Pedophile Nationalism

[ParanoiA]

The details I remember for this one specific case was a man over the course of two years had been constantly molesting a 5 year old boy and a six year old girl that I think were his nephew and neices...

 

I can't think of any situation in which 2 months probation is sufficient for these actions.

 

A group went after the Judge and after hounding him for some time I believe he increased the sentencing some...but it is still IMO absurd.

 

It's a long, personal story, but in short my wife's step-father (it's always a creepy uncle or step something isn't it?) got away with sexually abusing all 5 of the kids, including sharing them with other pedophile adults. All were taken away from their mother, who chose to ditch the kids and keep the molesting hubby. Somehow, he wasn't prosecuted and the children have to deal with insult to injury, although the injury is much worse.

 

Fast forward 20 years, and he's still at it - this time with a mentally retarded girl. Him and his brother (they all seem to be pedophiles in his family) took advantage of this 13 year old. After contacting police, my wife and her sister began a little crusade to get justice and finally get him behind bars. The police were unmoved, to put it nicely. They didn't pursue the case at all. This is the same state in which the sexual abuse occured in their youth - Missouri.

 

After calling and calling, and dragging up old memories - repeating the events of their childhood, trying to get them to understand this man and is brother are animals - they would not pursue it.

 

This is a problem with pedophilia. There is so much "he said, she said" going on, that police don't want to pursue anything. I guess, anyway. We could never figure out their disinterest. It's hard to have faith in the system when it so blatantly doesn't seem to care. Keep in mind, this is Missouri.

 

Missouri is a disgusting state.

 

So I understand your feelings on the absurdity. And I'm really not surprised. I try to have faith that courts are objective and therefore more accurate, but you have to get to court first - and even then....

[Pangloss]

It seems unlikely to me that police would fail to be interested in an incident of child abuse involving half a dozen children over multiple generations. Why wouldn't they be? How do you think those people get ahead in their careers, guy?

 

Surely what's more likely is that there was nothing for them to pursue. Doesn't mean there wasn't anything to your story, it just means there wasn't enough evidence.

 

Would you really be happier if human beings could be easily and consistently put behind bars with no more evidence than emotional testimony?

 

Janet Reno certainly thought so. It got her a job working for the president, too. And hey, so what if it turned out that it was all a pack of lies and dozens of innocent parents will be paying for her power grab for the rest of their lives. At least she stood up for the children! Because by god that's the most important thing....

[ParanoiA]

I certainly can't speak to your case, knowing nothing about it, but it seems unlikely to me that police would fail to be interested in an incident of child abuse dating back multiple generations. Why wouldn't they be? How do you think those people get ahead, guy?

 

Statute of limitations for both my wife and her sister. Their brother is deceased. The other two siblings were separated from them 20 years ago when it all came down, and cannot be located. Otherwise, the siblings, I believe could make a case of it.

 

My wife and her sister had no idea they had a chance to prosecute him as the years went by. They had assumed it was case closed when they were kids and were taken away by the state. By the time we discovered they could have done something, it was too late. And we have no idea what happened back then - how the decisions were made. I believe my wife told me something about needing her mother to testify, which she wouldn't do. Maybe that's why they took the kids? Really not sure.

 

Would you really be happier if human beings could be easily and consistently put behind bars with no more evidence than emotional testimony?

 

Oh, of course not. But there's a grand canyon between not pursuing an investigation and throwing people behind bars, don't you think? There's plenty of middle ground to be had, but they were disinterested.

 

And why does it matter if there's little evidence? Why wouldn't you still pursue? These are pedophiles of the hollywood kind. Inviting strange men over to "babysit"? Teams of pedophile family members?

 

Yeah, I'm sure your right. Little evidence and little resolve = more molested kiddos. I wonder how many more of their victims are running around that we might hear about one day.

 

Understand, this has always been the nature of rape and molestation cases. We get that. We've had plenty of experience dealing with it, and our society knows and accepts the nature of this. So, that's no excuse for not pursuing the case. Don't have enough police to pursue every report? Hire more folks. There really is no excuse... And keep in mind, this is my take on all crime, not an emotional appeal for something personal.

 

And if we're going to make excuses for not investigating, then we have no reason to wonder why child molesters are still as successful as ever.

