Another Twist in the Issue of Sexual Predators

[beautyundone]

Part of the strategy of the rich and powerful is to keep people's time and energy tied up with petty crime and sexual hangups' date=' while they actually rape the planet and enslave whole nations on a grand scale.

 

The three largest industries are [b']Guns[/b] (the military-industrial complex), Drugs (Clandestine govt involvement in mafias to engage in racial warfare), and Prostitution (a giant male dominated conspiracy to degrade and dominate others as a cultural choice).

 

Until people stop buying the b.s. from these monsters who run everything, we're all just going round in circles.

 

drugs are already illegal, gun holders must have a permit, and prostitution is not legal as far as i know (in the US anyways). how would taking away laws protecting children from sexual predators further discriminate these industries?

[Thomas Kirby]

i could say similar things about men in general. but i'm sure there are SOME respectable ones on this board' date=' so i won't offend them by doing so.

 

all generalizations are bad =)[/quote']

 

Well, about half the staff where I work today were acting like preschoolers, so I'm a bit on about the emotional five-year-old stuff. The wierd thing is that the 30-50 year old crowd were doing it, not the 18-30 year olds. Whatever.

 

If I had my druthers, I would stop the practice of attempting to "protect" with increasingly aggressive laws and penalties. You have to get them away from the children, yes, but if you take away everyone who beats up children, you have a lot of children and no adults. I don't think that most of the anti-sex laws protect children from sexual predators, either.

 

What we need to put a stop to is the negative programming against human sexuality. A rapist has to feel a certain emotional negativity against sex himself to be able to use sex as a weapon. He also has to be programmed to inflict pain as a way to get what he wants. If that programming is missing, he doesn't rape. Further, if the only patterns of sexuality he learns are those that include sensitivity to the other person, he has been given a certain tendency before the time that an incident might be in the making.

 

Instead, it's a lot more like the man goes in blind, and if he messes up, his assets belong to her. When someone has to go in ignorant and blind, then take horrendous blame for any mistakes he makes, it would twist up the best of us. How do you know what's right or wrong anymore? To someone who has been yanked around long enough, those terms become meaningless even if he can parrot certain phrases.

 

I'm going to make a prophecy here. In less than forty years someone will come up with a "safe" drug to totally turn off the sexual urge in human males. Its popularity will be ten times that of Viagra. Men will use it to stop themselves from being controlled by females. I might be one of the users, too.

[Thomas Kirby]

Part of the strategy of the rich and powerful is to keep people's time and energy tied up with petty crime and sexual hangups' date=' while they actually rape the planet and enslave whole nations on a grand scale.

 

The three largest industries are [b']Guns[/b] (the military-industrial complex), Drugs (Clandestine govt involvement in mafias to engage in racial warfare), and Prostitution (a giant male dominated conspiracy to degrade and dominate others as a cultural choice).

 

Until people stop buying the b.s. from these monsters who run everything, we're all just going round in circles.

 

You do know that a woman's best strategy is to make the man think he's in charge and that everything he does is his idea?

[beautyundone]

Well' date=' about half the staff where I work today were acting like preschoolers, so I'm a bit on about the emotional five-year-old stuff. The wierd thing is that the 30-50 year old crowd were doing it, not the 18-30 year olds. Whatever.

 

If I had my druthers, I would stop the practice of attempting to "protect" with increasingly aggressive laws and penalties. You have to get them away from the children, yes, but if you take away everyone who beats up children, you have a lot of children and no adults. I don't think that most of the anti-sex laws protect children from sexual predators, either.

 

What we need to put a stop to is the negative programming against human sexuality. A rapist has to feel a certain emotional negativity against sex himself to be able to use sex as a weapon. He also has to be programmed to inflict pain as a way to get what he wants. If that programming is missing, he doesn't rape. Further, if the only patterns of sexuality he learns are those that include sensitivity to the other person, he has been given a certain tendency before the time that an incident might be in the making.

 

Instead, it's a lot more like the man goes in blind, and if he messes up, his assets belong to her. When someone has to go in ignorant and blind, then take horrendous blame for any mistakes he makes, it would twist up the best of us. How do you know what's right or wrong anymore? To someone who has been yanked around long enough, those terms become meaningless even if he can parrot certain phrases.

 

I'm going to make a prophecy here. In less than forty years someone will come up with a "safe" drug to totally turn off the sexual urge in human males. Its popularity will be ten times that of Viagra. Men will use it to stop themselves from being controlled by females. I might be one of the users, too.[/quote']

 

 

well we're not going to be able to fix humanity and make them all perfect and sinless. so laws are the next best thing and locking up people that violate those laws is our best bet.

 

females CONTROLLING males? haha. that's an interesting theory, to say the least.

[MetaFrizzics]

You do know that a woman's best strategy is to make the man think he's in charge and that everything he does is his idea?

That may be the best peace-keeping strategy for avoiding domestic violence as a temporary measure (i.e., until the idiot is sober, or until councelling sessions sink in)....

 

But perpetuating injustice is hardly a way to achieve change.

 

drugs are already illegal, gun holders must have a permit, and prostitution is not legal as far as i know (in the US anyways). how would taking away laws protecting children from sexual predators further discriminate these industries?

This again is an example of the most naive thinking possible yet sadly common among the white middle-class in North America. "We have a law against that, so everything's okay."

 

Not likely:

Guns are biggest business in the world and the U.S.A. has the largest standing army and military combine ever assembled, outsizing the combined armies of all other nations. Is there any realistic need or reason for such a fighting force? No. In fact its the single most destructive act upon our ecosystem ever perpretrated, and will probably destroy the earth in a short time.

 

Drugs: 'Legal' and illegal drug manufacturers are all the same idiots, funded and backed by big business and government. The entire cocaine trade is essentially run by the U.S. government covert ops groups like the CIA. Laws are meaningless since these groups don't operate under any laws or restraints. They are destroying whole cultures and gutting the economic engines of entire countries on a wholesale basis, and not by accident, but by design, in order to rape those people and countries of their natural resources to feed the greed of the West. Even your local biker doesn't WANT drugs legalized, because his prices and profits would drop through the floor. Everybody works together to maximize the personal bottom line.

 

Prostitution: One half of the entire population of the earth remains in a legal limbo, being exploited in every possible way, and must cooperate in order to have any quality of life at all economically. The whole concept of 'legal' power is absurd in such a situation. The only power the most powerful women in the world have is to exploit other women and minorities as a market, essentially becoming the monsters they began despising, by selling products like CDs, makeup, jewelry, clothing etc., and living high off of sucking away any apparent disposable income of these workers on frivolous garbage. In the end, even Madonna hits a glass ceiling as she discovers that the big boys don't let girls join the club.

 

Laws my ass.

 

The only way to fight these gigantic economic combines set up by gangs of armed men is pure extreme geurrilla warfare plain and simple. Zero tolerance policy and all out war.

[Pangloss]

No comment, Thomas?

 

But as we just discussed and you agreed' date=' the danger to children exists even if you eliminate the issue of sexual preferences and definitions, and focus solely on violence.

 

So I ask you again, how do you know nothing further can be done? Are you so convinced that every law is so perfect in its execution, so unflawed and pristine in its manner of preventing and dealing with violence, that no further laws will ever be necessary?

 

Is there [i']nothing[/i] further that can be done to protect children from violent acts? Must we ignore thousands of cases exactly like Jessica Lunsford's, solely because of your two stated reasons:

 

1) It's not as big as other problems.

2) It's really a hidden agenda to legislate morality from the far right.

 

Really? Are you sure?

[Bettina]

I'm waiting for that answer too. I hope it's not an extensive dissertation.

 

Bettina

[beautyundone]

This again is an example of the most naive thinking possible yet sadly common among the white middle-class in North America. "We have a law against that, so everything's okay."

 

i was just saying that there isn't a whole lot more we can do other than make laws and enforce them.

[Thomas Kirby]

i was just saying that there isn't a whole lot more we can do other than make laws and enforce them.

 

That attitude is a huge problem.

 

What is the question that someone is waiting for an answer to?

[Douglas]

Guns[/b'] are biggest business in the world and the U.S.A. has the largest standing army and military combine ever assembled, outsizing the combined armies of all other nations. Is there any realistic need or reason for such a fighting force? .

Yes, the earth is not yet Nirvana....

[Pangloss]

I'm waiting for that answer too. I hope it's not an extensive dissertation.

 

Oddly enough, I actually like Thomas' dissertations. It's his short posts that are kinda annoying.

 

The question is in Post #181 at the top of this page, Thomas.

[beautyundone]

That attitude is a huge problem.

 

What is the question that someone is waiting for an answer to?

 

 

well then you tell me, thomas, what SHOULD we do? what kind of attitude SHOULD we have?

[Thomas Kirby]

I agree with Metafrizzics, who says "laws my ass." If we depend on laws, we are screwed.

[beautyundone]

I agree with Metafrizzics, who says "laws my ass." If we depend on laws, we are screwed.

 

OKAY THEN. but what do you suggest we do?

[Thomas Kirby]

well then you tell me, thomas, what SHOULD we do? what kind of attitude SHOULD we have?

 

The attitude that we can do nothing but pass laws and have the police enforce them is self-defeating. We even lose track of the concept that we can do things about problems ourselves. Without the concept that we can solve problems ourselves, we don't go to work on how to solve problems without government intervention. Government intervention usually consists of some form of violent takeover of another individual's life, so that the solutions we have consist of threatening other people and carrying out those threats. Further, we lose sight of why we should see anything wrong with threatening people.

 

Those who can't learn how to work with people to arrive at better solutions don't deserve in the first place to have their wishes fulfilled. They aren't qualified to judge the behavior of others.

[beautyundone]

The attitude that we can do nothing but pass laws and have the police enforce them is self-defeating. We even lose track of the concept that we can do things about problems ourselves. Without the concept that we can solve problems ourselves' date=' we don't go to work on how to solve problems without government intervention. Government intervention usually consists of some form of violent takeover of another individual's life, so that the solutions we have consist of threatening other people and carrying out those threats. Further, we lose sight of why we should see anything wrong with threatening people.

 

Those who can't learn how to work with people to arrive at better solutions don't deserve in the first place to have their wishes fulfilled. They aren't qualified to judge the behavior of others.[/quote']

 

 

okay, i missed the part in which you actually stated what we COULD do.

please keep it brief, as it is late at night. lol.

i'm not having the "oh well i'll just leave it up to the police" attitude, because i want to work in the justice system with the sex crimes unit... therefore, i would be the person putting these guys away. so yes, i am actually planning on DOING something about it. but what, praytell, other than laws and enforcement and education can we do?

[Thomas Kirby]

Becoming the police isn't going to make it better. The police fix things by breaking things. We actually rate them like an army, according to how many taxpayer dollars they spend destroying lives.

 

The whole solution is contained in learning to build, not destroy. When a mother, a teacher, or a manager at a stupid fast food franchise has no idea how to build a person except to threaten, attempt to control, torture, and ultimately destroy that person out of sheer spite, we are screwed beyond belief. There are many uglier metaphors I will refrain from using because, believe it or not, there are a lot of things that I don't want people to hear coming out of my mouth. Recently I've been a lot more tempted to say them, too.

 

One contention I have to make is that "society" is unable to do anything for "offenders" than torture and destroy them, that society has absolutely no moral or ethical right to attempt to regulate anything.

 

There is a statement that I have to make that may be my final statement in this thread, depending on how I feel in a few days. The greatest defect in the human character is the way in which it deals with social deviants. Far too many of us use real or perceived deviancy as an excuse to torture, maim, and eventually kill the deviant. The excuse is the good of society. The actual reason is for humans to gain an opportunity to exercise their most violent and pathological tendencies against a human target. This defect in the human character is the one that is going to destroy this race, or at least bomb it back into the stone ages again.

 

I'm giving up the effort to light a candle in place of cursing the darkness. Do you realize how many billions of dollars there are in cursing the darkness? Do you realize that all I had to do to have job security was acquire the ability to be a socially acceptable kind of psychopath? I am too old for dreams of being a decent human while earning a living at the same time. If I even wish to pay the rent, I am going to have to become one of them, just as miserable, just as nasty, just as helpful to humanity's downward course into Hell.

 

The psychopaths that I work for have just reduced my next week's wages to zero out of pure spite, just to prove to me that they could do it. They did this to prove to me that there is no point in trying the nice guy approach to anything. If they identify me with that group of people who doesn't think it's right to bomb "towelheads" for the glory of Halliburton, I get to live without air conditioning and cable TV. Believe me, if I am morally honest with myself, I care a hell of a lot more about AC and TV than I care what happens to Iraq.

 

There's just no point in depriving myself of a good income and a good home to try to help society change for the better. It's not going to happen.

[MetaFrizzics]

One contention I have to make is that "society" is unable to do anything for "offenders" than torture and destroy them, that society has absolutely no moral or ethical right to attempt to regulate anything.

