• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much punishment is enough?

So what I think we need to do is two separate things: One one side define the laws by which we govern our actions whithin society. That will clarify the rules of the game. But that isn't enough. That is why on the other hand, we, each one of us individually, really need to meditate on the actions we do. Raping children is just one of endless mistakes a human being (any human being) can make.

Not any human being will rape a child. I was raised around many young children both related and unrelated to me. I spent many hours alone with them and not once did I personally ever improperly touch one. They're grown now and I still see some of them. Pedophilia is a disease that I think is incurable. However and this is a big however; I believe they can resist the urge in a way similar to me resisting the urge to force a grown woman to have sex with me. I'm attracted to grown women but I'm certainly not going to take indecent liberties with a lady at least not without her permission. A pedophile can just take a cold shower when he or she gets the urge.
 
How much punishment is enough?

Was the traditional answer not along the lines of "Execute all living relatives. Burn Town. Raze all structures. Plough fields with salt."

That should do it.

I sometimes wonder about collective punishment. In our increasinly fragmented society, about the sole surviving example is holding parents responsible for the acts of children. Even that is hard when the father hasn't been around since the night of conception and mum's a crack addict.

Perhaps neighbours should share responsibility? Not knowing the nice chap next door is a serial murderer could be seen as criminal negligence after all. Living without due care and attention?
 
Joshua Korosi said:
There is a legal

And I'll agree with Tokie that there's an obvious disparity in the sentencing of male versus female perpetrators. However, I think the sentences of female perpetrators should be increased to correct that, rather than male sentences reduced.
Click to expand...

Better watchit...people who agree with me end up getting stalked.

Anyway, I didn't say the punishments of convicted CHILD molesters of any gender--male, female, other, undecided--should be lessened. The near-100% recidivism rate suggests, if anything, that sentences should be increased to something along the lines of life +20 for a first offense. This INCLUDES women praying on CHILDREN...not some hot teacher having sex with her 14, 15, 17 year old student...show of hands: what guy in here would not've given his left...ear, for that experience at that age (girly men, and those whose wives/gfs regularly vet their answers in here need not reply)?

Just like some 25 yr old MAN having sex with a 16 year old girl, this is not molestation, or pedophelia. Time to grow up, folks, even shrieking, howling, hyper-feminist mothers who believe a 25 yr-old slattern seducing her angelic 17 yr-old son should be breaking rocks for the rest of her natural life.

Jealous, mom? A little Freudian stuff in there...?

The issue revolves around how poorly we (Americans, anyway) identify actual pedophiles and molesters. It's pretty clear that a 30 yr old forcing sex on a 6 year old is pedophelia. A 30 year old having consensual (key term) sex with a 16 yr-old (some call that "creepy," others call it "nature") is quite simply, not.

And should not be treated as such, no matter what.

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
Not sure what an "Xian" or "Xiam" might be....

Anyway, laws that go soft on females for crimes are indeed remnants of the male patriarchy in our criminal system.

I notice that no feminist is on the front lines trying to equalize THAT.

The more recent CULTURAL events that have led to the sexualization of younger and younger children and a loosening of traditional American mores across the board, derived directly from the leftist-feminist "revolution" of the late 60s early 70s.
Click to expand...
Uh huh and the Magic Sky Pixie told you that?

Saying that feminism did it makes as much sense as saying chauvinism did it. Both are unsubstantiated claims.

Mores have always been loose, you don't think that young adults had sex in carriages? Or the hay loft?

Divorce is as old as marriage. Running away from home (by the adults) is also another very old tradition.

The sexualization of children goes back quite a ways as well. i believe that they used to marry fourteen year olds off didn't they?

The current sexualization of children seems to be driven by market forces. And is also a consequence of denying that children have sexuality.

I don't suppose ancient Romans ever sodomised young boys did they?
Not a bad thing in many ways, but bad in this way.

Tokie
Click to expand...

I could blame the patriarchial culture of the capaitalist if you wish me to be as foolish as you.
 
Dancing David said:
Uh huh and the Magic Sky Pixie told you that?

Saying that feminism did it makes as much sense as saying chauvinism did it. Both are unsubstantiated claims.

Mores have always been loose, you don't think that young adults had sex in carriages? Or the hay loft?

Divorce is as old as marriage. Running away from home (by the adults) is also another very old tradition.

The sexualization of children goes back quite a ways as well. i believe that they used to marry fourteen year olds off didn't they?

The current sexualization of children seems to be driven by market forces. And is also a consequence of denying that children have sexuality.

I don't suppose ancient Romans ever sodomised young boys did they?


I could blame the patriarchial culture of the capaitalist if you wish me to be as foolish as you.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is ugly....complete ignorance is just pathetic.

When "we" married off 14 yr-olds, they were not viewed as children. Childhood, in fact, is a fairly recent invention...about the middle of the 19th century for rich folks, not until oh, the 1920s-30s for the rest of us.

Good reasons for this, by the way...um...since it's only been in the last 150 or so years that people (Western) have been routinely living past oh, 50 or so, and since the mortality rates of women giving birth were horrifically high, it only made sense to "marry" a younger woman. And of course, in the good ol' days, it was commonly held that a man should not marry until he was able to SUPPORT a wife and fambly (they had no daytime TV or welfare than to suppor the other baby-daddy culture then--and before you shriek,yes, other things happened like premarital sex, marriage of young people etc., thats why I used the term "commonly"--do TRY and pay attention, k?). Typically (hmmm...'nother one a them words!) a man in those days was not able to support a fambly until he'd gone out into the world and from his father's house and made something of himself. Also, the mortality rate kept the numbers of eligible females down to a more manageable number.

A hint: ignorance of something is not proof of the thing you believe. Learn it, love it, live it.

Tokie
 
Dancing David said:
A christiam? A Xian with an edujumacation?

A typo unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Oh.

Well, since I am not permitted typos, neither are you.

And I know many educated Christians. By the way, unless you have some sort of finger handicap (oops! "differently abled fingers") it's not really much more difficult to spell Christian is it? Would you say
"Xuslim"? "Xindu"? "Xecularist"? "Xlobal Warmingist"?

If not, why not?

Raw, unapologetic bigotry?

Tokie

Tokie
 
Dancing David said:
Uh huh and the Magic Sky Pixie told you that?

The current sexualization of children seems to be driven by market forces. And is also a consequence of denying that children have sexuality.
Click to expand...

But this is the nut of this secularist belief system.

Sure, a 6 yr-old is just as "sexual" as a 16 or 26 or 36 yr-old.

And we are just being "open and frank" when we "discover" the sexuality of children, right?

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
And I know many educated Christians. By the way, unless you have some sort of finger handicap (oops! "differently abled fingers") it's not really much more difficult to spell Christian is it? Would you say
"Xuslim"? "Xindu"? "Xecularist"? "Xlobal Warmingist"?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...
"Xuslim" doesn't make sense. "Christ" can become "X" in the same way it is with "X-mas" (don't tell me you're so ignorant as to have never heard the term). "Xian" is also much shorter and easier on the fingers. So pretty much, your alternatives don't make sense, and don't shorten the work my fingers would have to do. Especially "Xlobal Warmingist". Jeez, dude.

Raw, unapologetic bigotry?
Click to expand...

OH NOSE! SOMEONE TYPED XIAN INSTEAD OF CHRISTIAN! BIIIIIIGOOOOOOT!
 
Lonewulf said:
"Xuslim" doesn't make sense. "Christ" can become "X" in the same way it is with "X-mas" (don't tell me you're so ignorant as to have never heard the term). "Xian" is also much shorter and easier on the fingers. So pretty much, your alternatives don't make sense, and don't shorten the work my fingers would have to do. Especially "Xlobal Warmingist". Jeez, dude.



OH NOSE! SOMEONE TYPED XIAN INSTEAD OF CHRISTIAN! BIIIIIIGOOOOOOT!
Click to expand...

Some nice rationalization, but does not change the fact that most Christians find the "X" derogatory, which is exactly the way it's intended here.

Anyone who knows that and uses it for that purpose would um, yeah...be a bigot.

Or are you of the bigoted, left-liberal secularist school that says one cannot be a bigot if one's bigotry is directed at white males, Christians or anyone else in "power"?

