuse to screw with me and others, and I would like to be free of the worry that a false accusation might be leveled and the next thing I'm minus a job, my sanity, and maybe my home.

Hey, you might as well quote the whole thing. I said, should the police guard plainly see the criminal without a doubt, why SHOULDN'T he apprehend him, with deadly force if the crime is severe enough?
And who's judgement will you trust? In the heat of the moment, could you make a mistake?

And we're talking about child-rape here. Are you suggesting that a police force would be able to catch the criminal in the act?

You don't treat uncivilized people with civility. You give to them what they gave to others.

So your solution to a crime is to become the same as the criminal.

No my dear Kadark, it does not. Where does it work? The most severely retributional societies have the most violent crimes.

The public gets on best by embracing the actions that are life-affirming, that are within civilized bounds, that are constructive, and so on. This is how a lot of the violence has already been solved. We will have more violence if we return to solutions to social problems that involve violence. Upside-down thinking has led people to believe that violence does anything except cause more violence.

No my dear Kadark, it does not. Where does it work? The most severely retributional societies have the most violent crimes.

Really? Give me an example. We all know Syria is a beautiful country, and has a fascinating history. The people are nice, the weather is fair, Latakia has plenty of ocean and beach resorts and Damascus is beautiful in it's antiquity. Tourists come from all over to admire that, and there are carnivals and fairs (I remember one not far from my house would come every year).

Yet........crime is so low. Why is that? Because we know how to stop criminals.

No my dear Kadark, it does not. Where does it work? The most severely retributional societies have the most violent crimes.

Post #48.

Anything you'd like to add?

Those words.....deserved to be quoted, indeed well said!

Thanks, Norse. You need to PM me sometime.

Okay, so you DON'T think that a police force should be heavily armed and authorized with deadly force, and disgusting criminals of this nature should be brutally punished?

There are so many unstated assumptions here, I hardly know where to begin. Nations are composed of people, and as such, they generally reflect human psychology. In the aftermath of WW-1, the urge to punish Germany overrode the good judgment of the victorious nations, and very punitive terms were forced on Germany. This punishment made Germany susceptible to fascism, and was at least partly responsible for WW-2. We learned better, and actually rebuilt the nation of Germany in the aftermath of WW-2, rather than let our urge for revenge lead to another war in the future.

Though we seem to have learned better than to treat nations this way, we still feel that this is the best way to make individuals behave. The idea refuses to die, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. The urge to punish is very strong in humans, and we seem to favor things that bring suffering on those who we dislike. Christians who get dreamy eyed while thinking about non-believers suffering an eternity of torment in hell come to mind. "Laugh at me now, but hee hee, I'll get my revenge!"

Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?

Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html

Where do you get this stuff? I only stated, that a well-armed police force with the authorization to use deadly force and punishments to be brutal would effectively reduce, if not stop, crime, ESPECIALLY compared to the American system of policing. How is that a "vicious regime". That is far more civilized than a disgusting pedophile raping an innocent child against their will and scarring them for life in tragedy!

Like I said, the only thing that should be done with such a police force is to kill them down to the last person.

Really? Give me an example. We all know Syria is a beautiful country, and has a fascinating history. The people are nice, the weather is fair, Latakia has plenty of ocean and beach resorts and Damascus is beautiful in it's antiquity. Tourists come from all over to admire that, and there are carnivals and fairs (I remember one not far from my house would come every year).

Yet........crime is so low. Why is that? Because we know how to stop criminals.

Hmm so where do you stay?

Really? Give me an example. We all know Syria is a beautiful country, and has a fascinating history. The people are nice, the weather is fair, Latakia has plenty of ocean and beach resorts and Damascus is beautiful in it's antiquity. Tourists come from all over to admire that, and there are carnivals and fairs (I remember one not far from my house would come every year).

Yet........crime is so low. Why is that? Because we know how to stop criminals.

Syria is one of the countries that the CIA sends innocent people to to be tortured for information that they do not have.

So your solution to a crime is to become the same as the criminal.

Who cast the first stone?

And who's judgement will you trust? In the heat of the moment, could you make a mistake?

And we're talking about child-rape here. Are you suggesting that a police force would be able to catch the criminal in the act?

No, because the police force would take EXTREME caution. As I said, only the most plain and open criminals. For all others, an effective chase would do. It all centers around arming and permitting the police to do their job.