[Pangloss]

Well I don't know that they didn't investigate, or that they were actually "disinterested", or, for that matter, that your relatives were molested. I don't think that this story can be relevent to a serious discussion on this issue based on the partial information presented thus far. Essentially this is no different from the media telling me about how "Jane Doe, a working mom with three kids", feels about it.

 

I sympathize, but when I read something like that I'm not sure if you want to really debate pedophilia with me, or if I should just get a rope.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, my intent was to clarify with theCPE that I do understand the disgust and absurdity, since I've experienced it first hand. I still believe, however, the courts are the fairest place to receive judgement, and that when we all get upset at the outcome of court proceedings, we often direct our anger at the courts - rather than realize that it's the media we get our information from.

 

If the media is an accurate barometer of who's guilty and who's not, then why would we need courts?

 

As for the other matter, until you've experienced it first hand you're going to doubt it. Kind of like when black people first started complaining about being beaten by the police. We all just kind of collectively shrugged our shoulders so to speak, after all, we don't now the whole story and there's always multiple sides to it. Now we realize, that while each case has its own set of dynamics, police brutality is a valid issue.

 

This is my conclusion with "he said, she said" type crime. Sexually related crimes are almost always going to boil down to one person's word against the other. And those on the outside looking in are typically going to shrug their shoulders, after all, they don't know the whole story. The concern dies there as well. This bodes well for sexual predators.

 

As a society, I guess I'd like to see us more willing to investigate and pursue sexual crimes, and less willing to conclude guilt based on the news business.

[lucaspa]

There is none, but both situations are to reminisent of Typhoid Mary, they would never be allowed by pollitically correct politicans. Also I don't want a huge population of pedophiles living off the coast of my state.

 

New York is a very liberal state with a liberal governor, yet they are the ones considering it!

 

Remember, the island is cordoned off such that escape is not possible. There's no point putting them in a geographical area if they can just swim off and escape.

 

Besides if you are going to go as forcing them to relocate you might as well go the whole nine yards and develope surgery's or drugs to removed their sex drives.

 

That may not work. And what do you do while you are doing the research and testing?

[lucaspa]

Actually as I understand it it suggests that that may be the case for some homosexuals. Not all.

 

The evidence I've seen, both in human studies and in other animals, says that sexual orientation is genetic. Change any one of a few genes and you change the orientation.

 

And therein lies the rub in terms of politics. You can't, for example, use that information to condemn efforts to "convert" people, because for all you know the ones being converted were gay by choice.

 

Depends on what you mean by "convert". If you mean verbal persuasion, freedom of speech means that we can't forbid "conversion" to any point of view! It's OK for me to try to "convert" you to being a Democrat instead of a Republican.

 

There are limits, of course, to the amount of persistence I am allowed to use. The problem with the theory that ALL homosexuals are solely by "choice" is that you can then condemn the situation in a way you can't if it is genetic. For instance, you can't "convert" someone from being black to white, can you? Nor can you "convert" them from having blue eyes to brown eyes. That sexual orientation is genetic means that you can't make homosexuality a crime (or even a sin). You can make certain types of sexual behavior a crime -- such as rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc -- but that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual behavior.

 

Now, if Pangloss is correct and pedophilia is genetic, we have a problem. We have decided that sexual intercourse between consenting adults is morally acceptable. Some people try to put limits on that (i.e. marriage) but we all agree that there are SOME conditions where sexual intercourse between adults is morally sanctioned. Homosexual sex between 2 adults doesn't violate that.

 

But pedophilia does violate that, because a child cannot provide adequate consent. And we agree that sex without consent is morally wrong. Whether it is rape, sex with comatose people, sex with mentally deficients, etc, it all involves a person not capable of giving consent. So, if pedophilia is genetic and a pedophile can't help being sexually attracted to children, actually having sex with children violates a moral principle. We have a moral dilemma at that point. I side with protecting the children and think all the arguments that children are "sexual" are invalid, concocted for the benefit of the pedophile.

[lucaspa]

I don't buy the part where having sex is natural for pre-pubescent kids. ... I just think anyone who is interested in involving kids in their sex life wants a malleable partner they can control and train, not not love and nurture.

 

I agree.

 

Girls used to marry at extremely young ages partly because they were lucky to live to reach 40.

 

And because humans are sexually mature at age 13-14! We tend to postpone sexual activity and having babies now for a number of cultural reasons. However, none of those were operative for H. erectus or H. sapiens before civilization.

