/ Jail sentences for would-be paedophiles

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
johncoxmysteriously - on 30 Jan 2014
ripper - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

presumably you think that's nowhere near enough? I'd have to agree and tbh can't see how anyone would think it was adequate. If you're a hardliner you want a longer term for the punishment, if you're a wishy-washy liberal you want him to have effective behaviour modification therapy while inside, which I would guess takes a long time...
johncoxmysteriously - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to ripper:

That is indeed what I think.

I suppose it's possible that there is no offence which covers this sort of thing well enough and has a sufficiently long term available to the judge, and that this was the most he could do. Still....

jcm
markh554 on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

He should be taken to a camp and promised freedom if he works hard.
Mainly for his own protection. It worked well in Soviet Russia.
Failing that, cancer drug experiments since animals are now taboo??
markh554 on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Would-be peado? He admitted activity with a 13y/o. That IS peado
johncoxmysteriously - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to mh554:

So he did. I'd missed that.

jcm
crayefish - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Cut his cock 'n balls off and release him back into society! Not only will he not re-offend, but many others will think twice :)
johncoxmysteriously - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

I'm never very sure of the biology behind that theory. If, as one hears, sexual abuse is generally about power rather than sex, I would have thought that physically damaging someone inclined in that direction might make them more rather than less inclined to it.

The deterrent effect I grant you.

jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes, indeed, it beggars belief. I really don't understand the justice system - 3 months (I think) for custard-pieing Rupert Murdoch and only 5 years for this.
Jon Stewart - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> The deterrent effect I grant you.

I'm more doubtful of the deterrent effect than the biological one. I don't think the decision about whether to commit this type of crime is a rational one weighing up the risks inherent in getting caught with the gratification of carrying it out. It surely just has to be compulsion that drives these people regardless of whether perpetrators are hanged, jailed for 50 years, 5 years or whatever.

If you can overcome the reality of the harm you're doing to an innocent child, you'll be able to overcome the reality of what happens if you get caught whether or not that involves physical mutilation. The only priority in sentencing should be public safety, and I'd agree wholeheartedly that 5y seems utterly insufficient from that perspective.
Post edited at 17:53
ow arm - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

get 'paedophile' tattooed on their forehead, no jail nothing, just that and let them out.
crayefish - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to ow arm:

They'd only wear a baseball cap... I think you'd also need to surgically implant some big devil horns on their head. Oh and give them giant moobs just so they are mocked further :)
John2 - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Nothing personal, but I'm amused by the fact that you started both this thread and the Daily Mail one.
johncoxmysteriously - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to John2:

Yes, I thought someone might like that.

I am large. I contain multitudes.

jcm
woolsack - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Five years on an ordinary wing might be fairer
Jim Fraser - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Always a problem this subject. Always will be. We used to lock people up for homosexuality but then we realised that not only is consenting sex between adults OK but we never had any hope of changing someone's sexuality by jailing them.

Well guess what? We cannot change the sexuality of these guys by jailing them either. Unless you are happy to pay the taxes to finance life imprisonment for every one of those guys (plus thousands of guys sort of caught in the cross-fire) then there is no jail solution. And I hope the grand plan of locking them up forever doesn't include sending any 18 year old burglars on remand to prisons full of those guys.

The problem is that there is no effective solution available.

If you think you are bright enough to think of a solution that is effective and stands the test of being worthy of a civilised and lawful society then give it your best shot and let's hear it.
IainRUK - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Its more complicated though.. we dont know the driving force of paedophilia.. people say power.. evolutionarily you can explain homosexuality, its actually a fascinating subject from a biological point of view.. So I dont think you can compare.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

No I'm not going to google search.. but is there an evolutionary argument to paedophilia?
Post edited at 22:17
Rob Exile Ward on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

What if I contradict myself?
Rob Exile Ward on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

'If, as one hears, sexual abuse is generally about power rather than sex'...

Pinker has the temerity to question that. He thinks that on the whole blokes try and have sex ... because they like to have sex. It's not a popular argument, but I think has merit.

And he suggests that this business about sex = power etc originates with women, who can't believe that it is that simple.
Hooo - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A depressing fact is that people who were abused as children are far more likely to become abusers when they grow up. For many paedophiles their motivation might simply be that as a child their only close contact with another person was sexual, and so they know no other way. While we obviously need to stop these people offending and perpetuating the abuse, is it really fair to subject them to harsh sentences?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Hooo - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was really impressed by Pinker too. Anyone who says some form of abuse is always about a single cause is almost certainly wrong. There are different reasons why people abuse, for some it's power, for others it's not.
crayefish - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> If you think you are bright enough to think of a solution that is effective and stands the test of being worthy of a civilised and lawful society then give it your best shot and let's hear it.

See my previous post... remove genitals :)

crayefish - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Hooo:

> While we obviously need to stop these people offending and perpetuating the abuse, is it really fair to subject them to harsh sentences?

YES! While they might not be able to 'control' it, they KNOW it is wrong. At least by modern society standards. Yet they still do it.

Some people are hardwired to murder... they simply can't control it. Should we not lock them up either? Of course we should.

Hooo - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

You don't believe what I said in my post then?
Hooo - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

Yes, we need to stop them offending. No, we shouldn't mutilate them.
crayefish - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Hooo:

> You don't believe what I said in my post then?

I totally agree with this statement of course... 'While we obviously need to stop these people offending and perpetuating the abuse'

But I believe, that with any serious crime, there should not only be rehabilitation, but punishment. After all, as a kid we all learnt from a smack bottom or toys taken away. It's obviously more effective on some than others, but never the less, we can't single people out for no punishment simply because 'it won't be effective' on them.
Jon Stewart - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'If, as one hears, sexual abuse is generally about power rather than sex'...

> Pinker has the temerity to question that. He thinks that on the whole blokes try and have sex ... because they like to have sex. It's not a popular argument, but I think has merit.

> And he suggests that this business about sex = power etc originates with women, who can't believe that it is that simple.

A compelling line of argument from a man who is always right. Is this is Better Angels or elsewhere?

Tom V - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> YES! While they might not be able to 'control' it, they KNOW it is wrong. At least by modern society standards. Yet they still do it.



Eighty years ago that would have been a perfectly valid sentence about homosexuality.



crayefish - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to Tom V:

> Eighty years ago that would have been a perfectly valid sentence about homosexuality.

But homosexuality is not a crime. Nor should it be. But sex with a minor (particularly if it is non-consensual) is most definitely a crime.

Just think... the paedophile does his 8 years time in the nick and is out to life his life, but the poor girl/boy has to live with this for the REST of their life. Often there is no escaping it. It is a life sentence. I know someone who this happened to and as an adult it still f*cks up their life.

And as someone else pointed out, having been abused, someone is more likely to do it themselves. Therefore we must literally remove the offenders from society to help break the chain.
Tom V - on 30 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

Homosexuality was a crime.
The law changed and people's attitudes with it.

Other times, other morals.

crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Tom V:

Homosexuality is like heterosexuality... it is generally consensual between two adults who are mature enough to make informed decisions. That is not the case with abuse of minors. Hence there is a BIG difference and is nothing to do with people's attitudes or current morals.
Tom V - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

I don't think paedophilia is simply a matter of abuse of minors.
davidalcock - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

Caveman say, caveman f*ck 10 yr old, make baby. But we're not cavemen, and the biological imperative has been half-quashed in humanity. What do we do with the throwbacks?

I would like a dedicated institution that does its best to re-educate. If that doesn't help, then cast them to the wolves.

It seems the judge gave the max without abuse happening. What else could he have done?
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Tom V:
Not in every case, but in most. Even if the girl/boy is 15, they are not necessarily of the right emotional maturity to make the decision. Obviously there is an issue that if the person 15 and 364 days, you are a paedo, but then at 16 and 0 days they are suddenly ok and it's consensual. But *generally* the law (in terms of sentencing) reflects that to some degree. Rape (or 'sex') of a young child being sentenced more harshly than a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

However, if the person is 13, and the other 18+ (as a rough example) then that is WRONG. Nothing can change that. However mature a 13 year old might think they are, they still have a developing brain and are not in a position to make fully informed decisions of that nature. There are of course exceptions to the rule in the grey area of ages, but I am talking in fairly encompassing general terms.
Post edited at 00:21
Tom V - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

I'm not saying it's not WRONG, in the example you give. I'm merely pointing out that people would have been saying that homosexuality was WRONG less than a hundred years ago. It's hard to define absolutes where morals are concerned.
Cannibalism is WRONG. But Nando Parrado is one of my absolute heroes along with the rest of the Andes plane crash survivors. The only people to insist that the survivors were WRONG were the more extreme spokesmen for the Catholic church.

stroppygob - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


No different here..


