Sue Myspace?

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:09 pm

I really meant compassion as opposed to hatred, which is what they get now, and that this is the case in general, not for this specific person. But I wasn't clear on that.

People who's issues cause them to harm others (sexual predators, sociopaths, etc.) do not deserve compassion unless they are actively trying to get help and not act out.

This is my point, though. How many people who were sexually attracted to children would be willing to come out and ask for that help, with the social reaction towards them the way it is? They would be too afraid to try and get help for fear of being ostracized and labelled as a sexual predator. Some try to repress their feelings, but, as is often the case, that leads to an explosion which can be more harmful later on in life.

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:15 pm

I understand what you're saying. But there is still something primal in me that gets my blood boiling any time I hear about rape or pedophiles (thanks DW I couldn't think of that term for the life of me). So I do understand your point about them being afraid to come forward and ask for help, but that doesn't really change my mind.

Catch-22 I guess.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm

[QUOTE=Darzog]But there is still something primal in me that gets my blood boiling any time I hear about rape or pedophiles (thanks DW I couldn't think of that term for the life of me). [/QUOTE]

You're welcome

Indeed..... when I hear about rape or pedophilia my response is also very visceral, and borders on the irrational. And... speaking from the perspective of a parent... I can say with complete certainty that if anyone ever hurt my son.. I would kill them.

Perhaps such people do deserve compassion.... but my first response is to think they more so deserve being let out amongst the general prison population where they will probably be sodomised and then given a home in a large, all purpose garbage bag. As far as I'm concerned..... it is a fitting end.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:31 pm

[QUOTE=dragon wench] And... speaking from the perspective of a parent... I can say with complete certainty that if anyone ever hurt my son.. I would kill them.[/QUOTE]

If you killed a person what would you get out of it? It would just show you are no better then that person and once you killed a person there is no going back.

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:37 pm

I think the "no going back" has a nice ring to it. :mischief:

And this isn't really a topic that evokes rational thought. It's more blood pumping, deafing roars in your ears and red tinged sight. You aren't thinking clearly at all. Otherwise why would our docile little lamb, DW, react so violently?

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:39 pm

[QUOTE=Darzog]Catch-22 I guess.[/QUOTE]

Well there is one way out of a catch22 and that is to go crazy. Well at least in the book but that is what good shrinks are for, you know, ones that actually give a damn. Obviously if you have a thing for underage girls or boys, that is a problem that goes very deep in the rabbit hole and will take a professional to help you out of it. These people must confront it or they will lose control of themselves.

Fallenhero · Post by **Fallenhero** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:12 pm

Crime and punishment, there's a book in there somewhere I know it. Seriously, if there is one thing I mistrust it's a simple answer. Behind many abusers you'll find an abused child. Can you feel compassion, yes, can you let them out in society, no.

A read a chilling report on the reasons behind the decrease in crime rates over the last decade or so. It looked at police strategies, police numbers, manditory sentencing, and a variety of other policies and the one factor that stuck out was legalized abortion. From the mid 70's on you had less unwanted babies and by the mid 90's you had less unwanted young adults.

I can't remember the author etc, and can't verify his conclusions but I can't ignore it's cold logic either.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:30 pm

Well this has got quite nasty in places, I am sorry to see. I did not intend this thread to take this direction, but hey, GB is interesting for that reason

I am not going to quote anybody, but I do want to say something to those of you who are quick to condemn

One day this week I spent the afternoon with a boy (he is 13) who has a problem with attraction to prepubescent children. He has been severely sexually abused as a child himself and he and his siblings were encouraged to abuse each other for the gratification/ amusement of adults in and outside their family. He was placed in a care home where he was again abused and mistreated. For the last two years he has lived in a good foster home.

This boy is articulate and intelligent. He is aware that he has a case to sue the authority for placing him in a home where he was abused. He wants to write a book about his experiences. He also wants help with his problem as he is afraid he will grow into an adult paedophile and he does not want this. And he wants to be able to be alone with children. He cannot at present, and he acceptst the reasons for that but it makes him very sad and scared. He does cooperate though. He would like to be able to spend time with his young cousins in an unsupervised setting; he would like at some stage to have children of his own and pose no risk to them; he would like to be a good uncle. At present he cannot trust himself with any of that. And help is not forthcoming because there are no therapists who specialise in this type of work available.

I am perhaps professionally deformed, but this is a child, for crying out loud. All of you who wish evil on the person he might become are harsh, IMO. I do not defend what the predator does, but I know many fight themselves all their lives. Is that worth nothing?

