paedophiles....

[Cons Himself]

I did NOT say that they're not responsible for their actions. What I'm saying is, though they are responsible, psychological attributes and problems can and probably do have a huge effect on the outcome of the decision-making process. They know right from wrong, but they either lack the emotional or psychological integrity to make the right choice.

All you're doing is dressing up the abdication of responsibility in some pretty wordy sentences People are either responsible or not - there aren't grey areas in Law when it comes to this.

 

[short recoil]

I did NOT say that they're not responsible for their actions. What I'm saying is, though they are responsible, psychological attributes and problems can and probably do have a huge effect on the outcome of the decision-making process. They know right from wrong, but they either lack the emotional or psychological integrity to make the right choice.

Idealism, i do that too.

I couldn't help noticing "but they either lack the emotional or psychological integrity to make the right choice"

A choice is always the right choice for the brain, this is how it works.
I mean when picking up fruit you don't go "oh i'll pick up a ripe one" and you actually mean an unripe one.

Even people completely buggered in the head still make their choice based on values, saying what is right and wrong is for your own personal values.

No matter how much you try and be "fair" it is about doing whats best for what you want, and don't say "but i do it for others" ........that's still doing it for what you want otherwise you wouldn't bother.

 

[Stigmata]

Idealism, i do that too.

I couldn't help noticing "but they either lack the emotional or psychological integrity to make the right choice"

A choice is always the right choice for the brain, this is how it works.
I mean when picking up fruit you don't go "oh i'll pick up a ripe one" and you actually mean an unripe one.

Even people completely buggered in the head still make their choice based on values, saying what is right and wrong is for your own personal values.

No matter how much you try and be "fair" it is about doing whats best for what you want, and don't say "but i do it for others" ........that's still doing it for what you want otherwise you wouldn't bother.

Okay, perhaps that wasn't the right way to say what I was trying to say.

When I said "the right choice" I meant the choice that would result in no legal ramifications.

Of course, this is still the "right" choice based on what society accepts to be the right choice, but I've got little leeway in that respect. Cut me some slack here

 

[baxter]

All you're doing is dressing up the abdication of responsibility in some pretty wordy sentences

You are wrong
You’re suggesting the heavy handed total destruction of criminal behaviour through corporate and capital punishment. Do these systems work where they are enforced....no.
Your postings are stereo, type emotionally blinded.
You will never eliminate child molestation through force, nor will you heal the emotion scars left by such dreadful actions by force.
Through your posting you have virtually laid the escalation in child molestation at the feet of liberal thinkers and the lefties.
You are wrong...two wrong do not make a right.

 

[Cons Himself]

Two words for you:

Cesare Mori

Nuff said.

 

[Stigmata]

Two words for you:

Cesare Mori

Nuff said.

I fail to see how driving the Mafia out of Italy seven decades ago has much, if anything to do with whether we should rehabilitate or annihilate paedophiles.

 

[15357]

^ translation?


btw, I think that all criminals should have "security numbers" tattooed on their faces.

 

[baxter]

Why just two words?

No debate, rebuke?

Death, torture, disablement as a deterrent to child molestation is emotional stupidity.

Stop blaming people who feel that this type of action cannot be solved by the above as “cowardly parasites”

 

[Stigmata]

Why just two words?

No debate, rebuke?

His debate was rhetoric.

 

[el Chi]

If I were Prime Minister here's what I would propose:
In my mind any crime against children whether it is sexual or physical abuse is worse than its equivalent as if it were committed by an adult against another adult.

The law agrees with you on this. Criminals and their charges are treated accordingly.

Sexual crimes against children are the worst there are. Right now in the UK you can be hung for High Treason and High Treason only. Not Murder, Not Rape and not the sexual molestation of a child. This is a national disgrace. A Law exists on the statute books stating it is ok to hang someone if they attempt to say kill the Queen, or pass intelligence secrets to other foregin intelligence agencies, but someone who sexually molests a child gets 8 months in prison?

Yes, sexual assault on minors is disgusting. No, it should not be punishable by death. Nor castration. Very harsh prison sentences, yes. Some people are wrongly accused, and because of the sensitive nature of such accusations, and its treatment in the tabloid media, acquittals are not so frequent.
Although far be it from me to pass judgement on the decisions of juries when we on the outside are not in possession of all the facts.
And whilst TECHNICALLY high treason is punishible by the death penalty, it's questionable as to whether it would be implemented. But then that's another matter entirely.

Can anyone else see where we are going wrong when these are our priorities. The Government spends millions of pounds pursuing and harrassing ex-intelligence officers from MI5/6 all over the world for breaking the official secrets act yet for a young girl of 7 years who is sexually molested and attacked and raped by a paedpophile we give them 8 months? Can anyone tell me what is wrong here?

THe CIA, and the US military spends grotesque amounts of money on their various engagements accross the globe, yet the US has many many faults that go untreated.
I don't want to draw this into a nationalistic debate, I'm merely saying that NO country is without its problems.

What we need are public executions for paedophiles. What we need is legalised torture and rape against paedophiles. We need to reduce paedophiles to a broken shell and break their minds. All the experience of our security agencies in psychological warfare and torture needs to be brought to bear on these sickos for years upon years on end until they are reduced to a slavering shadow of a human being. Only then do we start on the physical torture - thumbscrews, eye gougings, deafenings, labotomies, castration, amputations, bone breaking, every imaginable form of inhumane torture needs to be brought to bear.

You're disgusting.
Arguing the death penalty is one thing, but are you genuinely proposing that legalising, nay ENCOURAGING torture would go any way to solve the problem? And IN PUBLIC of all things. What kind of sick blood-bath mentality is swilling around in your mind that that could possibly be a reasonable solution to this problem.
I will take a moment out to, once again, express my disgust at paedophilia. I'm not supporting paedohiles.
When news networks around the Western world showed videos of public executions in Middle Eastern countries, weren't voices of outrage voiced? How is the West supposed to take a supposedly civilised and enlightened view on society if we were to openly criticise cultures for that and then carry out similar practices? Once again, I'm just pointing out an inherent hypocrisy in your srgument.
Unless of course you agree with the people herded into the centre of crowded Afghanistani stadiums to be executed in front of an audience. Even in THAT case, at least they had the decency to kill them outright.

Then and only then do we end it for them. Not only that - but we make their families watch them die. We let them die as they killed - taken, abused, strangled, stabbed whatever they did to their victims should be returned to them 10 times over, and the heartache should be constant and sharp.

Anger is a natural and understandable response. However I personally couldn't sit through the kind of visceral revenge show you propose. Also, I'd be more than a little perturbed by anyone who felt that witnessing such things would ease their pain.

This should serve as a warning to other sickos.

I very much doubt that it would. Paedophilia is, I believe, more of a psychological condition and so I don't think that would help.

The kind of sickos who would have no qualms in destroying a child's life - the rest of YOUR child's life simply to satisfy their perverted sexual lust.

Do you write for a tabloid? You really ought to.

We need the iron fist of the state to come down hard on these sub humans - these unter-menschen. Only then will the rest see that the risks are too great, the costs too great - and if they do not we shall not rest until every last one of their stinking carcasses has been dealt with and incinerated.

Hoooo-weee! That's some hardcore material you've got there!

The one good thing Hitler did was dealing with people like this in the way he did. We need people to stand up and say I am not afraid to deal out torture and punishment to these kind of fiends. People with strong stomachs and steadfast hearts - knowing they are doing the right thing.

...and there it is.
The kind of neo-fascist eye-for-an-eye retributive state you propose is frightening. Don't try and say "But it'd just be for nonces!" because it probably wouldn't stop there.

The sickos exist at all levels of our society - it is not just the poor, uneducated psychopaths who commit these deeds:

Army Generals
Senior Police Officers
Teachers
Businessmen
Movie Moguls
Social Workers

And every other walk of life - it is a disease in the very fabric of every nation - a disease that needs to be ripped out and burnt away until the very ashes of it evaporate.

Yeah you really really should write for the Daily Mail or something because those are the perfect words of a scare-mongering piece of neo-fascist bullshit propaganda.

Who is with me!

For a final time - just to make this perfectly clear - I do not support nor do I sympathise with paedophiles. I think they should be given very harsh penalties and I concur that this eight-month sentence is a gross miscarriage of justice.
However what you propose is sick, base and drags the justice system back a few centuries.
In fact, it drags society as a whole back a few centuries. Are we really so basic as to only be able to find solace in the terror of others? Can we really claim to be better than a certain person if our method of closure is through willful, orchestrated violence? Can we live up to sophisticated beings we have labelled ourselves as if our solution and relief are derived from gleefully inflicting suffering on others whilst we invite others to watch as we chant and leer at such a circus of gore?
I personally would say that we could not.

I can understand people calling for bringing back the death penalty for paedophilia, but I don't agree with it.
I can't, however, understand your position. It's somewhat twisted and horrific and I very much doubt it would solve the problem of paedophilia or bring comfort to the victims and families of victims.

 

[bliink]

Listen kupo don't be a retard. T

Yes those kind of people are called Chavs. You must live in a Chavvy area. Gunned.

I for one would derive great personal pleasure from torturing a paedophile

LoL - raping children is a barbaric practice or did you conveniently forget about that in your liberal mind?

