dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 You don't understand the phrase. I am aware of the power of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandaq Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 So when you are calling someone a blue nose, you call them that with intention of hurting them mentally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 For what it's worth I'm not one of the "string em up" brigade. I have long prescribed to the belief that paedophillia is a curable mental illness of sorts. Those that suffer from it should pay for their crimes absolutely, but that beyond that they should also be held until such a time as they can be considered "cured". How that would work I don't know, but thanks to said "foaming at the mouth" I don't think the funding will ever be in place to explore said theory. I read an article some time ago along the lines of paedos re-offending, in part, due to being ostracised from society. They had a scheme (I think this was in Canada) where they were invited to dinner parties, etc. The re-offending rate dropped dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted November 27, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 27, 2013 Wasn't there a thread on here, or a post at least, absolutely ages ago that linked to a celebrity fan messageboard where all this Ian Watkins stuff was being discussed by Lostprophets fans. Am I the only one who remembers that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 27, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 27, 2013 DDID is right. It's entirely about context. Your mate could call you a word removed and you laugh it off. A stranger could call you something fairly innocuous and clearly mean it nastily and you could take offence from it. The word itself is almost secondary to the way it is used. I say 'almost' because there are certain instances where certain words can only have one connotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Wasn't there a thread on here, or a post at least, absolutely ages ago that linked to a celebrity fan messageboard where all this Ian Watkins stuff was being discussed by Lostprophets fans. Am I the only one who remembers that? Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 For what it's worth I'm not one of the "string em up" brigade. I have long prescribed to the belief that paedophillia is a curable mental illness of sorts. Those that suffer from it should pay for their crimes absolutely, but that beyond that they should also be held until such a time as they can be considered "cured". I watched a Louis Theroux documentary and thought it was really quite worrying to allow the medicalisation of padeophilia. Making it an illness rather than a criminal matter meant that the US government was able to keep sex offenders effectively imprisoned indefinitely, far beyond the end of their actual sentence. As a matter relating to biological and usually unconscious urges (attraction) of course we shouldn't oversimplify paedophiles as just monsters, but similarly going down that road opens up the risk of absolving responsibility from these people, and allowing the government to treat them as they want by invoking medical or extra-legal motivations. It's also quite important to note that people don't get arrested for being attracted to children, they get arrested for sexual abusing them. Paedophilia as simply attraction to children is not a matter for legal recourse, sexual assault and rape (or supporting them via child porn) is. In addition, and not directly related to this case but these things are why we have so much safeguarding training, and why you as a teacher HAVE to develop a rapport with every child. You are often the first line of defence from preventing/stopping any abuse because you get to know the children almost as well as anybody else and you need to be able to spot a change in behaviour or be trusted enough by the child to be told anything in confidence. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I agree with most of that Stefan. In order to "treat" paedophilia as an illness we'd need a total upheaval of the justice system. I personally think we're due one, though it has very little to do with my thoughts on paedophilia to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 27, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 27, 2013 In every other context or use, the suffix '-phile' has a positive connotation. Francophile, bibliophile etc. Its use has never sat right with me in the context of the word paedophile as it is a wholly negative one, and you could argue this lot actually pure hate children. Anyhoo, that's slightly beside the point. Just thought I'd mention it From the Greek 'philia' - for 'love', in the sense of "affectionate regard or friendship". So I agree with your point. Perhaps if they'd used the Greek 'eros', as in "physical, passionate love, with sensual desire and longing"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 From 2002. Skip to 15:40 for what surely has to be a remarkable coincidence? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Yeah that is pretty weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I think that's a good thing personally, but each to their own eh. See that's the kind of thing that makes it impossible to have a proper debate about it. It's like people feel like they're forced to express disgust and point the finger somewhere else so they can make sure no ones looking at them. Not everyone who doesn't immediately jump to the 'sick pervert should be strung up' mentality is a raving paedo. It would be much more helpful if people didn't make out like that's how it is. I never said any of that. You've taken one admittedly flippant comment out of context. I'm here debating it, right now, my mind is open. It's you who chose to box me in there. (Except I'm going to the gym, so later!) I know it was a flippant comment and I don't blame you for saying it. It was just a good example of how an innocuous close can introduce a culture of fear into discussions of this nature. I personally think that part of the problem is caused by the revulsion paedophilia generates. Due to it being such a shocking act and the fact that the media has picked up on this fear culture, it almost elevates it from seedy sad fat old men to the ultimate thrill of depravity for people who otherwise wouldn't actually be sexually attracted to children. I'll admit I haven't looked any further into this particular case because I could do without the upset really. I read the Jamie Bulger stuff before and I still can't help visualising what that kid went through. I shouldn't have to be upset about stuff I had no part in. As for what to do with them, I think the first part is to remove this culture of fear which makes actively seeking to watch it (and then participating if the ingredients are there to push someone that way) feel a thrill just because they're breaking the rules. With 24/7 internet porn these days it's easy to become desensitised and need to find harder and harder stuff. If CP creates such a thrill due to it being such a popular media fear factory then that part needs to be removed. Then