As for catching a molester.....it would be tough and the child would be at risk, so such a strategy wouldn't work. But I guarantee you people would be alot more worried and think twice when they know that the police will toast their ass if they are caught.

Post #48.

Anything you'd like to add?



Crime is reduced in the ME? Child molestation is, but its not because of any punishment. In fact, your example of the ME is an excellent one for what I am thinking.

Why do you think child molestation is so low in the ME? Why are children not sexualised there?

Syria is one of the countries that the CIA sends innocent people to to be tortured for information that they do not have.

Do they? I wasn't aware. They get enough at Guantanamo Bay, though, don't they? And innocent people wouldn't need to be tortured for information: so if they send anyone, it's terrorists and they DESERVE to be tortured.

REPO Man, consider how responsibility might be taught. Thrashing a child may teach a child not to do one thing, but then were do skills come from? Beat a person enough and they don't understand anymore the reason why they should care for themselves. I taught myself that staying away from drugs, alcohol, violence, and of course crime was a good way to take care of myself. Now if I had only taken care of my money, which is a skill that can be taught. I wasn't taught that skill.

Hmm so where do you stay?

Latakia and Damascus but Latakia is my home city and I love it beautiful too....would you like some pics? Anything else you would like to add? Perhaps a video on how good life is in Syria and how beautiful?

Yet murder, robbery, etc is very low now why is that?

Do they? I wasn't aware. They get enough at Guantanamo Bay, though, don't they? And innocent people wouldn't need to be tortured for information: so if they send anyone, it's terrorists and they DESERVE to be tortured.

Actually out of the 70,000 or so people not a single one has been convicted of any crime. So no one can claim they are terrorists.

Who cast the first stone?

In the cycle of violence it doesn't matter who started it.

Actually out of the 70,000 or so people not a single one has been convicted of any crime. So no one can claim they are terrorists.

Thank you, Sam. That's a lot worse than I thought it was.

To me it matters a lot more how I behave than how "they" behave.

Crime is reduced in the ME? Child molestation is, but its not because of any punishment. In fact, your example of the ME is an excellent one for what I am thinking.

Why do you think child molestation is so low in the ME? Why are children not sexualised there?

It isn't limited to child molestation; nearly all crimes are substantially lower when juxtaposed to other nations/societies. Why is the crime low? It's a very basic tenet of human nature. You don't do something deemed wrong if you know there will be severe repercussions.

When you touch a hot stove, what is it that makes you take great caution the next time around? The fear of being burned.

So your solution to a crime is to become the same as the criminal.

You can't compare the two. The criminal chose to commit his heinous acts, and you are merely punishing him for it. It isn't the same there, because you aren't doing it to an innocent person, you're doing it to a disgusting child rapist.

Latakia and Damascus but Latakia is my home city and I love it beautiful too....would you like some pics? Anything else you would like to add? Perhaps a video on how good life is in Syria and how beautiful?

Yet murder, robbery, etc is very low now why is that?

You don't stay in Syria. :p

And I do not think there would be much instances of child molestation in Syria either.

I bet there children can go about unsupervised.

Actually out of the 70,000 or so people not a single one has been convicted of any crime. So no one can claim they are terrorists.

In Guantanamo Bay? Surely you don't mean Syria, for two reasons:

1) innocent people wouldn't need to be tortured for information, because they could just say it

2) the CIA and Syria don't have a great relationship.

You don't stay in Syria. :p

And I do not think there would be much instances of child molestation in Syria either.

I bet there children can go about unsupervised.

Yes, but I visit quite often and grew up there, and have lived there. Anything else you want to add?


There are not much instances of crime there, and unlike in the US you can walk the streets without worrying if someone is going to rob you or rape you. I can head down the street and buy a coke at 2 AM (assuming the store is open) without worrying about being mugged.

No, because the police force would take EXTREME caution. As I said, only the most plain and open criminals. For all others, an effective chase would do. It all centers around arming and permitting the police to do their job.


As for catching a molester.....it would be tough and the child would be at risk, so such a strategy wouldn't work. But I guarantee you people would be alot more worried and think twice when they know that the police will toast their ass if they are caught.

Anyone who would molest a child knowing what they face in this society isn't thinking. There are actually pedophiles who won't touch a child because they know what happens to the child, not just what the pedophile does but because of the penalties that the child suffers from other people.

I want the thinking and the use of the alternative to be as automatic as breathing. When you want to do THIS, do THAT instead. It would also help to train the people involved how to do it right when they are not under the gun.

It isn't limited to child molestation; nearly all crimes are substantially lower when juxtaposed to other nations/societies. Why is the crime low? It's a very basic tenet of human nature. You don't do something deemed wrong if you know there will be severe repercussions.

When you touch a hot stove, what is it that makes you take great caution the next time around? The fear of being burned.

I think there are many more factors at play than brutality. The social system in the ME is not geared towards increasing crime. Criminals are not abandoned or discarded by the family or society. The solutions to crimes are focused more on resolving the issue than retribution to the criminal. e.g. if the victim forgives the criminal, no punishment is given (at least in Saudi Arabia, I don't know about other places).

It isn't limited to child molestation; nearly all crimes are substantially lower when juxtaposed to other nations/societies. Why is the crime low? It's a very basic tenet of human nature. You don't do something deemed wrong if you know there will be severe repercussions.

When you touch a hot stove, what is it that makes you take great caution the next time around? The fear of being burned.

Or because a lot of crime goes unreported because it is done to people who are beneath the notice of the law?

And my idea basically builds on yours: when you want to do THIS, don't do it. And if you do, THAT will happen.

You can't compare the two. The criminal chose to commit his heinous acts, and you are merely punishing him for it. It isn't the same there, because you aren't doing it to an innocent person, you're doing it to a disgusting child rapist.

And yet the actual behavior looks like that of a sadistic goon. It even works the same.

In Guantanamo Bay? Surely you don't mean Syria, for two reasons:

1) innocent people wouldn't need to be tortured for information, because they could just say it

2) the CIA and Syria don't have a great relationship.

I don't know if the US has sent people to Syria, I am talking in general. And you don't know what politicians would do. But no, not one of those people has been convicted.

Or because a lot of crime goes unreported because it is done to people who are beneath the notice of the law?

Nah, it's cause there isn't alot of crime, believe me. Even Lebanon has a considerably low crime rate compared to the US. Ah, who am I kidding, they have a FAR lower crime rate compared to the US. And Beirut's a great place to live, like Damascus.

I think there are many more factors at play than brutality. The social system in the ME is not geared towards increasing crime. Criminals are not abandoned or discarded by the family or society. The solutions to crimes are focused more on resolving the issue than retribution to the criminal. e.g. if the victim forgives the criminal, no punishment is given (at least in Saudi Arabia, I don't know about other places).

Really? I thought the Middle East was the place that usually executed criminals at very high levels. My mistake.

Do you know what you're talking about? Besides, you haven't offered any of your own unique solutions to counter such crime (assuming you consider rape/murder a crime, which this thread would not indicate).

And my idea basically builds on yours: when you want to do THIS, don't do it. And if you do, THAT will happen.

So you have an urge, and you do nothing with it because your life is threatened by strangers who give you nothing in return except that they decide not to kill you today.

It's a lot better to simply have an outlet for those urges that is not criminalized.

I don't know if the US has sent people to Syria, I am talking in general. And you don't know what politicians would do. But no, not one of those people has been convicted.

Then that is a different issue. Look, my suggestion applies only to CONVICTED CRIMINALS.

Nah, it's cause there isn't alot of crime, believe me. Even Lebanon has a considerably low crime rate compared to the US. Ah, who am I kidding, they have a FAR lower crime rate compared to the US. And Beirut's a great place to live, like Damascus.

Isn't Lebanon one of the major sources of exploding people?

Nah, it's cause there isn't alot of crime, believe me. Even Lebanon has a considerably low crime rate compared to the US. Ah, who am I kidding, they have a FAR lower crime rate compared to the US. And Beirut's a great place to live, like Damascus.

Apples and oranges, classic post hoc fallacy.

And yet the actual behavior looks like that of a sadistic goon. It even works the same.

Isn't it incredible how you wish to defend criminals? Let me guess: murderers should, when they receive an impulse, murder puppies.


MetaKron, when those urges affect others, traumatize others, why should they not be punished? Ever heard the saying "your right to swing your fist ends where it hits my nose"? Pedophiles hurt other people, they deserve to be punished.

Isn't Lebanon one of the major sources of exploding people?

They caught a strange disease in 1982 and 2006. Comes and goes, you know.

Isn't Lebanon one of the major sources of exploding people?

Um.......no.......:confused:

Apples and oranges, classic post hoc fallacy.

Please explain, I don't understand.

Isn't it incredible how you wish to defend criminals? Let me guess: murderers should, when they receive an impulse, murder puppies.


MetaKron, when those urges affect others, traumatize others, why should they not be punished? Ever heard the saying "your right to swing your fist ends where it hits my nose"? Pedophiles hurt other people, they deserve to be punished.

Society deserves a treatment that actually reduces the harm caused by the problem.

Um.......no.......:confused:

Yes. I remember when suicide bombings were quite common in Beirut. There's that famous one that looked just like the bombing of the federal building in OKC, that killed a lot of U.S. Marines who were sleeping in their barracks.

Society deserves a treatment that actually reduces the harm caused by the problem.

As the treatment I suggested does, and very well too. And it'll reduce lots more harm, like robbery and murder, etc.


And you say a world like the one I proposed is bad.......let's be glad we don't live in yours. A police force that can't do a thing, people raping children and not being convicted....and people having sex with animals. Not a fun world to live in.

As the treatment I suggested does, and very well too. And it'll reduce lots more harm, like robbery and murder, etc.


And you say a world like the one I proposed is bad.......let's be glad we don't live in yours. A police force that can't do a thing, people raping children and not being convicted....and people having sex with animals. Not a fun world to live in.

The treatment that you suggest doesn't work at all, not on Earth, Mars, or the Jovian Republic.

Really? I thought the Middle East was the place that usually executed criminals at very high levels. My mistake.

Do you know what you're talking about? Besides, you haven't offered any of your own unique solutions to counter such crime (assuming you consider rape/murder a crime, which this thread would not indicate).

Here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

Which of these societies are more or less crime free?

Yes. I remember when suicide bombings were quite common in Beirut. There's that famous one that looked just like the bombing of the federal building in OKC, that killed a lot of U.S. Marines who were sleeping in their barracks.

Yes, sure, you said "exploding people", not suicide bombers. Luckily, I would say suicide bombings in Lebanon are quite low and in Syria are near non-existent, and as for the crime rate, not even comparable to the US.

The treatment that you suggest doesn't work at all, not on Earth, Mars, or the Jovian Republic.

It would work well, I think, to reduce crime considerably. And as if yours would? Why would a pedophile WANT to do an animal? As Orleander said, you first need to confirm that pedophiles would agree to such a strange idea as yours.

Here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

Which of these societies are more or less crime free?

The red ones, with the exception of America and Africa (poverty being the sole reason), generally have low crime rates.

And I'm pretty sure that the US (as in every state) doesn't allow capital punishment. That itself makes the map a little unreliable.

Yes, sure, you said "exploding people", not suicide bombers. Luckily, I would say suicide bombings in Lebanon are quite low and in Syria are near non-existent, and as for the crime rate, not even comparable to the US.

Whatever. You have named as your examples of effective law enforcement nations which are among the major suppliers of terrorists and their equipment, and which use torture on innocent people.

It would work well, I think, to reduce crime considerably. And as if yours would? Why would a pedophile WANT to do an animal? As Orleander said, you first need to confirm that pedophiles would agree to such a strange idea as yours.

We're just going to have to try.

Please explain, I don't understand.

You aren't even attempting take demographics into account (age of the population, economic class).

And here is another example of a post hoc fallacy: "The cheerleaders wore blue ribbons in their hair, and the team one the game! The cheerleaders should always wear blue ribbons, so the team will always win!"

Whatever. You have named as your examples of effective law enforcement nations which are among the major suppliers of terrorists and their equipment, and which use torture on innocent people.

Have I? And what would those nations be? The United States has a high crime rate....but supports and equips terrorists. Therefore, you are wrong by that very statement.

The red ones, with the exception of America and Africa (poverty being the sole reason), generally have low crime rates.

And I'm pretty sure that the US (as in every state) doesn't allow capital punishment. That itself makes the map a little unreliable.

So people are unsafe in Europe than in the ME :p?

You aren't even attempting take demographics into account (age of the population, economic class).

And here is another example of a post hoc fallacy: "The cheerleaders wore blue ribbons in their hair, and the team one the game! The cheerleaders should always wear blue ribbons, so the team will always win!"

Well, speaking for the US, the "demographics" still are within the boundaries of an effective police force.


And I don't get the corrolation between cheerleaders and criminals.

We're just going to have to try.

Well, of course, but YOU have already stated that you want to DEFEND criminals.

So people are unsafe in Europe than in the ME :p?

I wonder how secure Europe would be if they were under occupation and division for land (topics which have nothing to do with capital punishment). Besides, Europe's crime rates aren't as low as advertised.

So people are unsafe in Europe than in the ME :p?

No, Europe I'd say is quite safe, but the ME is safer, in terms of crime. But you must take into consideration things like culture. European and ME'ern culture is alot cleaner than American culture.

I wonder how secure Europe would be if they were under occupation and division for land (topics which have nothing to do with capital punishment). Besides, Europe's crime rates aren't as low as advertised.

What do you think of this?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html

No, Europe I'd say is quite safe, but the ME is safer, in terms of crime. But you must take into consideration things like culture. European and ME'ern culture is alot cleaner than American culture.

Yeah, I don't understand why American cities tend to be so filthy. Maybe it's all the poor people. Paris was pretty dirty when I was there, while Chicago was quite clean.

What do you think of this?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html

That's fucking disgusting. It's like how retarded school children in America get lots of attention, while the really smart ones are ignored.
Guess the squeaky wheels get the grease.

Roman, I meant "clean" cultures, not literally clean.

Roman, I meant "clean" cultures, not literally clean.

I find the American obsession with sterility quite fascinating. For some reason it makes me think they have kinky sexual practices. :D

"Out darn spot!!!"

That's fucking disgusting. It's like how retarded school children in America get lots of attention, while the really smart ones are ignored.
Guess the squeaky wheels get the grease.

If it's effective, that's what counts. Also, retarded school children usually DO get lots of attention because they are "funny" and "cool" to the young kids. Intelligence isn't very funny, but smart kids do get attention from colleges and so forth. So, yes, "funny" kids get attention from other stupid kids, and smart children get attention from academic sources pretty much.

What do you think of this?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html

You sure are desperate.

This example is not of rapists and murderers, as those types of crimes are punished (always) by execution, especially in ultraconservative Saudi Arabia. Your link talks about Jihadis, who I think should be praised rather than jailed and put through therapy.

And I don't get the corrolation between cheerleaders and criminals.

The connection between the style of "justice" you advocate, and low a low rate of crime is far from certain, just as it was rather unlikely that the choice of color of the ribbon the cheerleaders wore is unlikely to be the reason why the players won the game. Correlation does not equal cause and effect.

The number one thing I've noticed in common among career criminals that I've read about is their ability to convince themselves that they will not get caught. In their minds, this makes the severity of the punishment of little consequence.

The example of the Saudis is in line with Dawkin's essay. Rather than punish them, show them that there is another way. Fix the problem, don't just bury it away for later by incarcerating them. And you can be sure that there are a great many Americans who believe the correct way of dealing with those men is execution. They are just as certain that would be the correct solution as you are about using it to solve other forms of crime.

But you are comparing two differen things with cheerleaders and criminals. The cheerleaders simply believe their choice of color lead to the victory. However, what I am saying is that improved secuirity and punishment would lead to far less crime, wouldn't you agree?


Look, yes criminals might think they won't get caught. But that doesn't matter for some open crimes, where police should be allowed to use deadly force (drug deals, robbery, etc). And why "show them the way". So a man who has murdered ten children can go through some program and continue to live in peace and happiness while ten families greave over their loss? I think not.

A solution to child rape
Kill all the children on Earth! Bwhahahaha!

You sure are desperate.

This example is not of rapists and murderers, as those types of crimes are punished (always) by execution, especially in ultraconservative Saudi Arabia. Your link talks about Jihadis, who I think should be praised rather than jailed and put through therapy.

Terrorism is haraaba, not jihad.

Terrorism is haraaba, not jihad.

What they are doing is Jihad. Whilst we sit comfortably at our computers, they're dying to stop foreign intervention in our sands.

Yeh, by killing their own people because of some backwards book and their miserable brains - braindead morons.

