thesultanofsheight Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am in sense playing devil's advocate. I do not believe in positive law and do not think there even should be a legal system. What would you do with filthy kiddy fiddling nonces then? How would an anarchist deal with the problem? Let them get on with it because it does not impact on you and you don't believe in establishing any legal system to deal with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 when ever we see the word sex offender or paedo we imagine a priest or a 20 - 60 something male abusing a 10 year old . what about the 16 year old girl consesually having sex with a 15 year old boy ( who probably thinks he's the luckiest twat going )?? who gets what cut off then?? the girl if prosecuted would end up with a child/sex conviction. is this ok even though there could only be a few months, weeks or even days between their ages?? some more liberal countries allow younger than 16's to have relations but only with people upto a few years older, so basically a similar age group. you can also end up with a sexual conviction as a local lad did a few years back cos your mates strip you and tie you to a lamp post in the middle of town and YOU get done for indecent exposure!! victim to sex offender in the blink of a blind eye. not that i agree with flashers or flashing ( unless it's tits :-) ) but that again can get you a sex conviction and put on the register??. my point being that just cos morons think everyone on the sex offenders register should be exterminated, not all are a danger in any real sense to kids or anyone else. Paedophilia is not a 16 year old and 15 year old having sex. We are talking about a grown mature adult grooming or using their influence on a person who is vulnerable because of their age and related cognitive abilities. I personally think it is very wrong to have young people criminalised for having sex with each other but that is another matter, though paedophilia is a different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 filthy kiddy fiddling nonces Lol,lol.. ; )) It's like poetry and that........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am in sense playing devil's advocate. I do not believe in positive law and do not think there even should be a legal system. What would you do with filthy kiddy fiddling nonces then? How would an anarchist deal with the problem? Let them get on with it because it does not impact on you and you don't believe in establishing any legal system to deal with it? Good question and it is one that I really cannot answer. I haven't read anything in relation to it and anarchism which is partly why I am discussing it on conventional terms. Anarchists do not believe in imprisoning people but they also do believe that the community should take charge of justice and punishment but with the ultimate aim of rehabilitating the person. Though how do you rehabilite a paedophile, is it possible? This was what I was asking at the beginning of the thread. I personally think that the person should be punishment, of course they should. But they should not be subject to the arbitrary punishment of a person wishing to carry out revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 when ever we see the word sex offender or paedo we imagine a priest or a 20 - 60 something male abusing a 10 year old . what about the 16 year old girl consesually having sex with a 15 year old boy ( who probably thinks he's the luckiest twat going )?? who gets what cut off then?? the girl if prosecuted would end up with a child/sex conviction. is this ok even though there could only be a few months, weeks or even days between their ages?? some more liberal countries allow younger than 16's to have relations but only with people upto a few years older, so basically a similar age group. you can also end up with a sexual conviction as a local lad did a few years back cos your mates strip you and tie you to a lamp post in the middle of town and YOU get done for indecent exposure!! victim to sex offender in the blink of a blind eye. not that i agree with flashers or flashing ( unless it's tits :-) ) but that again can get you a sex conviction and put on the register??. my point being that just cos morons think everyone on the sex offenders register should be exterminated, not all are a danger in any real sense to kids or anyone else. Paedophilia is not a 16 year old and 15 year old having sex. We are talking about a grown mature adult grooming or using their influence on a person who is vulnerable because of their age and related cognitive abilities. I personally think it is very wrong to have young people criminalised for having sex with each other but that is another matter, though paedophilia is a different thing. atleast you can differentiate between the two, and oddly enough i think we are on the same page. but the sex offenders register doesn't differentiate regardless of why your name is on there. and the moronic neanderthals that think violence is the answer to everything have no chance of getting it right, even though i suppose its wrong really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Good question and it is one that I really cannot answer. I haven't read anything in relation to it and anarchism which is partly why I am discussing it on conventional terms. Anarchists do not believe in imprisoning people but they also do believe that the community should take charge of justice and punishment but with the ultimate aim of rehabilitating the person. So basically the mob rules? Not too different to my post then really (except for the wishy-washy "I don't really want to be responsible for any violent action" part of your post). Face it if you believe in anarchism you believe that whatever the community believes is right will be what is done. In this case if the community is revulsed by paedophile activity then it may be entirely right to string them up IF that is what the community has decided to do and it is what the community believes to be the correct punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 A 26-year-old man is charged with possessing indecent images of children on the Isle of Man. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7821800.stm Should that have read 'A 26 year-old man on the Isle of Man is charged with possessing indecent images of children'? No, it should have read, "A 26 year old man in the Isle of Man is charged with possessing indecent images of children". We do not live on the Isle of Man; we live in the Isle of Man. If you are going to try and correct news items, at least try and do it properly. sweet as nut .. owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 but should not paedophilia be classed into the same category as or be seen to be a mental condition that requires some form of resolution other than punishment? I strongly doubt that it is purely mental condition which is curable with councelling or drugs etc. At the end of the day the vile, filthy, socially inept nonces who interfere with children should get all they deserve. If they are going to castrate them two breeze-blocks should be all that is required to do the trick. I'd do it for free I have a few lying around the garage. After that maybe sticking their knackers in a jar and putting them on the counter of the local police station as a reminder to their mates might send out an appropriate warning. have too be a big jar what wiv all the swellin an all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 atleast you can differentiate between the two, and oddly enough i think we are on the same page. but the sex offenders register doesn't differentiate regardless of why your name is on there. and the moronic neanderthals that think violence is the answer to everything have no chance of getting it right, even though i suppose its wrong really. Well I don't know too much about thr sex offenders register but it is an complete travesty if a 16 year old can get put on a register for having sex with a 14 or 15 year old. In my opinion the age of consent should be brought down to 13 or 14. Kids are having sex at that age, why criminalise that, it is their bodies. So basically the mob rules? Not too different to my post then really (except for the wishy-washy "I don't really want to be responsible for any violent action" part of your post). Face it if you believe in anarchism you believe that whatever the community believes is right will be what is done. In this case if the community is revulsed by paedophile activity then it may be entirely right to string them up IF that is what the community has decided to do and it is what the community believes to be the correct punishment. What you imply is a situation of 'anything goes'. That is not what I am talking about. Anarchists believe that control in society has been wrested away by the state. What people need to do is to take that power back from the state and police and have control over our communities. There would be no 'stringing up' because there would be no capital punishments nor arbitrary punishment. There are rules and 'laws' just not a system where a particular crime has a punishment that is decided one man. And the assumption is that the vengefulness is removed from society in an anarchism because a crime against others really IS a crime against everyone. If that person has done wrong they need to be punished but also brought back to society because of their worth to that society. But paedophilia does present a tough case. Need to think about it more and do some reading maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 This has to be the only viable option. Most paedophiles are only found out after the event therefore your stance of understanding confuses me as the damage invariably has already been done - yes we can learn from it but I doubt we ever can learn much to prevent future crimes. However, downloading images as in the case at the start of this thread is probably the entry point for many where they could actually be caught before a physical crime has been committed and maybe monitored or assessed which might stop future crimes; although technically a crime has already been committed purely through creating the image and if there was no demand from perverts to view such images that would stop many of the problems in their tracks. In terms of educating kids if you go back to Grims fairytails its full of warnings regarding kiddy fiddlers hiding in forests etc, we've always educated kids about the dangers posed by dangerous social deviants. As for me as a parent I really have no problem with the animal comparison. Well that is what I am getting at, if little can be learned to prevent future crimes then that is that. But you don't hear about there ever being much trying to determine where it comes from. If it is a personality disorder or something 'anti-social' developed through growing up that relates to ideas of power then maybe that is something to investigate and challenge when a person is caught. You may have Grims fairytales but we are very fair for protecting our children from social deviants as you call them. In fact, I believe that society is at fault for in the way it actually leaves children completely unprotected and vulnerable to these people. Most paedophilia is perpetrated by members of the childs family, not strangers. And children are not taught enough about sex early on to recognise what it is and what is right and what is wrong. If a child has the knowledge to understand very quickly what is going on in such a situation it may go a long way to serving as a tool to protect them by informing others of what is going on. you cheese eating surrender monkey. i dont bother readin your post's you talk poo no he isnt he is talking sense .. he has taken an objective view rather than a personal view.. .. .. unfortunately for him he was saying it to you a person with the mental capacity of a rocking horse .. sometimes its good to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Supply and demand was mentioned before and if there wasn't the supply, wouldn't this reduce the need to feel this way? Basically what I'm saying, is that if the Internet had restrictions on in certain areas, wouldn't this be beneficial in the long run? If there was NIL pictures of certain images, would or would it not, make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 if the Internet had restrictions on in certain areas, wouldn't this be beneficial in the long run? Not if you're a filthy, kiddy fiddling nonce it wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 if the Internet had restrictions on in certain areas, wouldn't this be beneficial in the long run? Not if you're a filthy, kiddy fiddling nonce it wouldn't. Haha, I suppose you are right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think that paedophiles should be locked up for a very long time as I don't believe you can be "cured" of this. OK it would be partly punishment but mainly to protect everyone especially other children. I can't believe anyone with kids would feel any differently to this BUT as a couple of posters have already said, you really have to know what these images contained to judge how dangerous this particular person is. You will never see them so you cannot come to any conclusion although human nature will assume the worst (no smoke without fire etc etc). As Silent Bob says, there are people on the register who are not paedophiles or a danger to anyone but we treat them the same as the worst depraved and disgusting paedo. It may just have been looking at a picture of some girl who looks 19 and turns out to be 15. This will be classed as having indecent images of children and, although its wrong, its not the same as having images of very young children being abused. Vigilante behaviour and thinking is therefore inappropriate (although completely understandable) as you will never know the content that was viewed and therefore how serious the offence was/how dangerous the person is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 If I had kids and some peado was living next door to me, I'd want to know and then have them moved with great force ( great force being my foot in there balls ). If I had kids and you were living next door to me, I'd move. I'd hope you would, I wouldnt want your kids with there 6 feet, 3 heads and 8 arms near mine. Fucking freaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.