you can attempt to deal with the ones who are actually attracted to children and would rape and abuse an adult if they were sufficiently able to physically and mentally overpower them in the same way. There may well be a natural reason why some people are attracted to children. We know that men are naturally attracted to younger women because they're more likely to be at a childbearing age and be healthy etc. It may well be that the cut-off point gets messed up in some people. Again there's a huge difference between being attracted to a particular trait and doing something about it. Children aren't able to consent so they're off the menu. If someone is naturally attracted to children, and that's the hand they've been dealt, sucks to be them. We should be promoting honest and open debate, not playing pass the guilt. (DDID not aimed at you) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 For what it's worth I'm not one of the "string em up" brigade. I have long prescribed to the belief that paedophillia is a curable mental illness of sorts. Those that suffer from it should pay for their crimes absolutely, but that beyond that they should also be held until such a time as they can be considered "cured". How that would work I don't know, but thanks to said "foaming at the mouth" I don't think the funding will ever be in place to explore said theory. I read an article some time ago along the lines of paedos re-offending, in part, due to being ostracised from society. They had a scheme (I think this was in Canada) where they were invited to dinner parties, etc. The re-offending rate dropped dramatically. Probably because they were all brutally murdered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 For what it's worth I'm not one of the "string em up" brigade. I have long prescribed to the belief that paedophillia is a curable mental illness of sorts. Those that suffer from it should pay for their crimes absolutely, but that beyond that they should also be held until such a time as they can be considered "cured". How that would work I don't know, but thanks to said "foaming at the mouth" I don't think the funding will ever be in place to explore said theory. I read an article some time ago along the lines of paedos re-offending, in part, due to being ostracised from society. They had a scheme (I think this was in Canada) where they were invited to dinner parties, etc. The re-offending rate dropped dramatically. Probably because they were all brutally murdered Yeah, joking or not, I recon there would be some stilted dinner party conversation at that table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) Yeah, joking or not, I recon there would be some stilted dinner party conversation at that table. So,...Gerry,...Sue tells me you're a **** paedo.....Interesting. Hey, so tell us what it was like in prison.... Edited November 27, 2013 by CrackpotForeigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 "Well Hugh, between me and you, I just say I'm a paedo because I'm actually a politician that owns a chain of Estate Agents." "You sick **** Gerry, you sick ****" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 For what it's worth I'm not one of the "string em up" brigade. I have long prescribed to the belief that paedophillia is a curable mental illness of sorts. Those that suffer from it should pay for their crimes absolutely, but that beyond that they should also be held until such a time as they can be considered "cured". How that would work I don't know, but thanks to said "foaming at the mouth" I don't think the funding will ever be in place to explore said theory. I read an article some time ago along the lines of paedos re-offending, in part, due to being ostracised from society. They had a scheme (I think this was in Canada) where they were invited to dinner parties, etc. The re-offending rate dropped dramatically. Probably because they were all brutally murdered Yeah, joking or not, I recon there would be some stilted dinner party conversation at that table. Curb Your Enthusiasm FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 For what it's worth I'm not one of the "string em up" brigade. I have long prescribed to the belief that paedophillia is a curable mental illness of sorts. Those that suffer from it should pay for their crimes absolutely, but that beyond that they should also be held until such a time as they can be considered "cured". How that would work I don't know, but thanks to said "foaming at the mouth" I don't think the funding will ever be in place to explore said theory. I read an article some time ago along the lines of paedos re-offending, in part, due to being ostracised from society. They had a scheme (I think this was in Canada) where they were invited to dinner parties, etc. The re-offending rate dropped dramatically. Probably because they were all brutally murdered Yeah, joking or not, I recon there would be some stilted dinner party conversation at that table. Curb Your Enthusiasm FTW. The Last Supper 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaguy Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I wonder about the biology of all this. We've evolved to be protective and nurturing towards our young (it even works with our attitude to other species - most people will go "aaaah" at the sight of baby animals - it's the big eyes that do it, according to the psychologists). So deliberate cruelty to children is the ultimate taboo - hence the massive outrage that we feel at cases like this. But that (I'm guessing) also makes it the ultimate buzz for someone with a psychopathic personality, who prides themselves on being 'evil'. But then, going back to the animal kingdom, it's not uncommon for (say) male lions to routinely kill cubs that aren't 'theirs' - it's evolutionarily advantageous to do so. Happens in a great many species. So much for nature. What about nurture? Well let's face it, if you come from a dysfunctional background, there's a good chance you'll grow up dysfunctional - most child abusers were themselves victims of child abuse. Throw class A drugs, ready access to hardcore porn, and the celebrity culture into the mix, and you've got a very dangerous situation. Which is why it is imperative that we learn to understand these cases. Yes, the perpetrators must be kept from repeat offending, but simple revenge is ultimately pointless. Of course the main sympathy must go to the victim rather than the criminal, but you have to ask yourself - what made this guy so ****ed up that he behaved like that? Am I appalled by all this? Yes? So I pity the victims? Yes, of course. Do I pity the the offenders? In a way, yes, I do. Who would want to live in their world? one of the few level approaches i have read on thia thread. remember not everyone who has convictions has commited a crime also, it is naive to have blind faith in a system that has been wrong at various times in history. i take everyone at face value and despise vigilantes as cancers of morality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 ALL vigilantes? Laws were not handed down from atop a mountain, they're very much man made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts