You really are an idiot. Just get off this thread.
3 Likes
Tramps, I think you need to put down your iPad down for a bit. Intinikiās post was not deserving of that response. Get down off your high horse. Also you are extrapolating TCK posts into something that they are not.
1 Like
You canāt tell me what to do, but Iāll gladly leave you to it. Whats a bit of child abuse compared to a āDaily Mail headlineā eh?
Or Brasseye maybeā¦?
1 Like
Iām not having a go at Intiki - heās obviously trying to be a mediating influence on the thread - but when TCKās first reaction is to scoff at an obviously visceral response to paedophilia its hard not to be pretty shocked.
Iām being asked to mediate my language when talking about pedophiles. If someone used the same terms to describe Tory voters Iām pretty sure plenty of posters on this forum would be clapping along in approval - but for some reason I need to hold back for pedophiles.
As I say, Iāll leave you lot to it.
1 Like
Trampoline, you are once again showing how naive and reactionary you are (teenage strop strings to kind) in completely missing the point of TCKs post - itās so obviously gone over your head, just man up and admit you donāt understand and ask for clarification before jumping to such ignorant conclusions.
TCK has defended nothing - certainly not paedophiles. He has quite rightly expressed his exasperation at the typical stereotypical reactionary response from media and public to what is perhaps the most difficult and incomprehensible of crimes to understand. The impact on victims of the actions of paedophiles is so severe that quite rightly it deeply disturbs usā¦ But, heres the point IMHO. The objective in all of this is to protect children.
We need to ensure that all environments that children are placed in are safe and completely free from such individuals. That is not achieved by just spouting the usual rhethoric about how sick these individuals areā¦ they are obviously āillā from our perspective, as humans - like all animals are not genetically or behaviourally evolved to be attracted to those who are sexually immature. That is the biological norm. I wonāt go into the details of why such ābehavioursā evolve because itās a very complex relationship between the evolution of our secondary sexual characteristics which I am a little qualified to comment on and Psychological problems that I am not.
But that is the point - as much as we find it natural to be āsickenā by the behaviour and express our anger that it occurs, we donāt protect children by shouting as loudly as possible with all the usual stereotypical rhetoric AFTER every latest discovery of such criminality.
We protect children by ensuring the correct safeguards - foolproof - are in place in all aspects of our childrenās lives. And that we learn how to better protect our children and implement the safeguards we need to.
Finally, we come back to the āsickosā - and for many the most difficult and perhaps controversial question. We would be much better at protecting children IF we were able to treat such behaviours effectively. These are indeed very difficult behaviours to understand, but protecting children is also about reducing the threat and that includes understanding the cause of such behaviour and developing effective approaches to prevent individuals from following this path. ā¦
Itās easy to shout kill them, or whatever, but that Is a dangerous pathā¦ we have rightly condemned countries that have executed people with deep psychological problems and rightly so IMHO.
7 Likes
I was following a thread on FB yesterday which was worrying. As you can imagine it was full on mob with pitchforks stuff. They wanted names and they wanted blood. Clearly there is a problem and clearly children need to be protected, but that is why we have things like the social services, the police and the CPS. The extent to which this went on is staggering and we must assume that it is even more widespread than what we have heard so far. But there is a mentality which is also worrying about how paedophiles are dealt with. There are stories about how they are singled out in prison for āspecial treatmentā by other inmates and are stuck with a special name - nonce. As Chutney says, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. We need to protect our children from their actions but they also need help and protecting from themselves. Sticking labels on them isnt going to make the problem go away and just further inflames the mob mentality. We can stick names on them and beat the shit out of them and it might make us feel better, but it doesnt actually deal with the ongoing problem.
6 Likes
Apologies for last night. Had a bad day, hit the pub on a more-or-less empty stomach and was unneccesarily hostile. I do need to cut this kind of shit out both on the internet and in real life as its doing me no favours.
Canāt disagree with the last two posts in fairness, but, corny and conservative as it might sound, I do wonder if youād change your tune if it were your children or loved ones who were affected.
A friend of my ex-girlfriendās worked for the government in a medical policy capacity (I canāt remember her exact job) but essentially she was addressing the question of whether there should be extra support for āinnocentā paedophiles who never act on their urges and never harm a child. On the face of it, it seems perfectly reasonable. The people baying for their blood are essentially convicting them of thoughtcrime. Any attack or criminal charge against such a person is totally unfair and unjustifiable - definitely agree on that one.
Now, in theory, this all sounds good. Paedophiles can get medical assistance, counselling and so on whilst being in an environment where they arenāt dehumanised. Trouble is, I just canāt see this kind of thing not massively normalising the condition - and from what Iāve heard - paedophiles tend to have an extremely high aptitude for self-deception and rationalising their crimes.
