Planetarion Forums - Paedophile policy 'not media-led'

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jun 2006, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

Of course they don't have rights.

Were you the former governor at Abu Ghraib?

dda · 23 Jun 2006, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

dda do you agree with this sentiment?

No. The Constitution grants rights to everyone. However, some rights can be taken away so long as the person receives due process.

The court proceedings under which the paedophiles were convicted would satisfy the due process argument unless something could be seen as improper in the way the trial was conducted.

If, under the Constitution, a person can be sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives then it would seem odd that the law would not be able to say "while we will not keep you in prison for the rest of your life for your crime, we will require that we know where you live for the rest of your life."

As to the ex post facto, you may have a point that I would agree with as to any person who was convicted of acts committed prior to the enactment of the registration law.

In California the registration law (Penal Code Section 290) was enacted in 1985.

To others, my question regarding the endless concern for paedophiles is prompted not because I feel paedophiles are loathsome creatures who should be stoned in the public square, but why does this particular area form the basis of such angst on the part of a signifigant portion of GD?

There are many areas of the law, criminal and civil, which have similarly draconian aspects to them but which are unnoticed by GD or at least which do not spill over into multiple pages of comment.

Do not misunderstand, I enjoy the debate. I wish that there were more topics which would elicit such a lively discussion. I am enjoying the discussion in "Pig's" thread. It is just that there seem to be certain "hot button issues" which get much more discussion than others. I just wonder why the really hot topics are so hot.

Now football I can understand because it is a topic of great interest to a number of people on the fourm and in which they participate at least vicariously. However, I am reasonably certain that there are not a large group of paedophiles or those who vicariously participate in paedophilia.

Dante Hicks · 23 Jun 2006, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by dda

It is just that there seem to be certain "hot button issues" which get much more discussion than others. I just wonder why the really hot topics are so hot.

In this case, I believe it is a reaction to mainstream debate on the topic. I am not sure what it is like in the US, but in the UK the popular press devotes many column inches getting ridiculously worked up over child molestors and calling for harsher and harsher punishments. Unfortunately, this does have some affect on the climate of debate among our countrymen. And so we can turn to GD to discuss it where we can be (reasonably) sure we will get some sense.

The topics that get a lot of discussion here generally are the ones which are controversial. Even things like Iraq fade away as a topic because it becomes increasingly obvious to everyone that it's a bloody mess. Conversely we don't discuss whether human beings require water, or whether grass is green, becuase these things are mere truisms.

Finally, perhaps there is a degree of self-interest (joking aside). Many of these laws are being drawn so broadly that people here could theoretically be charged under various laws for (say) kissing a fifteen year old, or clicking on a link of a girl who may or may not be 17. When laws like that are in place shouldn't we be worried? People do not discuss murder laws because that is relatively uncontroversial and it is unlikely we will be indicted for murder.

dda · 23 Jun 2006, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

People do not discuss murder laws because that is relatively uncontroversial and it is unlikely we will be indicted for murder.

Ironicly, just one year ago this month I was drawn to GD because of a discussion which was occurring regarding murder laws.

s|k · 23 Jun 2006, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by dda

Ironicly, just one year ago this month I was drawn to GD because of a discussion which was occurring regarding murder laws.

You were just yahwe's gimmick in those days.

dda · 23 Jun 2006, 21:40

Ooops. I forgot about that.

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

dda do you agree with this sentiment? ^^^

Traveler:
Ignoring the completely illogical and emotional nature of your response, I have a couple of questions for you. Is this the example that Jesus set for you? I believe Jesus was about tolerance and acceptance. I believe he went to the 'sick' people and spent time with them and talked with them, even though everyone else was aghast by these actions. Do you honestly think that Jesus cares any more about you than he does child molestors? How would Jesus want you to treat these child molestors? Are you ready to pick up the stones and start throwing?

There is a big difference between throwing stones and putting these people on a list. I doubt Jesus would have much tolerance for people who hurt children.

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

I don't like the assumption that all the children who were molested were innocent.

I hope your joking. If you were not then what were the children guilty of?

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

There is a big difference between throwing stones and putting these people on a list. I doubt Jesus would have much tolerance for people who hurt children.

yeah

jesus only meant that whole 'forgiveness' thing to go so far!

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

I hope your joking. If you were not then what were the children guilty of?

original sin

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

yeah

jesus only meant that whole 'forgiveness' thing to go so far!

Forgive yes, allow these sick bastards to harm children again, NEVER. If thy hand offends thee then it would be better to cut if off.

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

Fogive yes, allow these sick bastards to harm children again, NEVER. If thy hand offends thee then it would be better to cut if off.

suicide for sinners?

I think not.

