Peados need locking up

#1
I have brought this from the NAAFI bar as I will not discuss this anymore there.


maxi_77 said:
EX_REME said:
maxi_77 said:
EX_REME said:
maxi_77 said:
clownbasher said:
On the other hand, some of these sickos realise that their tastes are wrong, and have not yet got round to offending. There should really be some sort of treatment available for those who realise they have got one serious fcukijng problem and try and get some help before they do something.
I agree, demonise them from the first improper thought and they will all end up trying to actually have a go with kids, get some of them and help them, remember they can only be helped if they want to be helped(1) otherwise all the treatment will have no effect, and at least we save some children. The real question is what do we really want, do we want to be very nasty to paedophiles, or do we want to stop kids being attacked.

I know what is more important to me, protecting the kids(2).

Peter
1. So, what would you do with those who say they want help but dont?

What is wrong with "helping" them while in prison?

2. So whats wrong with killing all the peados?
For question 1 a ot depends on how they come to your notice, and how they react to treatment, and already many do have treatment in prison. There is a world of difference between some one who has looked at a few internet sites and some one who has ammassed a vast colletion, or some one who is using the internet for grooming.

As for 2 if we did have a death penalty one would have to develop a pretty clear definition of who qualified for the ultimate solution, and be reasonably sure you were actually convicting the right person. Even so the more draconian you become the less chance there is of those finding they actually have such an attraction seaking help before they offend. Once you have killed once, why not kill again, you can nly get one life sentence or executution. If the thought is enough to warrant execution why not go the whole hog.

Lets look at this another way I presume you like women and having sex with them and looking at pictures of them, does this mean you are a rapist(1), and an incurable one at that, because by your implication all possible rapists should also be put down as it is just as abhorent a crime.(2) To subscribe to the concept that all who have sexual thoughts about children should be treated as the most heinous paedophiles is to agree with the concept that all men are rapists(3), another success for the feminazis who are using this to have all men put away.

Peter
1. I do like looking at women, however I only like having sex with my wife, thank you very much, BTW it IS LEGAL.

2. No it does not. looking at pictures that are legal is ok is it not?

3. People who have the above have problems, they need sorting out, how we do that is up to us. I would prefer to "help" the above in prison, UNLESS they had actually done something then I would like them to be executed.
You are missing the point, yes what you do is legal (but there are some who suggest that some of what you do should be made illegal because it demeans women(1)) but because what you do today the legal bit may give you the taste for 'more' the bits that are ilegal then you are in reality a possible criminal(2) and need to be controlled, your freedoms restricted.

in 3 are you suggesting that some one who seeks treatment for possible kiddy fiddling tendencies, but who has not actuall committed any crime can only be treated in prison(3)?
1. How do you know what I do?
2. Do not get "possible" criminal roped in with criminal. Also I have been doing what I do for quite a few years and never wanted to "rape" anyone, in fact I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to.
3. OK I will concede on this, anyone who volunteers that they have a problem before actually committing a crime should be helped more.
 
#2
EX_REME said:
I have brought this from the NAAFI bar as I will not discuss this anymore there.


maxi_77 said:
You are missing the point, yes what you do is legal (but there are some who suggest that some of what you do should be made illegal because it demeans women(1)) but because what you do today the legal bit may give you the taste for 'more' the bits that are ilegal then you are in reality a possible criminal(2) and need to be controlled, your freedoms restricted.

in 3 are you suggesting that some one who seeks treatment for possible kiddy fiddling tendencies, but who has not actuall committed any crime can only be treated in prison(3)?
1. How do you know what I do?
2. Do not get "possible" criminal roped in with criminal. Also I have been doing what I do for quite a few years and never wanted to "rape" anyone, in fact I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to.
3. OK I will concede on this, anyone who volunteers that they have a problem before actually committing a crime should be helped more.
I don't know what you do, and to be quite blunt have no desire to know, rather I was pointing out that the extreme end of the feminist movement using similar arguments but transfered to the male condition do suggest that all males need to be 'controlled'.

It is to do once again with the extreme feminist view that if you look at porn then you will eventually become a rapist because you as aresult of looking and thinking about women see them a sex objects and not people, and that this applies to all men. The same concept is transfered to paedophiles, to think about children means you will look at them and then look at the appropriate porn then go for the 'real' thing.

Now approaching the problem of child abuse, I think you would agree that the most important thing to stop children being abused, and if one accepts this then making looking at one image on a web site as bad as actually abusing a child then you say to the potential abuser 'you might as well try for the real thing because it will be no worse for you than just looking at one picture'. In my opinion, for what that is worth, taking a structured approach to treating/punishing/excluding such people is far more likely to reduce the number of children harmed than the one shot and you are out approach because as I said if you only have one shot you will go for the biggy.

What ever we do the protection of children must be the prime objective, not extracting punishment pain and humiliation from these despicable people.
 
#6
Moodybitch said:
maxi_77 said:
Moodybitch said:
Exactly, so lock them all up and throw away the key
Clearly didnt read what I said, but there you go.
Sory pal, but they only people who sympathise with paedos are probably a pervert themselves.
That's a bit like the if you look at the pictures you will become a mad rapist arguement. It is not sympathy to think about the problem rather a deep desire to reduce the problem rather than run around in a random lynch mob trying to murder child doctors because their title sounds like paedophile.
 
#7
maxi_77 said:
Moodybitch said:
maxi_77 said:
Moodybitch said:
Exactly, so lock them all up and throw away the key
Clearly didnt read what I said, but there you go.
Sory pal, but they only people who sympathise with paedos are probably a pervert themselves.
That's a bit like the if you look at the pictures you will become a mad rapist arguement. It is not sympathy to think about the problem rather a deep desire to reduce the problem rather than run around in a random lynch mob trying to murder child doctors because their title sounds like paedophile.
No, it's not. I would never think that looking at porn created by consenting adults could lead to someone raping another person.

The reason why people look at porn is for sexual gratification.

Is it acceptable? Not in everyones eyes, but where is the proof it leads to rape?

A viewer of child porn is looking at those images for the same sexual gratification.

The difference is they are looking at images which are not consensual and where the person dipicted is frightened, in pain and being ABUSED.

There is something very, very wrong with someone who gets their sexual kicks from this.

Additionally, I would put money on the fact there is proof to show that viewers of child porn DO lead on to commit more serious paedo crimes.

Unless you have figures to tell me I am wrong on both aspects, then your argument, while persistant, is extremely flawed.
 
#8
maxi_77 said:
EX_REME said:
I have brought this from the NAAFI bar as I will not discuss this anymore there.


maxi_77 said:
You are missing the point, yes what you do is legal (but there are some who suggest that some of what you do should be made illegal because it demeans women(1)) but because what you do today the legal bit may give you the taste for 'more' the bits that are ilegal then you are in reality a possible criminal(2) and need to be controlled, your freedoms restricted.

in 3 are you suggesting that some one who seeks treatment for possible kiddy fiddling tendencies, but who has not actuall committed any crime can only be treated in prison(3)?
1. How do you know what I do?
2. Do not get "possible" criminal roped in with criminal. Also I have been doing what I do for quite a few years and never wanted to "rape" anyone, in fact I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to.
3. OK I will concede on this, anyone who volunteers that they have a problem before actually committing a crime should be helped more.
I don't know what you do, and to be quite blunt have no desire to know, rather I was pointing out that the extreme end of the feminist movement using similar arguments but transfered to the male condition do suggest that all males need to be 'controlled'.

It is to do once again with the extreme feminist view that if you look at porn then you will eventually become a rapist because you as aresult of looking and thinking about women see them a sex objects and not people, and that this applies to all men. The same concept is transfered to paedophiles, to think about children means you will look at them and then look at the appropriate porn then go for the 'real' thing.

Now approaching the problem of child abuse, I think you would agree that the most important thing to stop children being abused, and if one accepts this then making looking at one image on a web site as bad as actually abusing a child then you say to the potential abuser 'you might as well try for the real thing because it will be no worse for you than just looking at one picture'. In my opinion, for what that is worth, taking a structured approach to treating/punishing/excluding such people is far more likely to reduce the number of children harmed than the one shot and you are out approach because as I said if you only have one shot you will go for the biggy.

What ever we do the protection of children must be the prime objective, not extracting punishment pain and humiliation from these despicable people.
TBH, it is as bad. As someone has already stated, if people did not look at these sites then the need would not be there and people would not make them.

But yes all in proportion then. Maybe we could torture them that go further, how long we torture them for depends on what they have done.

Children are so innocent and trusting that WE NEED TO PROTECT THEM AT ALL COSTS. I know this as I have children, if anything happens to them, yes I would kidnap the perpetrators and keep them prisoner for as long as I could and torture them, for as long as I could. Call me a barbarian if you want, I do not have a problem with that.
 
#9
While this is a very emotive subject it is also a positive minefield in almost every direction.

Firstly there is no evidence I am aware of that says that Paedophiles can be 'cured'. They can't be cured, but they can be managed. This is very time consuming, expensive and to be effective requires their co-operation.

A great many people view some very disturbing erotic and pornographic material on the internet without putting any of it into practice. Many will pay good money to do so. It just spices up their lives, or relationships. This does not make them perverts. Just because people find Bridget The Midget a subject for a little 'manual relief' doesn't make the streets unsafe for all female dwarves. Pony Play may be viewed as demeaning and perverted by some, but among consenting adults there isn't a problem.

If you go to one of the webs largest sites catering for erotic fiction (www.literotica.com) you will find find that out of more than 120,000 erotic stories there, more than ten per cent deal with incest. Incest is illegal pretty much everywhere but there are new stories appearing every day to titilate the reader. I wonder what the hit rate is on these stories? Should the readers be jailed?

Society has a convention that large age differences in sexual relationships are frowned upon or considered inappropriate. This applies to consenting adults and even more so between adults and teenagers. It has the even stronger taboo that adults having sexual interactions with children who have not reached sexual materity are absolutely unacceptable.

In a society that increasingly sexualised its children in their own media, we are complicit in blurring the boundaries over where childhood ends and adulthood begins.

The sixteen year old boy who has intercourse with a precocious thirteen year old girl would not be considered a paedophile these days. Where do you draw the line in the age difference? At what point does the boy cease to be an over-eager teenager fuelled by testosterone and become a paedophile worthy of a prison sentence?

The police officer who suggested that people found viewing child porn on the net should be dealt with and managed in some other way than prison has a point. If one website alone has over 13,000 stories that promote incest how are we to deal with the readers?

The lines must be drawn, but in a society seemingly dedicated to blurring boundaries I think that we have to be very careful where exactly they are drawn.

The worst paedophiles are intelligent, highly dangerous and very devious individuals on whom we would have to spend a great deal of resource and money to keep safe if they are allowed to remain in the community.

Having never seen any 'child porn' I am not sure where it fits in the scale of things. I understand that it is scored by the authorities on a scale of one to five, but also know that those who peddle the worst kind can still only expect a short custodial sentence before they are out amongst us again.

Personally, I favour chemical or actual castration for the worst offenders since that seems to be the only permanent solution. Like most other crimes however, intent doesn't seem to be enough cause to pull them out of society for treatment or puinishment.
 
#10
Moodybitch said:
maxi_77 said:
Moodybitch said:
maxi_77 said:
Moodybitch said:
Exactly, so lock them all up and throw away the key
Clearly didnt read what I said, but there you go.
Sory pal, but they only people who sympathise with paedos are probably a pervert themselves.
That's a bit like the if you look at the pictures you will become a mad rapist arguement. It is not sympathy to think about the problem rather a deep desire to reduce the problem rather than run around in a random lynch mob trying to murder child doctors because their title sounds like paedophile.
No, it's not. I would never think that looking at porn created by consenting adults could lead to someone raping another person.

The reason why people look at porn is for sexual gratification.

Is it acceptable? Not in everyones eyes, but where is the proof it leads to rape?

A viewer of child porn is looking at those images for the same sexual gratification.

The difference is they are looking at images which are not consensual and where the person dipicted is frightened, in pain and being ABUSED.

There is something very, very wrong with someone who gets their sexual kicks from this.

Additionally, I would put money on the fact there is proof to show that viewers of child porn DO lead on to commit more serious paedo crimes.

Unless you have figures to tell me I am wrong on both aspects, then your argument, while persistant, is extremely flawed.
Maxi, you are dealing with a stupid troll who needa an OT tag. She's a waste of good binary code
 
#11
Stop following me round the forums you tedious cockend.

I think I made a valid point....I don't see a rush of people disagreeing with it.

I know you are upset that your boyfriend had his account deleted, but you are getting extremely dull now.

If you have a problem with it, speak to the CO's, otherwise be a good turd and STFU.
 
#12
My opinion, not answer to an earlier post.

I agree that they should get help if they ask for it but they have committed a crime even if they are looking at it and not doing the abuse themselves. Therefore get the help whilst receiving a punishment but these days, paltry sentences and supervision of offenders etc in the public are cack anyway so that would be a minor penance to their lifestyle anyway.
I'm sorry but I can't give these people any leeway as you cannot simply just 'stumble' onto a hardcore website. I also can't help feeling that there will be some who'll lie that they've change their ways through help just to evade imprisonment.
I'll believe it more if Jim Gamble allows a big hostel to home these non-jail criminals to be built by his home or at least in his town.
 
#13
I've cut and pasted this from the NAAFI so the quotes are from there

amazing__lobster said:
If pedophilia is considered a form of sexuality, by some (one that is morally wrong), then I do not see how there is any kind of "treatment',that doesn't involve the removal of certain bits, can help.

Sounds like a complete and utter waste of time.
Chevez said:
What utter Bo lox they are born that way, you cant treat them. thats like saying you can treat a homosexual and cure them. they too are born that way.
the only way to deal with kiddy fiddlers is to remove them from society.
Yes, I agree. Paedophilia, like homosexuality, is a sexual preference. Society doesn't (and clearly shouldn't) view paedophiles in the same way because the children do not consent. Therin lies the problem and hence the reason why those who are 'genuinely' attracted to children and those who abuse them only to satisfy some other deficit in their lives/pschological profile will always be lumped together in the same criminal group. This sounds like I'm defending them - I'm not of course but the question is this: if paedophiles need treatment then surely the same applies to homosexuals. Why have we just accepted homosexuality where we totally despise paedophiles? Okay, I know the answer to that one myself but you can see what I'm getting at. The rights of homosexuals to pursue their particular sexual preference without discrimination are even protected in law. They even managed to lobby a drop in the age of consent FFS - I bet the paedos couldn't believe it!

I don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of paedophilia but the government and its agencies need to be seen to be doing something I suppose...
 
#14
Stained_Eligius said:
I don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of paedophilia but the government and its agencies need to be seen to be doing something I suppose...
There is an answer, read my post above.
 
#15
Protecting children and catching/punishing those that offend or may offend are inter-related.

There are IMO only 2 ways to "manage" these offenders in a way that protects the children, imprisonment for life or capital punishment.
 
#16
I don't think homosexuality is a real comparison to paedo activities.

The age of consent was dropped to the same as heterosexual age of consent limits - fair enough, if someone is deemed adult enough to agree to heterosexual intercourse, then why not homosexual intercourse.

The thing with paedo's is they deliberately prey on those way under the age of consent, those who are too innocent and young to even grasp the concept of sex in most cases. They are rarely treated by their paedo friend in a way which would suggest the paedo is in love with them. It is an unnatural lust with no thought for the physical or emotional trauma to the victim.

I personally feel that anyone who can compare 2 adult males having consensual intercourse to a paedophile forcing himself on a toddler must need a re-education somewhere.
 
#17
EX_REME said:
Stained_Eligius said:
I don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of paedophilia but the government and its agencies need to be seen to be doing something I suppose...
There is an answer, read my post above.
I did and I agree. My point is more about how we now view homosexuality. Just as deviant in my opinion - it just doesn't always involve children.
 
#18
Stained_Eligius said:
EX_REME said:
Stained_Eligius said:
I don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of paedophilia but the government and its agencies need to be seen to be doing something I suppose...
There is an answer, read my post above.
I did and I agree. My point is more about how we now view homosexuality. Just as deviant in my opinion - it just doesn't always involve children.
Homosexual sex is consensual between 2 adults - Paedophilia is not. Thats why.
 
#19
Stained_Eligius said:
EX_REME said:
Stained_Eligius said:
I don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of paedophilia but the government and its agencies need to be seen to be doing something I suppose...
There is an answer, read my post above.
I did and I agree. My point is more about how we now view homosexuality. Just as deviant in my opinion - it just doesn't always involve children.
I am only interested in protecting children. What people do in the privacy of their own home (within the law), has nothing to do with me.
 
#20
Moodybitch said:
I don't think homosexuality is a real comparision to paedo activities.

The age of consent was dropped to the same as heterosexual age of consent limits - fair enough, if someone is deemed adult enough to agree to heterosexual intercourse, then why not homosexual intercourse.

The thing with paedo's is they deliberately prey on those way under the age of consent, those who are too innocent and young to even grasp the concept of sex in most cases. They are rarely treated by their paedo friend in a way which would suggest the paedo is in love with them. It is an unnatural lust with no thought for the physical or emotional trauma to the victim.

I personally feel that anyone who can compare 2 adult males having consensual intercourse to a paedophile forcing himself on a toddler must need a re-education somewhere.
Firstly: fück off. You clearly haven't got over my last disagreement with you. Don't bring that into every discussion in which you see me taking part.

Secondly: you are just plain wrong. They are sexually attracted to children. They are not overriding their otherwise normal adult heterosexual sexual preference by 'preying' on children. They do that because that IS their sexual preference.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top