 

Establishing a nation where it's OK for pedophiles to raise kids to have sex with isn't about what's good for the kids and I think we as a society have lost touch with what is best for kids amongst the clamor about what's safe for kids.

 

Let me put it this way: establishing a nation where it's OK for pedophiles to raise kids to have sex with is both rape and slavery. Two moral no-no's. Pedophiles are saying their desire to have sex trumps the rights of children. I don't buy it.

[Physia]

Nationalism, sexism, and religion are three different issues.

 

Can't merge them.

 

cheers

[lucaspa]

Nationalism, sexism, and religion are three different issues.

 

Can't merge them.

 

That wasn't Ku's intent in the OP. Instead, he was making the point that nations have been established or proposed to be established based on segregating ethnicity, religion, political ideals, or even race (Aryan nation). In all cases, the goals were 1) make the population of the nation more homogenous and 2) provide a nation for people who were like each other. He was wondering why a nation couldn't be established based on sexual ideas, instead of ideas about tribe, religion, political ideals, etc. IOW, have a nation solely of homosexuals, solely of heterosexuals, soley of pedophiles.

 

And I can think of 2 cases off the top of my head in history where nationalism, sexism, and religion were all merged into one.

[Dr. Dalek]

That may not work. And what do you do while you are doing the research and testing?

 

We could give the pedfiles virtual reality equipment.

[lucaspa]

We could give the pedfiles virtual reality equipment.

 

That's one idea. However, I am thinking that humans have been using virtual reality in the form of masturbation for millenia. How well does it work?

[blue_cristal]

In this discussion some people try honest scientific thinking but I have the impression that, in this kind of discussion ( as usually ), some people twist, bend, misinterpret and omit facts in order to make them “fit” in their moral preconceptions ( they might not necessarily do it fully consciously but they put their will and beliefs above the search of truth ).

 

A lot of non-verified and preconceived assumptions are made, half-truths are assumed a full truths and even lack of knowledge is taken as useful tool to fill in the “gaps” at will. As consequence no wonder that people arrive at conclusions that they wanted to be “truth” right from the start.

 

This kind of discussion resembles rather ideological proselytism than genuine scientific thinking.

 

I will give a less controversial subject as example. Some people who wants homosexuality to be seen as “wrong” almost always assume that it is a question of “choice” and reject, play down or make a “blind eye” to any evidence pointing to a genetic or developmental determination.

 

Now, if they do that on lesser controversial subjects, imagine what they do to far more polemic and emotionally-charged subjects. And obviously, as usually, they will deny all these manoeuvres.

 

As result, at the end of this kind of discussions, we end up as unenlightened as we started ( or even farther from the truth ).

 

So, what is more important ? conformism and comfortable beliefs or the truth ( even when it is ugly and disturbing ) ?

 

[ I apologise if I seem a bit harsh ]

[lucaspa]

In this discussion some people try honest scientific thinking but I have the impression that, in this kind of discussion ( as usually ), some people twist, bend, misinterpret and omit facts in order to make them “fit” in their moral preconceptions ( they might not necessarily do it fully consciously but they put their will and beliefs above the search of truth ).

 

A lot of non-verified and preconceived assumptions are made, half-truths are assumed a full truths and even lack of knowledge is taken as useful tool to fill in the “gaps” at will. ...[ I apologise if I seem a bit harsh ]

 

Mostly you are just vague. I have no idea what ideas in the thread you feel fit within the different categories you have made.

[Phi for All]

In this discussion some people try honest scientific thinking but I have the impression that, in this kind of discussion ( as usually ), some people twist, bend, misinterpret and omit facts in order to make them “fit” in their moral preconceptions ( they might not necessarily do it fully consciously but they put their will and beliefs above the search of truth ).

 

snip

 

So, what is more important ? conformism and comfortable beliefs or the truth ( even when it is ugly and disturbing ) ?

This is dangerous, setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth, but at least you didn't capitalize it.

[ParanoiA]

 

So, what is more important ? conformism and comfortable beliefs or the truth ( even when it is ugly and disturbing ) ?

 

[ I apologise if I seem a bit harsh ]

 

No need to apologize since you're not really talking to anybody that I can figure out. In fact, I have no idea what post or ideas you think are an example of "conformism" or comfortable beliefs.