(joshua bar joseph forgave. he did not limit or qualify that forgiveness)

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Many of these laws are being drawn so broadly that people here could theoretically be charged under various laws for (say) kissing a fifteen year old, or clicking on a link of a girl who may or may not be 17. When laws like that are in place shouldn't we be worried?

This is a valid point. In some states here in American a 17 year old boy and a 17 year old girl could have a relationship. Lets say they were only 2 months apart in age. Well once the boy turns 18 the relationship must end or he could go to jail for statutory rape. Once convicted he will have to register his location. These kinds of laws should have some provision for normal relationships for people around the same age.

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 04:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

suicide for sinners?

I think not.

(joshua bar joseph forgave. he did not limit or qualify that forgiveness)

Sorry I forgot I was dealing with a person that is incapable of reading and comprehending.

So again. Forgiveness Yes. The forgiveness is unconditional. However a person must be prevented from commiting the sames crimes. And never did I say suicide. You inserted that on your own. I said to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin and YES Jesus said that. Read the Bible if you need to clarify it.

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 04:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

These kinds of laws should have some provision for normal relationships for people around the same age.

so it's alright for the paedophile to committ child abuse if he is young but not if he is (say) over 40?

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 04:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

Forgiveness Yes. The forgiveness is unconditional. However a person must be prevented from commiting the sames crimes.

how 'prevented'?

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 04:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

so it's alright for the paedophile to committ child abuse if he is young but not if he is (say) over 40?

Umm. You really make a habit of missing the point don't you? A NORMAL relationship would be one where the 2 individuals were in the same class (grade) or went to the same school or were similar in ages and not a 24 year old dating a 16 year old. A normal relationship would also imply a consensual one.

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

Umm. You really make a habit of missing the point don't you? A NORMAL relationship would be one where the 2 individuals were in the same class (grade) or went to the same school or were similar in ages

Who decides what is normal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

A normal relationship would also imply a consensual one.

For you it would. That is WHY we need to debate what is 'normal'.

Your opinions are not sacroscant. We need to discuss. We need to think.

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 04:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

how 'prevented'?

Well I don't think that many have an answer to this one. Most of them get locked up and then go through counseling. No sure fire way to prevent them raping kids again. Some of the offenders have even requested castration and removal of the sex organs to prevent the actual act. How are they keeping you from molesting little boys?

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

How are they keeping you from molesting little boys?

what?

Do you know what you just acused me of?

(in my country I can sue you now. In your country I can sue you now. Thank joshua bar- Joseph that you are too poor to be worth bothering with)

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 04:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Who decides what is normal?

For you it would. That is WHY we need to debate what is 'normal'.

Your opinions are not sacroscant. We need to discuss. We need to think.

Your opinions are considered deviant on many levels so I understand why you would have such trouble understanding what would constitute a normal relationship. Not really much need to discuss what is normal when a physcology book, magazine, or journal would give you definitions for a normal relationship. When you actually do start thinking please let me know.

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 04:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

Your opinions are considered deviant on many levels so I understand why you would have such trouble understanding what would constitute a normal relationship. Not really much need to discuss what is normal when a physcology book, magazine, or journal would give you definitions for a normal relationship. When you actually do start thinking please let me know.

My opinions are deviant are they?

My goodness me. I must be some sort of rebel.

Thank goodness you have these 'psycology books' and 'magazines' to tell you what you think (and to remind me of how dangerous I am)

Travler · 24 Jun 2006, 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

what?

Do you know what you just acused me of?

(in my country I can sue you now. In your country I can sue you now. Thank joshua bar- Joseph that you are too poor to be worth bothering with)

It's called a loaded or leaning question. The point is to see if you will admit to the implied accusation without actually accusing you of the act. What's really telling is your reaction to the implied accusation.

Yahwe · 24 Jun 2006, 04:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

It's called a loaded or leaning question. The point is to see if you will admit to the implied accusation without actually accusing you of the act. What's really telling is your reaction to the implied accusation.

you must be right

I must be a child abuser and you must be cleverer than me.

s|k · 24 Jun 2006, 07:07

This is how much sense a Traveler post makes.

dda · 24 Jun 2006, 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travler

This is a valid point. In some states here in American a 17 year old boy and a 17 year old girl could have a relationship. Lets say they were only 2 months apart in age. Well once the boy turns 18 the relationship must end or he could go to jail for statutory rape. Once convicted he will have to register his location. These kinds of laws should have some provision for normal relationships for people around the same age.

Actually, in most jurisdictions both the boy and the girl could be prosecuted for child molestation and each would have to register for the rest of their lives. This doesn't happen commonly but it could.

Travler · 25 Jun 2006, 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

This is how much sense a Traveler post makes.

Ha. Very Funny. I wonder if I could make that my avatar?