(10-07-2014 11:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Everything is a mental illness these days.

This

Even if it is a mental illness, which I honestly believe it is, it doesn't mean we can apply 'civil rights' ideas to it. At a point we have to question that open ended jurisprudence and it should have happened already.

(10-07-2014 10:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 10:55 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Yea I have no sympathy for people who are attracted to children, whether they act on it or not.

Even if they can do nothing about it and it may be a mental illness?

Mental illness?

Sexual deviance is not a mental illness.

(10-07-2014 11:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Everything is a mental illness these days.

C'mon guys...this is old spin room crap. Bring some facts.

(10-07-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Everything is a mental illness these days.

C'mon guys...this is old spin room crap. Bring some facts or shut up.

Been around for a while, actually. The "not guilty by means of insanity" defense comes to mind. Everything has to be explained away so there is no personal responsibility involved. JMO, so no need to tell folks to shut up. Carry on.

(10-07-2014 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 12:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 11:15 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Everything is a mental illness these days.

C'mon guys...this is old spin room crap. Bring some facts or shut up.

Been around for a while, actually. The "not guilty by means of insanity" defense comes to mind. Everything has to be explained away so there is no personal responsibility involved. JMO, so no need to tell folks to shut up. Carry on.

Yeah...sorry...that was uncalled for. I'll edit out.

Quote:I could give two flying ***** about these bastards standing and image.

and neither do the parents of their victims

Again, when you're missing something here. I was talking about Attraction -- not acting or even almost acting on Anything. Just having that Attraction (which we've ALL had when we were children) entering into adulthood does not equal touching anyone in any inappropriate way.

Your reaction only solidifies the reason why said people can't get help. If it's not 100% confidential in Any and ALL circumstances no matter what -- they won't go.

I think another CONTROVERSY is when someone's Biologically Sexually Mature (13 to 15 or 17, depending on the state) -- and said sexually mature person is a willing participant to someone 18+, how wrong is that? Now, this has NOTHING to do with Sandusky (non-willing; completely different story, even throwing age out the window).

Say you're 16 years old and you hit on the hot substitute teacher who keeps coming into your school, who's built like a model and she's 22. With your ubur charm (lol), and lucky circumstances of things, you end up picking her up and hooking up with her. That is a COMPLETELY different situation than some 50 year old man molesting 6 year olds. And rightfully so in law, too. But the controversy is that the 16-year old football player hooking up with the hot 22 year old gal -- how Much of a victim is He? Victim over then oversized ego? It should be a wrong -- don't get me wrong. And fired/banned from teaching IF they were. But far and away a different scenario that shouldn't be lumped together, IMO.

(10-06-2014 08:21 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  82% of all juvenile victims are female. http://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/Fac...#reference

And your point is?

(10-07-2014 01:27 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I could give two flying ***** about these bastards standing and image.

and neither do the parents of their victims

Again, when you're missing something here. I was talking about Attraction -- not acting or even almost acting on Anything. Just having that Attraction (which we've ALL had when we were children) entering into adulthood does not equal touching anyone in any inappropriate way.

Your reaction only solidifies the reason why said people can't get help. If it's not 100% confidential in Any and ALL circumstances no matter what -- they won't go.

I think another CONTROVERSY is when someone's Biologically Sexually Mature (13 to 15 or 17, depending on the state) -- and said sexually mature person is a willing participant to someone 18+, how wrong is that? Now, this has NOTHING to do with Sandusky (non-willing; completely different story, even throwing age out the window).

Say you're 16 years old and you hit on the hot substitute teacher who keeps coming into your school, who's built like a model and she's 22. With your ubur charm (lol), and lucky circumstances of things, you end up picking her up and hooking up with her. That is a COMPLETELY different situation than some 50 year old man molesting 6 year olds. And rightfully so in law, too. But the controversy is that the 16-year old football player hooking up with the hot 22 year old gal -- how Much of a victim is He? Victim over then oversized ego? It should be a wrong -- don't get me wrong. And fired/banned from teaching IF they were. But far and away a different scenario that shouldn't be lumped together, IMO.

True.

Funny though how traditional W. Civ avoided these problems using Christian institutions.

The penalty for pedophilia

(10-06-2014 08:21 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  82% of all juvenile victims are female. http://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/Fac...#reference

That doesn't tell you who victimized them....

How about mine?

A different link than yours....

Quote:In her thesis also written for the Regent University Law Review Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. "

Quote:"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel's data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

You can't use pure numbers when you report your data because you are talking about 48% of the population versus <2%, so you have to do it on a per capita to be apples to apples.

(10-07-2014 07:17 PM)blah Wrote:  You can't use pure numbers when you report your data because you are talking about 48% of the population versus <2%, so you have to do it on a per capita to be apples to apples.

Not when the issue is whether most pedophiles are gay or straight, as was the claim made in this case. That depends solely on the absolute numbers. Saying that the rates are different is an entirely separate argument.

(10-06-2014 07:50 PM)blah Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 05:38 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Even though most pedophiles are men attracted to little girls, it only took one post to connect it to gays.
Bravo!!

I'd love to see your data on that.....

(10-07-2014 01:27 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I could give two flying ***** about these bastards standing and image.

and neither do the parents of their victims

Again, when you're missing something here. I was talking about Attraction -- not acting or even almost acting on Anything. Just having that Attraction (which we've ALL had when we were children) entering into adulthood does not equal touching anyone in any inappropriate way.

Your reaction only solidifies the reason why said people can't get help. If it's not 100% confidential in Any and ALL circumstances no matter what -- they won't go.

I think another CONTROVERSY is when someone's Biologically Sexually Mature (13 to 15 or 17, depending on the state) -- and said sexually mature person is a willing participant to someone 18+, how wrong is that? Now, this has NOTHING to do with Sandusky (non-willing; completely different story, even throwing age out the window).

Say you're 16 years old and you hit on the hot substitute teacher who keeps coming into your school, who's built like a model and she's 22. With your ubur charm (lol), and lucky circumstances of things, you end up picking her up and hooking up with her. That is a COMPLETELY different situation than some 50 year old man molesting 6 year olds. And rightfully so in law, too. But the controversy is that the 16-year old football player hooking up with the hot 22 year old gal -- how Much of a victim is He? Victim over then oversized ego? It should be a wrong -- don't get me wrong. And fired/banned from teaching IF they were. But far and away a different scenario that shouldn't be lumped together, IMO.

You always blame what sickos do ,or in your absurd hypothetical don't do, on people's reactions to said sicko?

Fact is, pedophiles are aggressive obsessed sexual predators. Sexual deviants who are always on the hunt. The % who are simply just attracted and never intend to act on that is undoubtedly in the very low single digits.

I guess if you had a house full of kids ,like I do, and an admitted pedophile who is "only attracted" moves in next door you would be the first on his doorstep with cookies asking what you could to help.

It's quite amazing we are actually even having this conversation.

Interesting...

While knowing that pedophilia is a mental illness, understanding that the age of consent has been somewhat arbitrarily set(keep in mind not very long ago the age of consent was 10, thats crazy by our standards: age of consent history ) the fact is that our laws should reflect current societal values and norms. In todays society I think we correctly want to protect those who dont have the emotional maturity to do so themselves...
18 is the age.

(10-08-2014 07:22 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:27 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I could give two flying ***** about these bastards standing and image.

and neither do the parents of their victims

Again, when you're missing something here. I was talking about Attraction -- not acting or even almost acting on Anything. Just having that Attraction (which we've ALL had when we were children) entering into adulthood does not equal touching anyone in any inappropriate way.

Your reaction only solidifies the reason why said people can't get help. If it's not 100% confidential in Any and ALL circumstances no matter what -- they won't go.

I think another CONTROVERSY is when someone's Biologically Sexually Mature (13 to 15 or 17, depending on the state) -- and said sexually mature person is a willing participant to someone 18+, how wrong is that? Now, this has NOTHING to do with Sandusky (non-willing; completely different story, even throwing age out the window).

Say you're 16 years old and you hit on the hot substitute teacher who keeps coming into your school, who's built like a model and she's 22. With your ubur charm (lol), and lucky circumstances of things, you end up picking her up and hooking up with her. That is a COMPLETELY different situation than some 50 year old man molesting 6 year olds. And rightfully so in law, too. But the controversy is that the 16-year old football player hooking up with the hot 22 year old gal -- how Much of a victim is He? Victim over then oversized ego? It should be a wrong -- don't get me wrong. And fired/banned from teaching IF they were. But far and away a different scenario that shouldn't be lumped together, IMO.

You always blame what sickos do ,or in your absurd hypothetical don't do, on people's reactions to said sicko?

Fact is, pedophiles are aggressive obsessed sexual predators. Sexual deviants who are always on the hunt.

And that's different than the 18 y.o. w/ a 16 y.o. girlfriend. Or even a 22 y.o. w/ a 17 y.o. girlfriend.

That's the point. Yet those people are still labeled as pedophiles.

On a side note, the star of 7th Heaven, a show that leftist sportswriter Peter King would gush over, is now on record as molesting children.

(10-08-2014 06:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 07:22 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:27 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I could give two flying ***** about these bastards standing and image.

and neither do the parents of their victims

Again, when you're missing something here. I was talking about Attraction -- not acting or even almost acting on Anything. Just having that Attraction (which we've ALL had when we were children) entering into adulthood does not equal touching anyone in any inappropriate way.

Your reaction only solidifies the reason why said people can't get help. If it's not 100% confidential in Any and ALL circumstances no matter what -- they won't go.

I think another CONTROVERSY is when someone's Biologically Sexually Mature (13 to 15 or 17, depending on the state) -- and said sexually mature person is a willing participant to someone 18+, how wrong is that? Now, this has NOTHING to do with Sandusky (non-willing; completely different story, even throwing age out the window).

Say you're 16 years old and you hit on the hot substitute teacher who keeps coming into your school, who's built like a model and she's 22. With your ubur charm (lol), and lucky circumstances of things, you end up picking her up and hooking up with her. That is a COMPLETELY different situation than some 50 year old man molesting 6 year olds. And rightfully so in law, too. But the controversy is that the 16-year old football player hooking up with the hot 22 year old gal -- how Much of a victim is He? Victim over then oversized ego? It should be a wrong -- don't get me wrong. And fired/banned from teaching IF they were. But far and away a different scenario that shouldn't be lumped together, IMO.

You always blame what sickos do ,or in your absurd hypothetical don't do, on people's reactions to said sicko?

Fact is, pedophiles are aggressive obsessed sexual predators. Sexual deviants who are always on the hunt.

And that's different than the 18 y.o. w/ a 16 y.o. girlfriend. Or even a 22 y.o. w/ a 17 y.o. girlfriend.

That's the point. Yet those people are still labeled as pedophiles.

On a side note, the star of 7th Heaven, a show that leftist sportswriter Peter King would gush over, is now on record as molesting children.

Not sure what you're getting at in your post.

Pedophilia by definition involves prepubescent children.

(10-08-2014 06:42 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 06:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 07:22 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 01:27 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I could give two flying ***** about these bastards standing and image.

and neither do the parents of their victims

Again, when you're missing something here. I was talking about Attraction -- not acting or even almost acting on Anything. Just having that Attraction (which we've ALL had when we were children) entering into adulthood does not equal touching anyone in any inappropriate way.

Your reaction only solidifies the reason why said people can't get help. If it's not 100% confidential in Any and ALL circumstances no matter what -- they won't go.

I think another CONTROVERSY is when someone's Biologically Sexually Mature (13 to 15 or 17, depending on the state) -- and said sexually mature person is a willing participant to someone 18+, how wrong is that? Now, this has NOTHING to do with Sandusky (non-willing; completely different story, even throwing age out the window).

Say you're 16 years old and you hit on the hot substitute teacher who keeps coming into your school, who's built like a model and she's 22. With your ubur charm (lol), and lucky circumstances of things, you end up picking her up and hooking up with her. That is a COMPLETELY different situation than some 50 year old man molesting 6 year olds. And rightfully so in law, too. But the controversy is that the 16-year old football player hooking up with the hot 22 year old gal -- how Much of a victim is He? Victim over then oversized ego? It should be a wrong -- don't get me wrong. And fired/banned from teaching IF they were. But far and away a different scenario that shouldn't be lumped together, IMO.

You always blame what sickos do ,or in your absurd hypothetical don't do, on people's reactions to said sicko?

Fact is, pedophiles are aggressive obsessed sexual predators. Sexual deviants who are always on the hunt.

And that's different than the 18 y.o. w/ a 16 y.o. girlfriend. Or even a 22 y.o. w/ a 17 y.o. girlfriend.

That's the point. Yet those people are still labeled as pedophiles.

On a side note, the star of 7th Heaven, a show that leftist sportswriter Peter King would gush over, is now on record as molesting children.

Not sure what you're getting at in your post.

Pedophilia by definition involves prepubescent children.

I didn't think that was the case for the legal definition.