Tokie
 
Cainkane1 said:
Not any human being will rape a child. I was raised around many young children both related and unrelated to me. I spent many hours alone with them and not once did I personally ever improperly touch one. They're grown now and I still see some of them. Pedophilia is a disease that I think is incurable. However and this is a big however; I believe they can resist the urge in a way similar to me resisting the urge to force a grown woman to have sex with me. I'm attracted to grown women but I'm certainly not going to take indecent liberties with a lady at least not without her permission. A pedophile can just take a cold shower when he or she gets the urge.
Click to expand...



Again you're making the same misinterpretation almost everyone does when I make my point. Again I will repeat: I'm not saying that we are all child molesters deep inside. Try to understand what I'm saying, because even though I'm not saying THAT, it is very similar to that. I'm saying we all have the potential to be one. Perhaps right now, you are not a child molester but perhaps try to imagine growing up in a different situation with a different family under different circumstances. In other words, growing up under the circumstances under which many child molestors and serial killers and kleptomanists (if that's the correct spelling) grew up. Many child molestors were molested when they were a child. Many serial killers had a terrible social life or no social life at all and perhaps their father was a drunk who was never home and their mother a hooker. How can you blame a child that grows up under these conditions and expect him to become a Rocket Scientist when he grows up?

But don't be confussed either. When I say "how can you expect him to become a rocket scientist when he grows up" I'm not implying that this event is absolutely impossible. It's just less likely to happen. And same way this is less likely to happen, it is less likely for a child who grows up under "normal" conditions, good social life, adecuate parenting, etc; to become a mass murderer or anything like that. But I'm sure it has happened.

We all, each and every one of us, posses all of the possibilities in life. You too, my friend. So what I'm trying to say is we should try not to be so judgmental and instead try to understand the circumstances that affect the person. Because judging is a very easy to do, perhaps that being the reason why we do it so much.
 
Tokenconservative said:
Some nice rationalization, but does not change the fact that most Christians find the "X" derogatory, which is exactly the way it's intended here.

Anyone who knows that and uses it for that purpose would um, yeah...be a bigot.

Or are you of the bigoted, left-liberal secularist school that says one cannot be a bigot if one's bigotry is directed at white males, Christians or anyone else in "power"?

Tokie
Click to expand...

Edited by Cleon: 

Inappropriate personal insult removed.


, the Greek term for Christian is "Χριστιανός" and references to "Christ" are frequently abbreviated with an X - chi. It's no more a bigoted term than "flock."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ImaginalDisc said:
Edited by Cleon: 

Inappropriate personal insult removed.


, the Greek term for Christian is "Χριστιανός" and references to "Christ" are frequently abbreviated with an X - chi. It's no more a bigoted term than "flock."
Click to expand...

LOL!

I love this sort of rationalization best! It's like IDers who use science to prove that science is wrong.

The X, in American culture, comes from Xmas...a means of removing Christ from the picture in our secularist society.

But you keep trying,

Edited by Cleon: 

Inappropriate personal insult removed.


Tokie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, you're right, it's part of our EEEEVIL liberal conspiracy to remove Christ from society. We do so under commands of the EEEVIL Illuminati.
 
Tokenconservative said:
LOL!

I love this sort of rationalization best! It's like IDers who use science to prove that science is wrong.

The X, in American culture, comes from Xmas...a means of removing Christ from the picture in our secularist society.

But you keep trying,

Edited by Cleon: 

Inappropriate personal insult removed.


Tokie
Click to expand...

Yes, we have even inventeted a time machine to let us go to the year 1021 and insert that abreviation "X" for "christ" in The Anglo Saxon Chronicle. There are citations for this usage in English as far back as the 16th century, used by Christians in a Christian context.

Shall our mad genuis ever be stopped?

ETA: Of course, you can hardly blame Americans for being amatuers at celebrating Christmas, we've only been doing it since 1870.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lonewulf said:
Yes, you're right, it's part of our EEEEVIL liberal conspiracy to remove Christ from society. We do so under commands of the EEEVIL Illuminati.
Click to expand...

Not to mention our liberal totalitarian matriarchal feminazi conspiracy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom