Child pronography ring busted

[max_freakout]

If rape is a sexualality do you consider the girl(or guy) raped a sexual partner or a victim ?
To put out a fire on your own head with a hammer hurts yourself. Putting a man to death who considers it fine to rape a young child or a baby only gets rid of the rubbish.
Until you can come up with a better way of dealing with these evil people I would like to remain simpleminded thank you.

Rape obssession, like paedophilia, is a sexuality that necessarily involves unconsenting partners, whether to call them partners or victims depends on how you look at it i would say they are both, partners in the sense that they are involved in the sexual act, and victims because they didnt consent to it. The more we victimise pados, and the more they are chased by the authorities, the smarter they get and the better at avoiding being caught, so it's a catch 22 situation IMO we will never reduce the suffering of children by this method, there seem to be PLENTY of uncaught paedos out there compared to the number that the authorities have successfully captured (which is hardly any)

Yes i cant come up with a better way of dealing with the problem, but at the same time i would never throw my hands up and say we should give up trying

 

[audiotech]

We are talking about people who think it's OK to stick thier cocks in young children and, in the extreme, babies.

To be more specific, we're talking about men (not all men of course).

That link also has something on the Cleveland abuse child abuse scandal. The author of the report (which I read some time ago now) paints an horrific picture of children (most on the Social Services 'at risk' register) being abused by relatives and family friends (a mother watching her son being sodomised by his father, a father drinking tea from his babies vagina and other examples).

The authorities acted dismally with, in some cases, children being sent back to their abusers and others, due to over zealous actions by some social workers, removing children from families who had never abused anyone.

Then the press got hold of the story and attacked the very people who were trying to protect children.

 

[cathal marcs]

Until a cure can be found for their foul urges then they need to be kept away from people they can harm.

 

[max_freakout]

Until a cure can be found for their foul urges then they need to be kept away from people they can harm.

This might be what is needed but it CERTAINLY isnt what is actually happening, we hardly catch ANY paedos the authorities are total shit at finding them, but there are a great number of them out there (or so it seems)

 

[bluestreak]

rape isn't a sexual;ity its a passtime

 

[max_freakout]

rape isn't a sexual;ity its a passtime

Collecting stamps is a pasttime, not raping people

 

[bluestreak]

nah, both are bizarre compulsions to do things others think badly of. only difference is that stamp collecting is a victimless crime.

 

[Doomsy]

Am i the only person who feels sympathy for paedophiles?

Honestly? I fucking hope so...

 

[kakuma]

the vast majority of child abuse occurs in the home with people who are trusted by the family, like uncles and priests

and have no eveidence for this, but the majority of paedos seem to be people who were abused at one time or the other, file sharing isn't the cause of paedophilia

 

[big footed fred]

Rape obssession, like paedophilia, is a sexuality that necessarily involves unconsenting partners, whether to call them partners or victims depends on how you look at it i would say they are both, partners in the sense that they are involved in the sexual act, and victims because they didnt consent to it.

The more we victimise pados,

I am shicked by this shit.

I don't care if rape is a sexuality, it still involves forcing a woman into sex and hurting her.
I see no excuse for this. I still think the best way of dealing with these bullies is to abuse them ib a very public way.
Lets see an introduction of public flogging for these bastards and see if they calm down a bit after that.

I want to victimise pados. You make it sound like they are the victims of something.
I can't think of a better way than to hang the gits and make sure there is never a second offence and that means no second child raped or murdered by the bastard.

Bollocks to understanding them or treating them like humans. They are some sort of sub human animal with no rights at all.

 

[big footed fred]

To be more specific, we're talking about men (not all men of course).

.

Most women don't have cocks so I didn't bother being specific.
Still that fails to mention that some women do help in these crimes.

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

 

[trashpony]

Rape obssession, like paedophilia, is a sexuality that necessarily involves unconsenting partners, whether to call them partners or victims depends on how you look at it i would say they are both, partners in the sense that they are involved in the sexual act, and victims because they didnt consent to it.

Eh? How is a victim a partner? If I bash you over the head, are you party to that? Is it somehow your fault? No.

To even suggest that rape victims - whatever their age - are partners is fucking sick imo.

If you fucked a sheep, would it be a partner?

 

[Jessiedog]

We are talking about people who think it's OK to stick thier cocks in young children and, in the extreme, babies.
If the next victim is a member of your family will you sit down and try to understand them or would you want to get hold of their bollocks and rip them off before you killed the bastard.
I know where I stand.