Ultimately what Iām saying is that if the main priority is to protect children (and Iām sure thatās one thing we can all agree on), you have to be open to the idea that that may well be better achieved by something clos_er_ to the mobs and pitchforks end of the spectrum than nicey-nicey understandy stuff. Not attacking or accusing anyone, but I do worry that the liberal urge to be taking the āprogressive/nicerā solution may well simply yield less effective results and therefore leave more children vulnerable to attack.
Granted, Iām sure the ārightā answer, if there is one, is somewhere in the middle between the two extremes, but yeah. You get the point.
How else would you go about describing them?
Since the Savile thing broke, I have been amazed that people arenāt angrier about what appears to be an industrial scale child abusing and cover up operation. I can understand people using labels, even ones that you might see in the Daily Express, to describe individuals that are guilty of such crimes. Like I say, Iām slightly amazed that people arenāt angrier.
I honestly donāt know what itās like for people that donāt grow up on council estates, but as far as scumbag pecking order goes, paedophiles were at the bottom. We didnāt even call them that then. The prison term ānonceā was sometimes used. More often, adults would say that paedophiles āinterfered withā children. Without going into specifics, there was a family on the estate in which it was discovered that abuse had been going on for several years. The father wasnāt on the estate for long. Murderers get more respect.
Understand where youāre coming from, but I can equally see why MrTrampoline bounced off on the tangent he did, and if he had not have queried your query, I certainly would have. Simply, there was only one thing to get mad about here, and thatās the way that paedophiles act toward children, not the language used to describe the cunts (try finding that in the Daily Express).
I think people have been extremely angry at the cover ups firstly in the Catholic church, childrenās homes, BBC and now footballā¦ and rightly so, but this is rightly anger towards the institutions that allowed this systematic abuse to happen, which has nothing to do with how people describe those committing the abuse - you are failing to differentiate between the two here due to the complicityā¦
Second, just what the fuck as someones upbringing on a council estate or not got to do with any of this? That is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that somehow its perfectly acceptable to be more āagressiveā towards these criminals and that somehow those who have not lived on council estates are maybe viewing these criminals too lightly? FFS, that is total bollocks. No different to me suggesting that all council estate folk are knuckledraggers who go and beat up Paediatcians? (which HAS actually happened)ā¦ and how would you react if I suggested that? Just reverse snobbery in the extreme and suggests a chip on shoulderā¦
Sorry, completely disagree with your last statement about āthe only thing folk should be getting mad about is how these people act towards childrenā - that is simply the emotive reaction that people have been having ever since we have become more aware of these crimesā¦ It does not matter how angry you get and how often you call then cunts, shout or scream various terms for them, its made fuck all dfference. We could lock up up an entire generation of paedophiles and this would still not protect children from the next generation - the pitchfork mentality only satisfies that emotion, but does fuck all to protect children.
For that it needs a āRATIONALā response to the problem - that means two things:
-
Dealing with the protection issue wherever our children are (as mentioned in previous post) ande nsuring there is no chnace for paedophiles to be in postitions of trust
-
Understanding why such behaviours exist and therefore how to treat it effectivelyā¦ and therefore reducing the risk/threat from those with these behaviours.
To reiterate, this is nothing to do with being āliberalā or soft on those that commit such hideous crimes, and as Trampoline suggests, its very likley if something like this happened to one of my own - the emotive response would be quite extreme - but that is the point. Such revenge may seem natural and just, but would do fuck all to stop children being abused in futureā¦
2 Likes
I tend not to approve of vigilante justice but this is an interesting video - because the guy in question *appears* to be the kind of guy whoād benefit from counselling of some sort and perhaps a softer form of treatment. On the one hand I can imagine him being the kind of person who might well turn himself in before attacking a child knowing full well what heās doing is wrong. Youād picture people like him as being the ātargetā of a more understanding, nuanced approach - where heād be the sort of person where a more compassionate approach might be what stops him eventually attempting to harm a child.
*However*, Iād be equally suspicious that a softly-softly āyouāre-the-real-victimā narrative would massively help him convince himself heās doing nothing wrong and rationalise it to himself. He was probably sexually unsuccessful at a young age, figures that there isnāt a big age gap, that the girl is less than 2 years from the age of consent and so on.
Long story short? When it comes to the supposedly āless-badā paedophiles, the kind of whom youād hope things like drugs, conselling and support might be able to ācaptureā before they do any harm, I think the jury is out. Big time.
This guy on the other hand is clearly one of the most stereotypically coniving and evil cunts you can imagine - and Iām sorry, but Iād bet that the only way you could possibly incentivise him to *not* try to harm a child is through the crude threat of very harsh punishment. Yup. Very conservative, not very progressive and liberal I know, but as I say, Iām convinced that harsher punishments for his sort will equal fewer kids harmed on a macro level.
Iām also fairly convinced that there are a lot of people who agree deep down, but just want to take the ātrendyā, ānicerā side of the argument.
If the objective is āLess Kids Harmedā, as it should be, then Iām sorry but I want clear-cut evidence that avoiding the terminology I used contributes to the objective of āLess Kids Harmedā
āSorry, completely disagree with your last statement about āthe only thing folk should be getting mad about is how these people act towards childrenā - that is simply the emotive reaction that people have been having ever since we have become more aware of these crimesā¦ It does not matter how angry you get and how often you call then cunts, shout or scream various terms for them, its made fuck all dfference. We could lock up up an entire generation of paedophiles and this would still not protect children from the next generation - the pitchfork mentality only satisfies that emotion, but does fuck all to protect children.ā
What policies would you advocate in contrast to the bolded, and how would they contribute to the ultimate aim of protecting children?
Genuine question. No judgement.
Originally posted by @MrTrampoline
Ultimately what Iām saying is that if the main priority is to protect children (and Iām sure thatās one thing we can all agree on), you have to be open to the idea that that may well be better achieved by something clos_er_ to the mobs and pitchforks end of the spectrum than nicey-nicey understandy stuff. Not attacking or accusing anyone, but I do worry that the liberal urge to be taking the āprogressive/nicerā solution may well simply yield less effective results and therefore leave more children vulnerable to attack.
Sorry, cant agree with this. They have been systematically executing murderers and paedophiles in many countries including the USā¦ for years and surprise surprise it is no deterant nor does it reduce the incidence of such crimes. It NEVER helps any debate to use terms such as nicey nicy or liberal or soft as it implies in effect some sort of empathy with those that commit these hideous crimes, but that is NOT the case. Its ALL about protecting children first and preventing these crimes in the first place. That requires RATIONAL thought to find the most effective way, not emotional rheteotic - its the continued use of this rhetoric and that it does fuck all to protect kids that I believe TCK was on about, and I agree with.
3 Likes
People: I canāt believe this awful stuff goes on. How can people get away for this for so long, why donāt kids come forward?
*some time later*
Woman: I was sexually assualted.
Same People: Fucking lying slut! How much did you drink? What were you wearing? How many people have you slept with? You enjoyed sex once, didnāt you! It couldnāt have been rape!
Fact is, as a society, how we see sexual abuse of all forms is disgusting. It will never get better until a huge myriad of tangled issues are tackled properly.
Getting angry and screaming obscenities is not going to change anything. Despite what half the world seems to think at the minute.
3 Likes
First up the āGenuine question. No judgement.ā part of your post is not necessaryā¦ and is just a tad patronizing and it implies you are usually judgementalā¦
I am no expert on this issue, so can not comment and I certianly dont have time to assess the current state of art treatmnets and approaches that existā¦ but because we have only recently shifted emphasis away from just punishment (which is necessary) to wards research into prevention I beleive there is obviously a huge amount of research needed to find the best and most effective approachā¦ and given that this is about protecting children, its not something we shoudld be skimping on.
Originally posted by @MrTrampoline
If the objective is āLess Kids Harmedā, as it should be, then Iām sorry but I want clear-cut evidence that a voiding the terminology I used contributes to the objective of "Less Kids Harmed"
Cant give you that, but my specultation/opinion is that whilst we only use such labels, it creates a very difficult environment for those who might be able to research and develop effective solutionsā¦ because they end up being viewed as ādefendersā of those criminals or worse as apologists (you yourself accused TCK of such) and who wants that grief? Yet it is most likely that the solution lies in such research and understanding - afterall pichforks and beating up the ācuntsā has not stopped new paedophiles replacing those that have been prosecuted, incarcerated or subjected to capital punishmentā¦
How does chasing someone that has abused a child with a pitchfork protect the child that has already been absued?
Thatās not protecting children, itās a form of catharsis. Itās satisfying peopleās feeling of guilt or helplessness at not having protected the child in the first place. It is also, uncomfortably, about making ourselves feel better. When you (just to clarify, I donāt mean an actual specific YOU to anyone here) seek to demonise someone in such a way, you are distancing yourself from them. It couldnāt possibly be you, or anyone you know that commits these acts, _āthey are monstersā. _Itās a way of avoiding any introspection, and avoiding looking at any thing you could do differently to prevent these things from occuring.
It is othering. Itās creating a different group of people to blame for the problem. Itās an easy out, and makes people feel better. But it changes nothing.
As CF says above, punitive punishments have been the standard for most recorded history. Have they eradicated child abuse, rape, murder, theft etc? All the worst things still happen, despite the knowledge of what is likely to happen to them if found out.
1 Like
Originally posted by @MrTrampoline
Iām also fairly convinced that there are a lot of people who agree deep down, but just want to take the ātrendyā, ānicerā side of the argument.
If the objective is āLess Kids Harmedā, as it should be, then Iām sorry but I want clear-cut evidence that avoiding the terminology I used contributes to the objective of āLess Kids Harmedā
I assume you have plenty of clear-cut evidence to prove this, yes?
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
I think people have been extremely angry at the cover ups firstly in the Catholic church, childrenās homes, BBC and now footballā¦ and rightly so, but this is rightly anger towards the institutions that allowed this systematic abuse to happen, which has nothing to do with how people describe those committing the abuse - you are failing to differentiate between the two here due to the complicityā¦
Two million demoed on the streets to stop the war happening in Iraq. Didnāt work, but I would have expected to have seen a similar level of indignation, public anger and contempt directed toward those that have allowed it to happen.
We protested the BBC for its reporting in Gaza. Where is the protest about the likes of Savile being allowed to operate, or the likes of Esther Rantzen, self-proclaimed protector of children, knowing about it all along?
Iāve seen more fucking anger about migrants.
Second, just what the fuck as someones upbringing on a council estate or not got to do with any of this? That is ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that somehow its perfectly acceptable to be more āagressiveā towards these criminals and that somehow those who have not lived on council estates are maybe viewing these criminals too lightly? FFS, that is total bollocks. No different to me suggesting that all council estate folk are knuckledraggers who go and beat up Paediatcians? (which HAS actually happened)ā¦ and how would you react if I suggested that? Just reverse snobbery in the extreme and suggests a chip on shoulderā¦
Nope. As someone that only has one background to draw from, I was merely saying that it was seen as the lowest of the low from where Iām from. Thereās an implicit enquiry as to whether anyone else has a different experience.
Iād suggest any shoulder-borne chips are carried by those making more of it.
Sorry, completely disagree with your last statement about āthe only thing folk should be getting mad about is how these people act towards childrenā - that is simply the emotive reaction that people have been having ever since we have become more aware of these crimesā¦ It does not matter how angry you get and how often you call then cunts, shout or scream various terms for them, its made fuck all dfference. We could lock up up an entire generation of paedophiles and this would still not protect children from the next generation - the pitchfork mentality only satisfies that emotion, but does fuck all to protect children.
For that it needs a āRATIONALā response to the problem - that means two things:
Dealing with the protection issue wherever our children are (as mentioned in previous post) ande nsuring there is no chnace for paedophiles to be in postitions of trust
Understanding why such behaviours exist and therefore how to treat it effectivelyā¦ and therefore reducing the risk/threat from those with these behaviours.
To reiterate, this is nothing to do with being āliberalā or soft on those that commit such hideous crimes, and as Trampoline suggests, its very likley if something like this happened to one of my own - the emotive response would be quite extreme - but that is the point. Such revenge may seem natural and just, but would do fuck all to stop children being abused in futureā¦
Yeah, you could do all that. Equally, the inquiry could start naming names, making arrests, justifiably blackening the good name of _anyone _involved, no matter how far it goes up. Let people know that this is unacceptable, and the law doesnāt distinguish between council estate nonces and VIPs.
You could sit about navel gazing about why it happens, but I donāt think itād make too much difference. We already know. In some cases, weāre talking cycles of abuse. In others, weāre looking at behaviours developed in institutions.
No matter the abuse, at some stage, someone is making the determination to wreck anotherās life. I know that in many cases, abusers have been abused themselves. That makes them even worse, imo.
Where we do agree is that it needs to be stopped, and at the very least, āhigh riskā jobs need to be looked at.
Originally posted by @pap
You could sit about navel gazing about why it happens, but I donāt think itād make too much difference. We already know. In some cases, weāre talking cycles of abuse. In others, weāre looking at behaviours developed in institutions.
No matter the abuse, at some stage, someone is making the determination to wreck anotherās life. I know that in many cases, abusers have been abused themselves. That makes them even worse, imo.
I get what you mean in some of the post above, even if I donāt agree. I spent some, not all but some, of my childhood growing up on an estate so get where you are coming with that. Iām not sure I agree with the relevance here, mind.
Gonna be honest though, I massively disagree with this highlighted part (think I accidentally downvoted - sorry fat thumbs). Think this is a very dangerous attitude, and is actually one of the areas that trying to work with people would probably be the most effective.
1 Like