P.S. @ Mr Sir. His sentence wasn't changed. That is the original sentence

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:42 pm

First up I apologise to Fiona, since I did kinda get baited by the guy

. Sorry about all that.

[QUOTE=The Exile Revan]You are sadly mistaken, society is made up of morons. Common Sense and Intelligence are alien to 99% of the population.[/QUOTE]

Which I think you have adequately demonstrated through your posts.

Anyway, I won't respond to anything else, partly because he won't read it, and partly because it was all just insults etc.

And I'll just put in some things regarding peadophilia charges and rape. The whole paedophilia thing in Queensland here is either brought under 'Carnal knowledge of a girl under 16', or 'indecent treatment of children'.

The former, the carnal knowledge of a girl under 16, is not affected by whether consent existed and carries a 14 year sentence, however if the girl is under 12, then it's mandatory life. The flipside is, there is a perfectly good defence if you can prove you had reason to believe she was over 16 (eg. in a bar that was for over 18s only).

The other of indecent treatment of children (under 16) is a 14 year sentence, which covers indecently treating them, showing them indecent things, taking indecent records, or allowing them to deal with you indecently.

So they'd probably try and pin him with all three here, and just see if the one carrying the most weight would stick.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:57 pm

[QUOTE=Fiona]P.S. @ Mr Sir. His sentence wasn't changed. That is the original sentence[/QUOTE]

Then I'm misinformed as I was sure the news on tv said he got a lot less than life. I'm pretty sure we must be talking about the same case so I guess I must have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

@Chimaera182, I think the problem when it comes to compassion is that the majority of people have children or nieces or nephews who they would do anything for. If anyone puts them in danger its a natural response to want to protect them and seek revenge/punishment. Like DW, I know that when it comes to stuff like this I don't think rationally (and I'm sure a lot of others don't too) and I'd have to say that, although not a violent man in any way, I would not trust myself around someone who did anything like that to my 12 year old niece as I would probably end up in court myself for assault or worse. I do agree that if you look back at the person's history, they have often been the victim too, but I can't see society ever really not condemning them. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier, but maybe they are right to keep them in special wings in prisons, but maybe the best thing would be long sentences together with extensive, top quality pyschiatric help. Of course this would cost money so, without trying to sound too skeptcial of governments, I doubt this would ever happen to the degree that these people need.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:39 am

This has probably been said before, but since it's my opinion, I'll say it anyways.

So, playing off things that have been said (whether by a banned member or not)-

>>>The guy and the mother are completely guilty, the daughter just a big ****ing moron, who got what she deserved for being so damn dumb.

While I do believe that common sense should play a part, under no circumstances does anybody deserve to be Raped, Molested, or anything that some sick person wants to do to little girls.

>>>Can't blame schools right(oh someone will)?

I will. Simply because sexual education and these types of endangerments to a person should be on the same priority. To me, there's no difference in dying from an STD or Dying from somebody kidnapping you and slitting your throat. If it happens, it's the same result, and if teachers want to prevent people from dying of STD's then they should be inclined to teach common sense for internet purposes.

>>>And while I don't think the girl deserved this, I think that I want to say the mother got what she deserved in having to watch her daughter go through this.

I sort of agree with this. I don't agree that they deserved it, but the mother, along with many other Parents out there, need to keep a better eye on what could happen through the internet.

>>>It is her responsibility to teach the daughter to be safe on the internet she failed, she allowed her daughter to get in trouble.

100% agreed.

>>>That isn't what the mother deserved, she deserves to be locked up, maybe have her parental rights taken away, cause she obviously doesn't know how to raise one properly.

This is where I disagree. I realize that it is a parents responsibility to teach a child right from wrong, but that's a bit far. Even if she had taught her daughter about these dangers, I'd bet that wouldn't make much of a difference. It's just like when AIDS were first introduced, there were several people who taught there child about it, and several who didn't. The ones that didn't, well a chunk of them got the AIDS, but does that make it the parents fault? Remember, the victim is what? 14? She has the capability to think on her own by now.

>>>Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.

So, just an analogy (and I know this is pointless to ask because of the ban, but...), you're saying Jesus, who willingly gave his life for other people, not protecting himself from what cruel fate he was given, deserved what he got?

>>>The girl was definately acting naive and a bit stupid by meeting the guy, but as others have said, she was only 14.

Again, I agree. Common sense does play a part, but she is 14 afterall.

This is all I've got for now, but hopefully you see where I stand on the issue. Feel free to counter point or argue.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:58 am

[QUOTE=Siberys]This is where I disagree. I realize that it is a parents responsibility to teach a child right from wrong, but that's a bit far. Even if she had taught her daughter about these dangers, I'd bet that wouldn't make much of a difference. It's just like when AIDS were first introduced, there were several people who taught there child about it, and several who didn't. The ones that didn't, well a chunk of them got the AIDS, but does that make it the parents fault? Remember, the victim is what? 14? She has the capability to think on her own by now.[/QUOTE]

Parental responsibility for children has been an issue treated very differently in a variety of cultures over time. For example, Chinese law under the Ming and Qing dynasties (roughly 14th century to 20th) made parents or whomever assumed a parental role responsible to a degree for any illegal act committed by a minor in their charge. So if a teen was sent to study for the Classics exam (the traditional method of career advancement in the Chinese bureaucracy, not unlike graduating from a university but with an element of competitive examination included) and forged documents or counterfeited coin, the magistrate could impose a variety of punishments on the teacher. There was considerable lattitude in practice, so that the instructor might simply lose their license to teach, or they might end up in confinement, or prison. (Counterfeiting was a capital offense, with a penalty of death.) But until a child reached a cultural age of maturity, whatever authority had legal control of them was held completely responsible for their activities.

By contrast, modern Western law sees almost no responsibility for a parent over a minor's actions. A minor can be taken away from home, but parents cannot be found guilty, for example, a child under a parent's tutelage commits a hate crime. This is what's making it difficult in part for Western governments to try and imprison radical imams preaching death to infidels. (Nevermind radical Christian imams preaching death to gays, pagans, liberals--well, you get the idea.) There is little cultural background based on a link between an authority figure's teaching and the actions of a student of whatever age. The laws can be enacted, but the people in Western society are queasy over the logic which defies their cultural upbringing.

Myself, I lean towards the Chinese example, while acknowledging that such a practice is totally incompatible with modern Western culture. Parents cannot assume responsibility for their offspring, because they put all their efforts into work and entertainment--and responsibility for the latter rests with those who provide the entertainment, and who claim they aren't responsible for anything they show or produce. And there can be no directly correlative effect shown between entertainment and (say) violence, as the model is incompatible with quantitative analysis.

What's more, no Western society will acept a law that fines or imprisons parents for the crimes of their children. Too many voters would see themselves in sentencing, and scream loudly to their Congressional representatives. Ah, democracy at work.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:40 am

[QUOTE=Siberys]>>>Can't blame schools right(oh someone will)?

I will. Simply because sexual education and these types of endangerments to a person should be on the same priority. To me, there's no difference in dying from an STD or Dying from somebody kidnapping you and slitting your throat. If it happens, it's the same result, and if teachers want to prevent people from dying of STD's then they should be inclined to teach common sense for internet purposes.[/QUOTE]

So these teachers are suppose to do everything now for students? I didn't learn jack in school. It's after high school you actually start learning. There is only so much a teacher can say or do, after that it's up to the student. Like health class, they teach you about ALL that stuff and bad things still happen to students. Why you may ask yourself, because they are going to do whatever they want anyways. So don't even think about blaming the schools.

[QUOTE=Siberys]>>>And while I don't think the girl deserved this, I think that I want to say the mother got what she deserved in having to watch her daughter go through this.

I sort of agree with this. I don't agree that they deserved it, but the mother, along with many other Parents out there, need to keep a better eye on what could happen through the internet.[/QUOTE]

It is not possible to moniter 24/7 what a kid does on the internet. Kids are sneaky. And many parents don't know computers that well if at all. Most just know e-mail, word, and how to turn it on. :laugh:

[QUOTE=Siberys]>>>It is her responsibility to teach the daughter to be safe on the internet she failed, she allowed her daughter to get in trouble.

100% agreed.[/QUOTE]

""

[QUOTE=Siberys]>>>Yes morons who don't protect themselves from the cruelties of the world do deserve whatever fate they get, be it rape, murder, torture, loss of bodily parts, loss of property, whatever it is.

So, just an analogy (and I know this is pointless to ask because of the ban, but...), you're saying Jesus, who willingly gave his life for other people, not protecting himself from what cruel fate he was given, deserved what he got? [/QUOTE]

Remember now, god knows everything and stuff. He knew his son would die of a very horrible death. I think god needs a lesson in parenting.

[QUOTE=Siberys]Feel free to counter point or argue.[/QUOTE]

Always do

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:19 pm

So these teachers are suppose to do everything now for students? I didn't learn jack in school. It's after high school you actually start learning. There is only so much a teacher can say or do, after that it's up to the student. Like health class, they teach you about ALL that stuff and bad things still happen to students. Why you may ask yourself, because they are going to do whatever they want anyways. So don't even think about blaming the schools.