Kill all the children on Earth! Bwhahahaha!

Hmmm, ever see Children of Men?
I wonder what pedophiles would do then. :scratchin:

No, haven't seen that film.

Yeh, by killing their own people because of some stupid book and their miserable brains - braindead morons.

They're not fighting over religion, Avatar. You are terribly misinformed.

Jihad (Arabic: جهاد IPA: [ ʤi'haːd]), meaning "to strive" or "to struggle", in Arabic, is an Islamic term and a duty for Muslims. It appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen.

The term "Jihad" used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam.[5] In broader usage and interpretation, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can imply striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[8] The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

I know the definition of Jihad. Thanks anyway.

What I'm trying to say is, the different factions in Iraq aren't fighting each other over differing interpretations of religion, as you would erroneously imply. Simply politics.

Yeah, and, among other things, killing women which don't wear a stupid dress. Quite political.

Yeah, and, among other things, killing women which don't wear a stupid dress. Quite political.

If you think the civil war in Iraq is due (in any way) to women's dress code, then I have wasted my time talking with you.

What they are doing is Jihad. Whilst we sit comfortably at our computers, they're dying to stop foreign intervention in our sands.

And the government and ulema is rehabilitating them because?:rolleyes:

And the government and ulema is rehabilitating them because?:rolleyes:

Because they're Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia whose leaders hold hands with Bush and wave to the cameras.

Because they're Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia whose leaders hold hands with Bush and wave to the cameras.

But the US is arming the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. :p

But the US is arming the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. :p

I fail to see your point.

I fail to see your point.

As Sunnis, don't the Saudi insurgents support the Sunni Iraqis? The ones the US is arming? So why would Saudi Arabia pull them?

Aren't the Jihadis captured by America?

Aren't the Jihadis captured by America?

Hmm thats there too. How do they pick and choose?:confused:

Hmm thats there too. How do they pick and choose?:confused:

Not sure.

Anyway, back to finding solutions to child rape...

Not sure.

Anyway, back to finding solutions to child rape...

If I'm not mistaken abused children become abusers, so I think it should be treated as a mental aberrance and such people should be kept under medical supervision.

If I'm not mistaken abused children become abusers, so I think it should be treated as a mental aberrance and such people should be kept under medical supervision.

I think we could save money by divorcing their head from the rest of their body. Being abused is certainly a horrible thing, but we have more control than to simply turn that experience into raping others. You must have more self-control and power than that.

I think we could save money by divorcing their head from the rest of their body. Being abused is certainly a horrible thing, but we have more control than to simply turn that experience into raping others. You must have more self-control and power than that.

I would not presume to judge the effects of abuse and what it does to a child. Its beyond my understanding. However, I would like to be able to protect them and others from the results of it.

I would not presume to judge the effects of abuse and what it does to a child. Its beyond my understanding. However, I would like to be able to protect them and others from the results of it.

Assuming there is a defined correlation between rape cases and explicit accounts of abuse, of course. Still, though...abuse is not so bad as to drive people to rape and murder others.

I suppose it depends on the severity of the abuse, although I'm still not sold on that idea.

Assuming there is a defined correlation between rape cases and explicit accounts of abuse, of course. Still, though...abuse is not so bad as to drive people to rape and murder others.

I suppose it depends on the severity of the abuse, although I'm still not sold on that idea.

I don't know if all pedophiles are abused; I'm sure some are just wired wrong. If so, is it a matter of choice? Or like any other physical or biological aberration is it a matter for treatment?

I don't know enough to be able to draw a conclusion. If a child is murdered I would support a death sentence. But otherwise, I would want them to be institutionalised or chemically castrated.

I don't know if all pedophiles are abused; I'm sure some are just wired wrong. If so, is it a matter of choice? Or like any other physical or biological aberration is it a matter for treatment?

Are you implying the genetic inheritance of urges to rape and abuse? What's new.

I don't know enough to be able to draw a conclusion. If a child is murdered I would support a death sentence. But otherwise, I would want them to be institutionalised or chemically castrated.

What?! Chemical castration? That's much worse than death.

Just when I thought you were beginning to make sense.

Are you implying the genetic inheritance of urges to rape and abuse? What's new.

Do you know any different?



What?! Chemical castration? That's much worse than death.

Just when I thought you were beginning to make sense.