> A Canberra serial child molester has been sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in jail for the public rape of a three-year-old girl and the racially motivated bashing of his neighbour. For both the assault and the rape, Williams received a 25 per cent discount on his sentence for pleading guilty.Ms Murrell sentenced him to a total of seven years and six months in prison. He will be eligible for parole in four-and-a-half years.

Gallon of petrol and a box of matches would sort him out.
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Tom V:
Yes, cannibalism is wrong in normal circumstances, but given that someone is already dead and you need to survive, then it is the right thing to do. I'd not think twice to do it in those circumstances (actually, given my love of weird and wonderful meat, I'd be curious to try human flesh; but that is another thread! lol).

But I challenge anyone to think of a situation where sex with a child (say 10 years old or younger) is ok, let alone necessary.

Morals do change with eras and generations. And I'd agree that the grey area of 14-16 could be a cultural thing of this era. But younger than that and they are simply not of the emotional maturity to make the decision. Simple as! And of course with the law you can't just say 'that 13 year old is more mature than that 16 year old' even if it might be the case in reality. You have to have a law that is clear and well defined and thus we must define clear age limits. If an adult and a 15 year old are in love (as with the teacher that ran off to France with a pupil), then if they truly care they can damn well wait a year!

I fail to see that there will be any modern (and by that I mean advanced) society in the future where a person of 25 can have sex with a 10 year old and it would be deemed ok by their peers.
Post edited at 00:41
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> No different here..

> Gallon of petrol and a box of matches would sort him out.

Too quick in my opinion. A touch of Asian torture first me thinks.
king_of_gibraltar - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It can't be all about power though... where would u put child porn then? They are not in power when getting their kick out of it, so surely it must be about attraction...

Freaks me out just thinking of the whole subject.

Put them in a hole and burn them i say!
davidalcock - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to king_of_gibraltar:

You're all cavemen, it seems.
ads.ukclimbing.com
RichardP - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I thin about 10 minutes would be long enough.

in a room with 10 or 20 mothers of toddlers........

Trangia - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Shouldn't you have started this thread in the Gibbet one?
In reply to Tom V:

> Homosexuality was a crime.

> The law changed and people's attitudes with it.

> Other times, other morals.

There is a difference - there is no victim in homosexuality; there is with paedophilia. It's a pretty important difference.

I'm not sure homosexuals would be too enamoured with your comparison.
Mike Highbury - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to RichardP:

> I thin about 10 minutes would be long enough.

> in a room with 10 or 20 mothers of toddlers........

What have toddlers got to do with it? Nine years old is a child but not a toddler.

Your fantasies are getting the better of you, I'm afraid.
jkarran - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> See my previous post... remove genitals :)

You're probably just sounding off at the internet but out of curiosity, what do you think of punitive mutilation where it is actually used in the real world today, in Saudi Arabia for example?

While the 5yr sentence doesn't appear serve a very effective public protection role it presumably is considered to in conjunction with him being placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely. The alternative of ever longer sentences viewed purely from a practical point of view is pretty unworkable.

jk
Oceanrower - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:


> However, if the person is 13, and the other 18+ (as a rough example) then that is WRONG.

Unless you're in Spain, in which case it is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Not suggesting it's right. Just wondering how two developed countries can have such differing ideas.
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to jkarran:

> You're probably just sounding off at the internet but out of curiosity, what do you think of punitive mutilation where it is actually used in the real world today, in Saudi Arabia for example?

I think for the crimes in those places where such mutilation is used (such as thieving) is totally over the top of course. But violent rape, brutal/first degree murder and severe child molestation (when proven beyond any shadow of a doubt) warrant a different approach and I would not be opposed to such measures. Basically, when the victim has a life sentence (ie. it ruins their life forever due to heinousness of the crimes), the 'attacker' should also be made to remember and pay for what they did for the rest of their life.
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Unless you're in Spain, in which case it is PERFECTLY LEGAL.

> Not suggesting it's right. Just wondering how two developed countries can have such differing ideas.

What is the legal limit in Spain? Surely not 13?
andy - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

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

Yep. Perhaps Spanish kids' brains develop quicker than they do in the UK?

crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to andy:

Jesus it is 13... that's just messed up. A few countries have 14 which is what I personally would consider to be right at the very low end of the 'grey area', if not a little below, but 13... wow.

Thank f*ck for this: "In 2013, the government announced plans to raise the age of consent to 15"

On that note, these definitions are very tough to define. Personally I think that a 20 something year old having sex with a 13 year old is significantly worse than two 13 year olds having sex. But how would one incorporate that into law? Tough.
jkarran - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

I don't know why I bother reading or responding these threads, they're never anything but profoundly depressing.

Would you personally be willing to torture someone with your own hands 'so they'd remember and pay', to live with their blood on your hands?

Would stroppygob and king_of_gibraltar really be willing to burn someone alive if they'd seen up close what that actually does to a person?

I just have to hope not.
jk
Rob Exile Ward on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

From memory, I think it's in the Blank Slate, which is also well worth a read.

crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to jkarran:

Hey... if someone had raped one of my nieces (both under 10), then I would take great delight in torturing them.
Jon Stewart - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:
> (In reply to jkarran)
>
> Hey... if someone had raped one of my nieces (both under 10), then I would take great delight in torturing them.

Would you consider that morally righteous, or do you think you would be succumbing to understable but deeply ugly part of your nature.

What do you think of the teachings of Jesus Christ, just out of interest?
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Would you consider that morally righteous, or do you think you would be succumbing to understable but deeply ugly part of your nature.

> What do you think of the teachings of Jesus Christ, just out of interest?

Nope it is definitely not morally righteous... it's as you say, the ugly side of my nature! I am fiercely protective over friends and family.

I am very nonreligious and frankly think that religion is responsible for many of the world's ills, including many deaths/genocides done in the name of some religious figure. But I have no problem with those who indulge in the better side of religion; many good things are also done in the name of religion (but I think outweighed by the negatives).
IainRUK - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to andy:

This is what annoys me about the EU.. the waste time on making sure we all use the metric system, yet these issues should be consistent, drink driving, age of consent.. basic laws should be consistent across the EU.
Jon Stewart - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)


> I am very nonreligious and frankly think that religion is responsible for many of the world's ills, including many deaths/genocides done in the name of some religious figure. But I have no problem with those who indulge in the better side of religion; many good things are also done in the name of religion (but I think outweighed by the negatives).

That wasn't my question. I too am "very nonreligious" but I was interested in what you think of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ which is a question you have evaded.
jkarran - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> Hey... if someone had raped one of my nieces (both under 10), then I would take great delight in torturing them.

Ok but presumably by the same token you'd be ok with your victim's family then exacting gruesome revenge on you?

If you really want to protect your nieces (I don't doubt it) then set your mind toward building a better, safer society, not one in which violent revenge is endorsed and encouraged even if it's just venting on the internet.

jk
Al Evans on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Tom V:

> I'm not saying it's not WRONG, in the example you give. I'm merely pointing out that people would have been saying that homosexuality was WRONG less than a hundred years ago.

But not a couple of thousand years ago, homosexual activity was considered a rite of passage by the Ancient Greeks.

doz generale - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

>

> But not a couple of thousand years ago, homosexual activity was considered a rite of passage by the Ancient Greeks.

Marrying prepubescent girls was normal all over the world until fairly recently. It still is in some backwards places like Pakistan. The prophet Muhammad married a 6 year old apparently.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Al Evans on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to andy:


> Yep. Perhaps Spanish kids' brains develop quicker than they do in the UK?

Wow, that's pretty thorough look at European practices, mostly way different.
Jim Fraser - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> See my previous post... remove genitals :)

and stands the test of being worthy of a civilised and lawful society
Tom V - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

And Romans. Oysters and snails.
crayefish - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Oh sorry I was took it to be more of a yes/no religious question.

I think the idea of 'turn the other cheek' etc (I presume that is what you are referring to?) is nice in principal, but not something that works for everyone in reality. Ok there are people who can do that (and even forgive the person who raped them) and I applaud that, but I am not one of those people.
seankenny - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to jkarran:

> I don't know why I bother reading or responding these threads, they're never anything but profoundly depressing.

> Would you personally be willing to torture someone with your own hands 'so they'd remember and pay', to live with their blood on your hands?

> Would stroppygob and king_of_gibraltar really be willing to burn someone alive if they'd seen up close what that actually does to a person?

> I just have to hope not.


I'm thinking of sadism as a continuum. At one end, chaotic sadism: the burglar who comes into your house on a whim, rapes your wife and murders you. (Anyone ever read "Butcher Boy" - he's chaotic, tho actually he has his own internal logic. So clearly it's complicated.) And at the other end of the spectrum, authoritarian sadism: the cop who beats to death a suspect in the cells.

I'm guessing that stroppy and others posting/boasting of their willingness to torture, maim and kill are authoritarian sadists: they desire to inflict pain in order to uphold rules and order, rather than to fulfil their own desires. Of course, what gives the authoritarian sadist an extra edge is that the people he wants to hurt are both just like him and yet totally socially unacceptable, so he can project his bad side onto another person.

So of course it's profoundly depressing. Hearing sadists talk about inflicting pain on others absolutely should be.


Mike Redmayne - on 31 Jan 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Here's the boring legal stuff:

The maximum sentence for the facilitating offence is 14 years, but Sentencing Guidelines Council say normal sentence should be the one for the offence that was being facilitated; here it would be sexual activity with a child which again has a 14 year max, but the guideline says 4-7 years is the usual range. Presuming this offence is at the serious end, say 7 years then a discount for pleading guilty and 5 years looks ok according to current sentencing guidelines. And it doesn't seem outrageous to me for a first offence, given the charge.

What is more puzzling is why it was still 5 years given the other offences - the story implies this was the overall sentence, though reporters, who knows. Maybe the sentences were imposed consecutively, though this looks to me to be a case where concurrent would be appropriate - the offences involved different victims. I am also not sure why he was charged with the facilitating offence as opposed to assisting and encouraging rape of a child under 13. A jurisdictional issue? CPS not thinking it through? Dunno.

RichardP - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to Mike Highbury:

nothing to do with fantasies,

aln - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to ow arm:

> get 'paedophile' tattooed on their forehead, no jail nothing, just that and let them out.

One of the stupidest posts I've read on here,
r0x0r.wolfo - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to aln:

Why is it so bad? ;)
CrushUnit - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to seankenny: I couldn't have worded that post better if I had tried.

I think the problem with individuals that post about their willingness and in some cases pleasure at seeing others (no mater how heinous the crime) tortured and mutilated is that they lack the intellect to fully consider what kind of a society that would turn us into.

When the state starts committing acts of violence against it's own citizens no mater what the context it is a slippery slope.


crayefish - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to CrushUnit:

> I think the problem with individuals that post about their willingness and in some cases pleasure at seeing others (no mater how heinous the crime) tortured and mutilated is that they lack the intellect to fully consider what kind of a society that would turn us into.

Speak for yourself!
CrushUnit - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

I wasn't speaking for myself I was speaking about people who make silly comments they haven't properly thought through on Internet forums.
crayefish - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to CrushUnit:

I think the problem with individuals that post about the silliness of comments (given that this has turned into a thread what paedos deserve rather than defining a genuine new type of society) is that they lack the intellect to fully consider the use of overstatement and hint sarcasm used in said posts.
CrushUnit - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

Ok
Tom V - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

Ah -The Clarkson Defence.
ex0 - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to Al Evans:
>

> But not a couple of thousand years ago, homosexual activity was considered a rite of passage by the Ancient Greeks.

Child porn itself isn't banned around the world. It's legal in Ukraine for example. It was legal in a majority of places until the late 80's. In the US it wasn't until 1996 that they made laws specifically for CP (though people were charged based on obscenity laws instead).
Post edited at 17:08
seankenny - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> they lack the intellect to fully consider the use of overstatement and hint sarcasm used in said posts.

A very generous reading of some posts. Unless of course you've never heard of the Milgram experiment.
crayefish - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to seankenny:

No I haven't. I was making a humours reply to the poster who proclaimed most kn tbe threat an idiot. Sarcasm and exaduration are difficult to portray over text. But my comments still stand.
Antigua - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to IainRUK:

> evolutionarily you can explain homosexuality

and not paedophilia?

paedophilia is a moral question not an evolutionary one surely
Timmd on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:
> Homosexuality was a crime.

> The law changed and people's attitudes with it.

> Other times, other morals.

That's a bollox chain of logic*, there's nothing at all immoral about homosexuality, but there indubitably is about adults having sex with children.

You're in the relms of Putin and his 'gay propaganda' there.

*Excuse my forwardness, but it's that kind of thinking which leads to gay people being beaten up and harassed, and killed.

There's urban myths in Jamaica about gay men who prey on youngsters and then leave them in bushes, which doesn't help gay people there.
Post edited at 19:49
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:
> YES! While they might not be able to 'control' it, they KNOW it is wrong. At least by modern society standards. Yet they still do it.

They know society says it's wrong, which is definitely is, but some do see themselves as having 'a relationship' with the children involved.

Obviously this isn't a view I share. Like yourself I've known somebody who was abused as a child, and it's changed the course of his life, it's very unfair on him.
Post edited at 20:00
Antigua - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

How does that work with teenage mothers?
davidalcock - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"Exaduration"... just wonderful. I love a bit of coinage.
seankenny - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> No I haven't. I was making a humours reply to the poster who proclaimed most kn tbe threat an idiot. Sarcasm and exaduration are difficult to portray over text. But my comments still stand.


Portraying anything would be easier if you stuck more closely to the usual forms, spellings and usage of the English language. Sentence #2 is all a bit freestyle for my tastes.
crayefish - on 01 Feb 2014
In reply to seankenny:

My apologies for not writting that on my laptop. Once I get off my phone I'll be sure to forward you a full and proper response. In fact please send all complaints to didmyphomereallyspellitlikethatanddoigiveashit.com :) I rib you but really agree with correct grammar/spelling. Just the tools and time given do not preclude such things occasionally.
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Timmd:
It's obvious that people such as yourself and Crayefish have a much clearer sense of what is right and wrong than other people such as myself. ( I'm going off your use of the word "indubitably"and his capitalization of WRONG)

Had we all been alive in 1835 when Pratt and Smith were executed for homosexual acts, I would probably still be unclear about whether it was the right thing to do, whereas you would have been absolutely sure about the morality and the legality of it all.One way or the other.
Post edited at 08:43
Timmd on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:

It's just about whether somebody is harmed or not, children are, and other consenting adults aren't, when it was illegal there would have been people wondering why, or that wouldn't have changed, I'd have thought.
In reply to Antigua:

> How does that work with teenage mothers?

You've lost me.
Jim Fraser - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to CrushUnit:

> I think the problem with individuals that post about their willingness and in some cases pleasure at seeing others (no mater how heinous the crime) tortured and mutilated is that they lack the intellect to fully consider what kind of a society that would turn us into.

> When the state starts committing acts of violence against it's own citizens no mater what the context it is a slippery slope.

Yes.


> Had we all been alive in 1835 when Pratt and Smith were executed for homosexual acts, I would probably still be unclear about whether it was the right thing to do, whereas you would have been absolutely sure about the morality and the legality of it all. One way or the other.

One of the ways in which Rousseau's work of the 1760's differs from modern European political philosophy is his treatment of the death penalty, which I think he considered only for cases of murder, and justified it by saying that a murderer had by his act placed himself outside of society. That approach is, I think, a mistake, and one driven by matters of the time where state administration which could handle tasks like life imprisonment did not yet exist. Laws against homosexuality also need to be considered in a historical context as they are likely to have been inherited by Christians from Judaism.

Previous bad judgement in the way society has treated murderers, homosexuals, and others, is not an excuse to continue to make bad judgements about the way we treat paedophiles. It seems to me that, distracted by these other matters, and often drawing inappropriate comparisons, we persistently fail to find a workable and civilised approach.
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:

I am sorry that you find my comparisons inappropriate.

I was merely trying to point out that people who are POSITIVE about what is right and wrong would more than likely have had to make an adjustment to their moral compass if they had lived in different times.



Mike Highbury - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:

> I am sorry that you find my comparisons inappropriate.

> I was merely trying to point out that people who are POSITIVE about what is right and wrong would more than likely have had to make an adjustment to their moral compass if they had lived in different times.

Unfortunately moral relativism is considered a little clumsy in these liberal times.
Timmd on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:
> I am sorry that you find my comparisons inappropriate.

> I was merely trying to point out that people who are POSITIVE about what is right and wrong would more than likely have had to make an adjustment to their moral compass if they had lived in different times.

That's a fair point, it's just that, having thought through whether it can really be seen as immoral or not, after seeing posts on here by religious people saying they think it is, I decided that somebody has to come to harm for questions about whether it's immoral to start being asked, and realised that this means gays and lesbians can't in any sense be seen as being immoral.

Moral relativism only exists where harm occurs, I think, where as, for something to be seen as immoral where no harm occurs at all, is just simply illogical. One might as well say bouncing a tennis ball is.

I spent quite a while wondering about the few religious people on here thinking to be gay is immoral, and they're just not thinking things through for themselves.

When Oscar Wilde was jailed, you can bet he'd have had some male and female friends who were on his side, even if societal norms went against him.

Where there is something which harms other people in some way, if indirectly, I get your point.
Post edited at 18:34
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Timmd:
I need to be careful here....
Much as I love my sister in the familial sense, to engage in a sexual relationship with her would be seen as immoral by most of the people on here who profess to know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.

And yet, to quote your criteria, what harm? There would be no chance of offspring.
Post edited at 18:34
Timmd on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:
Are you hinting that there is some way in which gays and lesbians might be legitimately seen as being immoral?

If it made you both happy, it wouldn't bother me.

The part of what makes me human which seeks to avoid inbreeding would make me find it weird, but I'd place a question mark over whether it's immoral or not.


Post edited at 18:43
Byronius Maximus - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> Cut his cock 'n balls off and release him back into society! Not only will he not re-offend, but many others will think twice :)

Seven replies until corporal punishment was suggested. Was it that slow because people living in medieval times have such slow computers?
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Timmd:

Gays and lesbians can not be considered legitimately as immoral in this particular political climate in this country.

This does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world.
Enty - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Loving your work John yet again. The willy waving from both sides of this argument is outstanding.

E
Tom V - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Enty:

Willy waving is best left to the George Michaels of this world.
Eric9Points - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:

Do you know what George Michael has in common with a Wellington boot?
Enty - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Eric9Points:

I do and it's quite funny...

E
ads.ukclimbing.com
aln - on 02 Feb 2014
In reply to Tom V:

> I need to be careful here....

> Much as I love my sister in the familial sense, to engage in a sexual relationship with her would be seen as immoral by most of the people on here who profess to know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.

> And yet, to quote your criteria, what harm? There would be no chance of offspring.

If you have unprotected sex with your sister there's as much chance of offspring as there is in any other sexual encounter.
crayefish - on 03 Feb 2014
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

Should we adopt a more roman approach Maximus? :)
Tom V - on 03 Feb 2014
In reply to crayefish:

When in Rome....
teflonpete - on 03 Feb 2014
In reply to jkarran:

> Ok but presumably by the same token you'd be ok with your victim's family then exacting gruesome revenge on you?

> If you really want to protect your nieces (I don't doubt it) then set your mind toward building a better, safer society, not one in which violent revenge is endorsed and encouraged even if it's just venting on the internet.

> jk

I'm not into the whole dismember them / burn them argument, but much as I like the sound of building a better, safer society rather than enacting revenge on the perpetrators of terrible crimes, how do you propose we go about that and achieve a result? The result being that we live in a better, safer society where neither adults nor kids are attacked.
jkarran - on 03 Feb 2014
In reply to teflonpete:

I have no idea, I'll leave that to wiser folk than me but we seem to be getting there already with crime falling steadily to an all time low. Either way, I'm pretty sure reverting to a tit-for-tat tribal system of bloody revenge is not moving us in the right direction.

I guess some deep breaths and a little respect for the rule of law would be a good start for those wielding their virtual pitchforks.

I'm pretty sure we could each think of 1001 things we could do to make the world a little better if we really wanted to from the tiny gestures like getting to know your neighbors or buying a homeless person a cuppa through to bigger commitments like fostering kids or sponsoring a teacher somewhere.

jk

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.