I believe that they are supposed to teach the students about more than just english and arithmetic, so yes, I believe that a teacher is responsible for teaching the phrase "Don't talk to strangers" in a more explicit definition for the students, that is there job.

It is not possible to moniter 24/7 what a kid does on the internet. Kids are sneaky. And many parents don't know computers that well if at all. Most just know e-mail, word, and how to turn it on.

True, but any mother in there right mind would worry about her daughter. I didn't mean 24/7, but rather "more often."

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:22 pm

Well I would hope their parents worry about them, that's how you know you have good parents.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:19 pm

[QUOTE=mr_sir]@Chimaera182, I think the problem when it comes to compassion is that the majority of people have children or nieces or nephews who they would do anything for. If anyone puts them in danger its a natural response to want to protect them and seek revenge/punishment. Like DW, I know that when it comes to stuff like this I don't think rationally (and I'm sure a lot of others don't too) and I'd have to say that, although not a violent man in any way, I would not trust myself around someone who did anything like that to my 12 year old niece as I would probably end up in court myself for assault or worse. I do agree that if you look back at the person's history, they have often been the victim too, but I can't see society ever really not condemning them. I know this contradicts what I was saying earlier, but maybe they are right to keep them in special wings in prisons, but maybe the best thing would be long sentences together with extensive, top quality pyschiatric help. Of course this would cost money so, without trying to sound too skeptcial of governments, I doubt this would ever happen to the degree that these people need.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree, believe me; I have no idea how I would react if I had kids, but something tells me natural instinct would kick in and irrational behavior (based upon civilized precepts) would ensue. I would probably become as violent as DW suggests she would, and at the time I'm sure I would feel completely justified. But such is an emotional reaction, and to allow yourself to give way to such in the heat of the moment is one thing. But that's after the fact, while all the time before that, a person is so scared of getting just that reaction that they may hide in their homes and try to repress it; some others will embrace it because it feels so natural to them. If they were given the opportunity to get the help they need--like the boy in Fiona's example--then this kind of thing might not have to happen.

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:49 pm

fable wrote:What's more, no Western society will acept a law that fines or imprisons parents for the crimes of their children. Too many voters would see themselves in sentencing, and scream loudly to their Congressional representatives. Ah, democracy at work.

There was such talk of that in Queensland a year or so back. I would search for articles relating, but the two news sites I use have their search down at the moment, so I'll have to do it later.

Basically, it was something along the lines of re-educating parents for their children's behaviour. If they refused to go to the classes, they could be fined, though I'm not sure if it was eventually put in place. I'll take a look later.

Whole issue regarding parents watching kids

For me, I don't think it is a case of all parents having to watch all their kids on the internet. I think it's more an issue of the more naivé, clueless and gullible kids needing to be monitored. Then again, I've been dealing with computers my whole life, so it explains why I don't need to be monitored (that and I don't go into chatrooms and myspace etc., enough perverts on this site

).

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:02 pm

[QUOTE=dj_venom]Basically, it was something along the lines of re-educating parents for their children's behaviour. If they refused to go to the classes, they could be fined, though I'm not sure if it was eventually put in place. I'll take a look later.[/QUOTE]
My friend has a saying: You need a license to drive, but not to breed. It'd be nice if we could put parents through rigorous training and testing before they're allowed to have kids, but that wouldn't work even in an ideal world. Even people who are educated in certain things can still fail tests, despite having tried hard. And you know there will be bleeding hearts who argue that it's not right to take away the right of parents to have kids. Besides, there's no one right way to raise kids, and you can't teach stuff like that. And people take driving tests and yet drive like complete morons, so obviously it wouldn't work.

JonIrenicus · Post by **JonIrenicus** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:14 pm

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]My friend has a saying: You need a license to drive, but not to breed. It'd be nice if we could put parents through rigorous training and testing before they're allowed to have kids, but that wouldn't work even in an ideal world. Even people who are educated in certain things can still fail tests, despite having tried hard. And you know there will be bleeding hearts who argue that it's not right to take away the right of parents to have kids. Besides, there's no one right way to raise kids, and you can't teach stuff like that. And people take driving tests and yet drive like complete morons, so obviously it wouldn't work.

[/QUOTE]

The more people try to control the population, the less control the will have.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:49 pm

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Revealing my nerdishness. :laugh: But that's why I said it wouldn't work, anyway.