The point's been made (and it's an important one,) but you don't seem to have fully appreciated it yet.

Let's reiterate. Not all people have cocks. Nor bollocks to "rip off" for that matter.

I don't care if rape is a sexuality, it still involves forcing a woman into sex and hurting her.

Nope!

Still haven't got it.

Most women don't have cocks so I didn't bother being specific.
Still that fails to mention that some women do help in these crimes.

Look, we're not talking about daddies little helper here.

What would you do with female rapists and paedophiles? Stick your hand up them and rip their cunts out then hang them from the ceiling by hooks through their tits?

Yup!

That'll solve the problem.

Gotta send a strong message out that these evil, disgusting animals will be made to suffer for their crimes, eh Big Boy?



Woof

 

[TAE]

Bollocks to understanding them or treating them like humans. They are some sort of sub human animal with no rights at all.

That is a very dangerous road to go down.

Bush might say the same about the 'terrorists' in guantanamo bay.

 

[max_freakout]

Eh? How is a victim a partner? If I bash you over the head, are you party to that? Is it somehow your fault? No.

To even suggest that rape victims - whatever their age - are partners is fucking sick imo.

If you fucked a sheep, would it be a partner?

It is just splitting hairs over choice of word, 'partner' as in 'the other person' in an act that involves 2 people, not trying to be sick they are victims as well

 

[max_freakout]

I want to victimise pados. You make it sound like they are the victims of something.

My argument is that these people are (in a sense) 'victims' of their own sexuality, since we DO NOT choose our sexuality, I could not possibly 'choose' to become a paedophile so i see no reason to assume that paedophiles have the power to 'choose' to STOP being paedophiles.


Therefore if we victimise these people, we are doing so over a feature of them that is completely beyond their control, and the only argument that can be put forth to support this is to say that "well what ELSE can we do?"

A very nasty situation in society but let's not become blinded by our own rage, we are not solving the problem that way, and children contiunue to suffer regardless

 

[trashpony]

It is just splitting hairs over choice of word, 'partner' as in 'the other person' in an act that involves 2 people, not trying to be sick they are victims as well

No, it isn't just splitting hairs. The word partner implies a consensual relationship which is totally inappropriate in this context.

 

[max_freakout]

Ok they're not 'partners' in any sense then but this is unimportant

 

[Streathamite]

Rape is definitely a sexuality, many men are completely obsessed with it in Dutch sex shops they have whole sections dedicated to rape videos, and Holland also has among the lowest rates of sexual violence in the world.
And It's not about defending paedophiles, more like trying to understand what might make a person do that to get sexual gratification without making the simpleminded assumption that all such people are pure evil. The fact is you can execute/torture/castrate or whatever as many paedophiles as you can catch, and you wont have done ANYTHING to solve the problem, as there will always be more paedophiles to replace them. If your hair caught on fire, would you try to put out the flames with a hammer??? Your ideas for dealing with paedophiles seem to show this kind of mentality

just one question; which takes higher priority, 'curing' paedoes or protecting kids from them?
oh one more? Most non-paedoes seem able to control their various 'urges', so why should it be different for paedophiles.
Frankly, I am shocked and surprised at your posts on this thread

 

[gentlegreen]

No, it isn't just splitting hairs. The word partner implies a consensual relationship which is totally inappropriate in this context.

I think the subtle difference is that as a child you just go along with whatever the abusing adult wants so a lot of paedophiles are probably able to convince themselves that it is consensual ... I'm guessing that this happens a lot in adult sexual encounters too.

.

 

[spring-peeper]

A while back, someone was was going over the finances for my province. Ontario. Imagine the shock when it was discovered that the province was giving free viagra to the paedophiles that had been released. They don't any more,btw.

When one of these offenders move into a neighbourhood, the community is notified. Statistics show that this people usually re-offend, but they have done there time. Legally, they can live where ever they want - but we have to protect the children. It's a case of the rights of many vs the rights of a few.

Community pressure is usually so strong that the persons move.

The only way to keep them off the street is get them to label them as a "dangerous offender". Then they don't get released - ever, iirc. It's a long process to have someone labeled as a threat to society, but it does happen.

 

[lighterthief]

My argument is that these people are (in a sense) 'victims' of their own sexuality, since we DO NOT choose our sexuality, I could not possibly 'choose' to become a paedophile so i see no reason to assume that paedophiles have the power to 'choose' to STOP being paedophiles.


Therefore if we victimise these people, we are doing so over a feature of them that is completely beyond their control, and the only argument that can be put forth to support this is to say that "well what ELSE can we do?"

A very nasty situation in society but let's not become blinded by our own rage, we are not solving the problem that way, and children contiunue to suffer regardless

Good post.

 

[max_freakout]

just one question; which takes higher priority, 'curing' paedoes or protecting kids from them?

Well at the moment we are doing neither of these, no paedos are being cured, and attacks on children are increasing and increasing AFAIK so we are not protecting them. IMO though the obvious priority should be in understanding human sexuality so that we understand why people are prepared to put their morals aside to fulfil their sexual urges

oh one more? Most non-paedoes seem able to control their various 'urges', so why should it be different for paedophiles.

Really? Speaking for myself as a non-paedo i am completely unable to control my sexual urges and im pretty sure that the same goes for everyone. Luckily my urges are tolerated by society as they dont infringe on other people's freedom, since i am a reasonably good looking male, i can persuade my sex partners to consent before having sex with me, and failing that there's always porno , but paedophiles do not have the luxury of being able to get their partners to consent, or having recourse to (legal and easily available) pornography.

Frankly, I am shocked and surprised at your posts on this thread

Fair enough that's your opinion but please respond to the points ive made in this post. And it seems to me that there are only 2 strands of opinion on this debate anyway, the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" argument, which society has already adopted and which is NOT working in any possible sense, and then the argument that we need to understand paedophiles before we can possibly do anything about the harm they cause to children

 

[spring-peeper]

What's to understand?

It's like saying that we should "understand" the desire to be gay. There is no understanding - either you are or you are not.

The difference is that being gay does not mean that you are going to commit horrible offenses that should be described as rape and are totally indefensable.

I have no desire to find out "why" these people are abusing children. I just want them to stop.

 

[max_freakout]

I have no desire to find out "why" these people are abusing children. I just want them to stop.

But if we dont understand what it is that causes paedophiles to ignore their conscience and abuse children to satisfy their innate sexual urges, how can we ever hope to stop them?

I think the problem here is that most people's idea of a 'solution' to paedophilia is that we put them all in a big prison, lock the door and forget about them, voila, problem solved, but this will NEVER happen, no matter how many paedophiles we catch, imprison, castrate or whatever (which is hardly any anyway) there will always be a far greater number of them out and free in the world to abuse children. The answer IMO is to stop letting our blind rage decide our solutions to this problem, and try to understand them

 

[big footed fred]

Gotta send a strong message out that these evil, disgusting animals will be made to suffer for their crimes, eh Big Boy?

Yes. In the strongest way you can.

FUCKING YES

What do you suggest. Perhaps you would like to understand them. Send them flowers as they must be ill and try to cure them.

I would far sooner make well sure they never hurt anyone again by getting rid of them.
I have said it before. You dump the take away wrappers in the bin so they don'r stink the house out. Same goes for this rubbish.

What would you do with these bastards ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/4825212.stm

I am amazed that anyone could hold any feelings or interest in the welfare of these sub human bastards

TAE. Going to your comment, "That is a very dangerous road to go down."
Bush might say the same about the 'terrorists' in guantanamo bay.

Not half as bad as letting gits like this loose on the streets to do it again.

max_freakout
Jesus fucking christ. What the fuck are you thinking ?

My argument is that these people are (in a sense) 'victims' of their own sexuality, since we DO NOT choose our sexuality, I could not possibly 'choose' to become a paedophile so i see no reason to assume that paedophiles have the power to 'choose' to STOP being paedophiles.

People don't choose their sexuallity but hetro, homosexual or whatever we still consider it a crime to force someone into sex.
These people are not victims, the children they fuck are.

I'm sorry to be so blunt but we are not talking about someone who can't stop themselves nicking a bar of fruit and nut from Tescos, we are talking about a man (as a rule) that feels it's OK to stick his perverted cock into a young child.
You talk like they have some sort of excuse or valid reason to do it.

But if we dont understand what it is that causes paedophiles to ignore their conscience and abuse children to satisfy their innate sexual urges, how can we ever hope to stop them?

Easy - hang the fuckers.
No repeat offences.

 

[Jessiedog]

What would you do with female rapists and paedophiles? Stick your hand up them and rip their cunts out then hang them from the ceiling by hooks through their tits?



Woof

Yes. In the strongest way you can.

FUCKING YES

Errrrr.

OK then.



Woof

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Berlin misleadingly talks about the involuntariness of being "sexually attracted to young people." The issue is not sexual attraction; it is sexual action. A healthy 20-year-old male with heterosexual interests is likely to be powerfully attracted to every halfway pretty woman he sees. This does not mean that he has, or attempts to have, sexual congress with these women, especially against their will. The entire psychiatric literature on what used to be called "sexual perversions" is permeated by the unfounded idea -- always implied, sometimes asserted -- that "abnormal" sexual impulses are harder to resist than "normal" ones.

The acceptance of this notion helps explain the widespread belief that sex offenders are more likely than other criminals to commit new crimes, an assumption that is not supported by the evidence. Tracking a sample of state prisoners who were released in 1983, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 52 percent of rapists and 48 percent of other sex offenders were arrested for a new crime within three years, compared to 60 percent of all violent offenders. The recidivism rates for nonviolent crimes were even higher: 70 percent for burglary and 78 percent for car theft, for example.

These numbers suggest that pedophiles resist their impulses more often than car thieves do. In any case, it is impossible to verify empirically whether an impulse is resistible. We can only say whether it was in fact resisted. But that doesn’t matter, because the purpose of such a pseudomedical claim is to excuse the actor of moral and legal responsibility.

Catholic officials took advantage of this psychiatric absolution to avoid dealing decisively with priests who were guilty of sexual abuse. What do church authorities do when a priest is accused of molesting children? They send him to a prestigious psychiatric hospital -- Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, the Institute of Living in Hartford, the Menninger Foundation in Topeka -- for "treatment." In practice, the psychiatric hospital is a safe house for the sexually misbehaving priest, a place where he can be hidden until he is quietly reassigned to continue his abuse elsewhere. Berlin claims such priests are closely watched after being discharged. But a priest who commits sexual abuse is a criminal who should be imprisoned, not a patient who should be monitored by psychiatrists in the church’s pay.

http://reason.com/0208/fe.ts.sins.shtml

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To impress the laity, physicians long ago took to using Greek and Latin words to describe diseases. For example, they called inflammation of the lung "pneumonia" and kidney failure "uremia." The result is that people now think that any Greco-Latin word ending in ia -- or with the suffix philia or phobia -- is a bona fide disease. This credulity would be humorous if it were not tragic.

Bibliophilia means the excessive love of books. It does not mean stealing books from libraries. Pedophilia means the excessive (sexual) love of children. It does not mean having sex with them, although that is what people generally have in mind when they use the term. Because children cannot legally consent to anything, an adult using a child as a sexual object is engaging in a wrongful act. Such an act is wrongful because it entails the use of physical coercion, the threat of such coercion, or (what comes to the same thing in a relationship between an adult and a child) the abuse of the adult’s status as a trusted authority. The outcome of the act -- whether it is beneficial or detrimental for the child -- is irrelevant for judging its permissibility.

Saying that a priest who takes sexual advantage of a child entrusted to his care "suffers from pedophilia" implies that there is something wrong with his sexual functioning, just as saying that he suffers from pernicious anemia implies that there something wrong with the functioning of his hematopoietic system. If that were the issue, it would be his problem, not ours. Our problem is that there is something wrong with him as a moral agent. We ought to focus on his immorality, and forget about his sexuality.

A priest who has sex with a child commits a grave moral wrong and also violates the criminal law. He does not treat himself as if he has a disease before he is apprehended, and we ought not to treat him that way afterward


- same article.

 

[max_freakout]

People don't choose their sexuallity but hetro, homosexual or whatever we still consider it a crime to force someone into sex.
These people are not victims, the children they fuck are.

But paedos CANT get any kind of sexual gratification at all without breaking the law, and inspiring murderous hatred in non-paedos. Therefore they are doomed to a life of total sexual frustration, or to commiting one of the most horrific crimes known. There is no difference in self-control between a paedo and an ordinary heterosexual, heteros don't go around attacking people of the opposite sex on the street, they will wait until an opportunity arises to get someone to consent to have sex with them, likewise a paedo will wait for an opportunity (dont want to finish that sentence ) The fact is that a paedo CANT get a child to consent to them, for several reasons legal and biological.


It's all a matter of opinion, but people seem to forget that society has ALREADY adopted the lock-em-up-and-castrate-em approach which most people on this thread seem to agree with, and it HASNT worked, and children are continuing to suffer as society practises a failing policy. So please can someone tell me how long do children have to suffer for before we realise that our blind-rage tactic isnt working and at least try an alternative approach???? That question goes to everyone who is saying that our current approach to paedos is the correct one