 

What if the truth isn't ugly or disturbing? Would you still recognize it? Or does it have to be ugly and disturbing before you believe it is truth?

 

What is more important? Complexity and irreverance, or the truth (even when it is simple and pleasant)?

[blue_cristal]

In fact, I have no idea what post or ideas you think are an example of "conformism" or comfortable beliefs.

 

Regarding to conformism, for instance, how many people accept the religion imposed on them by their parents and society due conformism and how many do it only after critically comparing this religion to all others and also to the lack of it ?

 

What if the truth isn't ugly or disturbing?

 

The truth can be pleasant like a wonderful beach in a sunny day or ugly as organized gangs killing children of underdeveloped countries to sell their organs for transplant to wealthy people in developed countries.

 

What is more important? Complexity and irreverance, or the truth (even when it is simple and pleasant)?

 

The truth can be both. Sometimes it is simple and pleasant and sometimes it is complex and irreverent to the current dogmatic beliefs, or something else entirely. Truth is the multiple and varied aspects of nature.

[ParanoiA]

Regarding to conformism, for instance, how many people accept the religion imposed on them by their parents and society due conformism and how many do it only after critically comparing this religion to all others and also to the lack of it ?

 

And how many accept their culture and values imposed on them by their environment without critically thinking it out? This is what social animals do. It's not a weakness or a negative. Conformity aids cooperation and survival success in social groups. Those of us who choose to challenge conformity really only challenge a handful out of thousands of things we conform to without even thinking about. Then we get on a soapbox and preach about how everyone else conforms.

 

The truth can be pleasant like a wonderful beach in a sunny day or ugly as organized gangs killing children of underdeveloped countries to sell their organs for transplant to wealthy people in developed countries.

 

That's right. And you still didn't answer my question. Would you recongize it? You seem to be struck in awe over the idea of ugly truth - like no one here "gets it". Ugly truth is elementary, not revolutionary.

[blue_cristal]

And how many accept their culture and values imposed on them by their environment without critically thinking it out? This is what social animals do. It's not a weakness or a negative. Conformity aids cooperation and survival success in social groups.

 

This was an adaptive behaviour when humans lived in simple and primitive tribal societies strongly commanded by a dictatorial alpha-male.

 

I very much doubt that blind conformism is still adaptive to all situations in today’s complex societies.

 

Excessive conformism leads to blind dogmatic beliefs, which leads to fanaticism, witch leads to conflicts and wars.

 

And even when it does not lead to violence or tragedies, conformism stifles creativity and rational thinking which hinders the progress of scientific knowledge and boosts religious irrationality.

 

And wars in a era of weapons capable to destroy humankind 100 times over ( as if one time was not enough ) is highly non-adaptive for the survival of our species.

 

Those of us who choose to challenge conformity really only challenge a handful out of thousands of things we conform to without even thinking about. Then we get on a soapbox and preach about how everyone else conforms.

 

These are just semi-non-conformists. And your assertion is true for the majority of semi-non-conformists ( which, actually, are a minority compared with the majority of conformists ) but there is a brave minority that rationally challenges every single belief that lacks support on verifiable evidence ( I think I am one of them ).

[lucaspa]

Regarding to conformism, for instance, how many people accept the religion imposed on them by their parents and society due conformism and how many do it only after critically comparing this religion to all others and also to the lack of it ?

 

WAIT a minute. What in the world does this have to do with the thread? If you want "conformism", you need to post something from this thread that yu think qualified.

 

The truth can be pleasant like a wonderful beach in a sunny day or ugly as organized gangs killing children of underdeveloped countries to sell their organs for transplant to wealthy people in developed countries.

 

Talk about mixing metaphors! We have an idyllic outdoor scene vs some human behaviors! If you were going to do this, you could at least have had "pleasant truth" being something like Mother Teresa caring for the poor in India or Doctors Without Borders running a clinic in rural Nicaragua.

 

Paranoia, let's not let Blue cristal distract us. What we both asked was what in this thread constituted "conformism" and "the truth". We haven't gotten an answer but a dodge.

 

there is a brave minority that rationally challenges every single belief that lacks support on verifiable evidence ( I think I am one of them ).

 

Well, aren't you special! And so modest, too.

 

Have you every challenged that belief in "verifiable evidence"? In particular, have you ever looked at the problems inherent in "verifiable"? Hint: examine the problem of induction.