Here I have to agree. There is no moral or ethical high ground in being a bully.

 

(2) The law enforcement solution to anything is a last resort. It already indicates, or should indicate, that everything else has been tried and it failed. And that is just not the case most of the time. Too often the police are the first resort - by the rich and powerful against the poor and ethnic classes.

 

(3) The ethical high ground would start with stopping the rich from perpetuating a system that destroys the culture, health and opportunities of underclasses, in order to exploit them and hang onto power at any cost. And it would end with a system that rewards appropriate values like honesty, hard work, good behaviour and respect for others, and provide a means for positive change when necessary or when it is recognized to be advantageous to all participants.

[Thomas Kirby]

If the use of violence, police, or military is not the last resort, then no one ever learns what else works. We've also lost sight of the fact that when someone "in authority" just "decides" to skip ahead and use damaging methods to deal with a problem, not only have they done something stupid, they have committed an offense. This offense is a violent type of offense. Most of us have lost the ability to be horrified by this. Either I am unable to lose this horror, or no matter what I do, there is some subtle program to force me to relive this horror over and over again, the way I have had to relive my death over and over again. The latest thing that "authority" did to me to force me to relive the worst fears and pains of my existence was very personal. It was very much on purpose. It was even destructive to their own interests. It is just plain idiotic to disable a person who is needed to keep the product moving.

 

Whether you want to call it resentment, or whatever you want to call it, I somehow have been saddled with the need to attempt to take guns (hand grenades, nuclear weapons, seltzer bottles) from the hands of idiots and killer klowns. If I am going to be powerless without the ability to use violence against them, then I am just going to be powerless. If they wish to continue to waste my time, use up my life energy, and make me feel pain because they know that I won't harm them, well, we've got problems. I might just wait to take out the person who does go mad and firebomb them until just after he does it. Had they left me with wits and energy intact, and I am speaking metaphorically, I might just have been able to catch him before he struck a match. Not my fault, they chose the competency level that they would bring me to. And if they label me as some kind of psychopath then deliberately do everything that they can get away with to make me feel pain and fear, they are just sick, sad, and unsuited for any kind of personal freedom.

 

Yes, I equate this kind of person with the kind of person who "decides" who is a sex offender and what to do about them. They started on me when I was six years old. I was a sex offender in what passes through their minds then, because I was a faggot. Don't apply the "rational person" fallacy here. Either they are incapable of rationality, or they deliberately use irrational premises to base their judgements of people on. In neither case do they have the ability to be right about anything. I can't accept anything as an excuse for such behavior anymore. They use this to damage everyone who isn't somehow just right according to their "standards."

 

Judging by their behavior, the "standards" that these people adhere to are well beneath contempt and even further beneath consideration as any model of a decent human being. What they want to impose upon us, force upon us on pain of death, is a standard that is far lower than what we are capable of if we are not "policed." It leads me to the conclusion that the purpose of ruling us is to degrade us. It isn't a secret. It's a mental blind spot, but it isn't a secret.

[Pangloss]

And apparently that's just going to be true no matter how much reality and hypocrisy you need to ignore in your position in order to make that work for you.

 

So why do you bother to participate in debate?

[beautyundone]

still didnt answer my question directly.

what do YOU think we should do about it?

short and simple, please.

[Thomas Kirby]

Reality is this: The people who feed off of the sexual predator phenomenon are the ones who make it happen. The answer to the question is that we stop letting them do it whatever it takes.

 

We don't identify the people who do it as offenders. Too often we identify them as our protectors. We need to identify them as offenders and look for our protection elsewhere.

[beautyundone]

wow. i don't know about you but i most certainly do not think of them as being 'protectors'. and you are confusing the mess out of me because earlier you seemed to be saying that we were too often labelling people offenders when they were really just regular people influenced by the dirty minds of society. but now we're calling them protectors when they need to be called offenders?

 

and apparently the people who try to lock up sexual predators are the ones that cause them to offend?

[Thomas Kirby]

I will try again: Law enforcement and legislators feed from the sexual predator phenomenon. We think of them as our protectors. We should understand what they do and identify law enforcement and legislators as the offenders they are, and stop them from feeding and being dependent on the sexual predator phenomenon. Nothing else will work.

[beautyundone]

so it's the police's fault that there are sexual predators... ?