Why is hormonal suppression worse than death?

Do you know any different?

You're making the claims, bub. There's a lot of flash in your posts, but not very much substance. At least, for this topic, anyway.

Why is hormonal suppression worse than death?

It's more than "hormonal suppression"; it's a loss of manhood. It's the worst type of torture. You'd have to have a package to truly understand. Many would rather die than live a terrible life.

You're making the claims, bub. There's a lot of flash in your posts, but not very much substance. At least, for this topic, anyway.

So you think raping children is a choice?



It's more than "hormonal suppression"; it's a loss of manhood. It's the worst type of torture. You'd have to have a package to truly understand. Many would rather die than live a terrible life.

Do pedophiles have a normal sexual life? I don't care about a "manhood" that targets kids. Sucks to be them, I suppose.

So you think raping children is a choice?

An emphatic yes.

Do pedophiles have a normal sexual life? I don't care about a "manhood" that targets kids. Sucks to be them, I suppose.

Exactly. So instead of chopping off their genitals, we should just kill them. It's easier for us, and better for them.

An emphatic yes.


Do you have evidence for this?

Exactly. So instead of chopping off their genitals, we should just kill them. It's easier for us, and better for them.

I'm glad its not my decision to make. :shrug:

Do you have evidence for this?

Do you have any evidence that people are born rapists and murderers? You're making the absurd claims in small hopes of retaining some dignity after falling far short of expectations for your performance in this thread.

I'm glad its not my decision to make. :shrug:

We're not so different, you and I. You want to chop off genitals, and I want to chop off heads. What's the difference?

Do you have any evidence that people are born rapists and murderers? You're making the absurd claims in small hopes of retaining some dignity after falling far short of expectations for your performance in this thread.


We're not so different, you and I. You want to chop off genitals, and I want to chop off heads. What's the difference?

Giving a hormone injection is vastly different from chopping off a head. For one thing, it is reversible in case of error.

As for genetics, there is some evidence that pedophilia may run in families, but it is hard to separate out the effects of psychic trauma from genetic predisposition. In short, we simply don't know.

Giving a hormone injection is vastly different from chopping off a head. For one thing, it is reversible in case of error.

You're right. Castration is vastly worse than death. Castration is a type of torture that ruins the life of the subject. It costs money to execute and sustain. It also does absolutely nothing to prevent the person from raping (in other ways) or killing people again. Also, the death penalty is only established through concrete evidence, so there is little or no room for error.

In short, we simply don't know.

Then don't boast as if you do.

Assuming there is a defined correlation between rape cases and explicit accounts of abuse, of course. Still, though...abuse is not so bad as to drive people to rape and murder others.

I suppose it depends on the severity of the abuse, although I'm still not sold on that idea.

Kadark, I have no idea how anyone decides that abuse cannot be bad enough to drive people to rape and murder others. The idea that there can be no reason, or no abuse bad enough, where does that come from? That's a lot more weird than the idea that a person can be abused, day in and day out, enough that he or she turns to violence and rape as a solution. There are even belief systems out there that say that men as groups have to rape women.

You are still saying that you would use force against something that you don't understand. This idea that it can't be that bad is something that you have been taught to impose on others, not what is real.

You're right. Castration is vastly worse than death. Castration is a type of torture that ruins the life of the subject. It costs money to execute and sustain. It also does absolutely nothing to prevent the person from raping (in other ways) or killing people again. Also, the death penalty is only established through concrete evidence, so there is little or no room for error.


Depends on how much you know at a particular time.

Given the choice, you may choose death over castration. But should you be making the choice for others?

And the death penalty is not inviolate
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_tv_dnadeath.html



Then don't boast as if you do.

I do know that we do not know. I was not the one with the emphatic yes.:p

But you are comparing two differen things with cheerleaders and criminals. The cheerleaders simply believe their choice of color lead to the victory. However, what I am saying is that improved secuirity and punishment would lead to far less crime, wouldn't you agree?

Since you don't seem to be getting it, correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

No, I would not. Crime is a complex problem that defies simple solutions. Many in the U.S. think that solving terrorism is best done by killing all of the terrorists (some even advocate killing all in the M.E.). Do you agree?

Depends on how much you know at a particular time.

Given the choice, you may choose death over castration. But should you be making the choice for others?

People don't choose their own punishments, Sam. This is common logic.

"So, it's been confirmed that you're responsible for six separate accounts of rape, mutilation, and murder. What punishment are you going to choose?"

"Hmm...I'll take community service."

I do know that we do not know. I was not the one with the emphatic yes.:p

lol, whatever. Nice reply, I will admit.

People don't choose their own punishments, Sam. This is common logic.

"So, it's been confirmed that you're responsible for six separate accounts of rape, mutilation, and murder. What punishment are you going to choose?"

"Hmm...I'll take community service."

Ever hear of plea bargains?:p



lol, whatever. Nice reply, I will admit.
Yowzah!:cool:

Ever hear of plea bargains?:p

:shrug:

Good luck arranging that after you rape and kill someone's child. Good idea for small crime, though.

:shrug:

Good luck arranging that after you rape and kill someone's child.

Umm I don't know about kill (dramatic are we not?) but it is already used for child rapists. As is chemical castration.

Umm I don't know about kill (dramatic are we not?) but it is already used for child rapists. As is chemical castration.

Well, last time I checked, killing was quite common.

And you missed my edit. :(

Well, last time I checked, killing was quite common.

And you missed my edit. :(

The rape is more common. An estimated 20% of all children in the US.

The rape is more common. An estimated 20% of all children in the US.

Are raped?!

SAM, I wouldn't even group most pedophiles in with those who would forcibly rape pre-pubescent children. I have to give Governor Blunt a little credit because he actually distinguishes between forcible rape and statutory rape. Most pedophiles seduce, and even more don't actually penetrate. I wish that I knew how many were put in the big house for simply fondling.

The death penalty for forcible rape of a child makes more sense if they are actually distinguishing between forcible rape and seduction. That's not saying much, but at least it shows a little bit of thinking.

At one time the discussion was more about the physical ability of the child involved to tolerate what was done to him or her. But shortly after it became firmly established as a crime to penetrate a child who would be physically damaged by penetration, it seems like a whole crop of false accusations came up. A little redness like diaper rash meant digital penetration. Some people have spent years in jail on charges of full penetration on small girls who showed no physical signs of abuse whatsoever. It seems like all that was accomplished was to establish a thing to lie about to hurt people.

My suggestion includes the idea of allowing would-be pedophiles to self treat as long as they keep their mitts off of children. There may be some who are reasonable enough to decide that animals instead of children, with no stigma, is the way to go. Get them before they become habituated to children as a sexual outlet, and if we can get them to identify themselves, their own tendencies, then we don't have to pry into private lives and guess at it and force stigma on the undeserving.

To me there is a pyramid. At the top are the ones who actually forcibly rape and maybe murder too. They are the fewest. Then there are a few more who seduce and while they have penetration, it is consensual, if not legally consensual. Even more fondle. Then there are those who might be identified as having tendencies. They are at the ground floor of the pyramid, where the base is buried in the sand. The vast majority of those who have tendencies will never act out and will wash their hands if they accidentally feel pleasure at the touch of a child or young teen.

Some people would have us killing or jailing those who simply have tendencies. They would have us forcing them to live their lives predicated on a tendency that they may not know that they have and that is just the same as a normal man's tendency to seek heterosexual intercourse with someone his own age. People as young as 12 have been taken to jail for having sex with people age 12 to 14, even for having sex with people who are older than they are. This kind of insanity is just sick. One of the excuses for doing this is that the children don't know what they are doing. That is the fault of those who would keep them in ignorance. There is no good reason that people can't be taught, in a sane and reasonable fashion, the facts of life by the time they are eight.

The rape is more common. An estimated 20% of all children in the US.

Statutory rape or forcible rape? A lot of people have sex before legal age. If they are lucky.

Statutory rape or forcible rape? A lot of people have sex before legal age. If they are lucky.

I think she means statuatory rape since a lot of 18 yr olds having sex with 16 or 17 yr olds.

Are raped?!

Sorry. Are molested

here:

Statistics on pedophilia are as difficult to come by as anecdotes are easy. The definition itself is misunderstood and often ill-used. Pedophilia is a mental disorder that belongs to a larger group known as paraphilias: sexual lust that is not connected to adult romantic love. Pedophilia is sexual contact between an adult and a child who hasn't reached puberty. Another disorder in th