Yes my weasley friends you would be blinded by emotion

some idiot sitting at his computer in Switzerland ... others must suffer in silence to pander to your conscience.

GG.

Here's a thought for you, you spineless individual.

LOL and you try and defend this by saying (cue whiney little voice) "maybwe they had a vewy bad childhood boo hoo sob"

Grow a spine

Soppy bastard

Western liberals need to grow a set of balls.

Here's your evidence idiots:

Because people with the (liberal) viewpoint that these people need treatment not punishment are a bunch of cowardly parasites

You have already been formally, and informally warned about behaviour such as this.
How dare you call other users "arrogant" as a form of debate when you yourself are no better!

Using "liberal" concepts under your own mangled definitions to constantly attack members of this forum is unacceptable.

Your disregard for formal warnings is unacceptable.

Your attitude and hostile behaviour is unacceptable.

Your crude arguments are unacceptable.

Your antagonism and arrogance are unacceptable.

It has been made clear to everyone, repeatedly, what the acceptable behaviour in this section of the site is. You were warned. You didn't change. You continued to abuse the privilege of being allowed to post on this site.

You got a second chance and you spat on it so now you've won a ban.

Anyone with a question or who requires clarification should contact me.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

*applause*

 

[Tr0n]

*golf clap*

 

[Lex Luthor]

Castration. Doesn't have to be public.

 

[kupocake]

Castration. Doesn't have to be public.

Interesting idea. I wonder, is this a sure fire way of stopping their acts?

Boy did this arguement get heated after I went to bed... wasn't this guy from the UK? Up at 2:30 AM defending his arguement? That's quite passionate. I like the way that his response to my counter arguements was rushed into two sentances though... "err, yeah you're wrong... uhh".

On the subject of liberals: I think it's interesting that people try to pin the lack of harsh sentancing for paedophiles on "liberals": at the same time, the same publications bemoan cases of "political correctness" perpetrated by "liberals" over exactly the same subject: the whole "we can't film our primary school play because of the liberals" kind of thing.

Yet, it can't be the case that "liberals" are causing such things, because the "non-liberals" are the ones championing the severe treatment of child sex offenders. It seems to me that "liberals" are just some abstract target that the gutter press like to pin all the evils of the world on, when it is them in the centre of it all. Like how lifestyle magazines occasionally tell men and women to not be so hung up on their appearances when it is them that publishes the articles and advertisments that develop such a culture in the first place.

And that's pretty much killed the thread. Which is just as well: my Daily Mail reading parents may just throw me out the house if my inbox gets flooded with auto-responder emails with the word "Paedophile" on.

 

[Absinthe]

Wha... Just a ban?

If we hit him with his own brand of "justice", he'd be walking out of here with bamboo up his nails, his tongue cut out, and his left testicle missing.

 

[15357]

Wha... Just a ban?

If we hit him with his own brand of "justice", he'd be walking out of here with bamboo up his nails, his tongue cut out, and his left testicle missing.

EDIT: I mean, all that for spam and attacks? Thats overdoing it. just a finger would be better.

 

[Absinthe]

Exaggeration, of course. But the basic tenets of his "justice and then some" approach would still apply.

 

[kirovman]

Wow, I just missed Bodacious II getting his ass handed to himself.

 

[Laivasse]

If there's one way in which this thread has reassured me, it's that it shows that most of the people who post here aren't bloody-minded sadists, at least. Cons could have got a much more sympathetic audience in many other parts of this hysterical, hype-led, Daily Mail (or equivalent) reading world, and that saddens me.

Also, if CH really was from the UK then I'm sickened by his Americanised pigeonholing of the "liberal" view. I was hoping that kind of thing wouldn't make it across the Atlantic.

 

[kirovman]

If there's one way in which this thread has reassured me, it's that it shows that most of the people who post here aren't bloody-minded sadists, at least. Cons could have got a much more sympathetic audience in many other parts of this hysterical, hype-led, Daily Mail (or equivalent) reading world, and that saddens me.

Also, if CH really was from the UK then I'm sickened by his Americanised pigeonholing of the "liberal" view. I was hoping that kind of thing wouldn't make it across the Atlantic.

Yeah, I never hear people here using terms "Liberal" in political discussions (except on the Lib Dems - but they aren't the opposition or main party).

At least most of our TV news stations are largely free from this hype and hysteria.

 

[Ennui]

/me claps for bliink

 

[15357]

* Ennui claps for bliink

this is off topic but, I thought Zerimski or Starmonkey said that there would be an option to ban bliink from the politics forum with the new site.

No offence.

 

[bliink]

this is off topic but, I thought Zerimski or Starmonkey said that there would be an option to ban bliink from the politics forum with the new site.

No offence.

They were kidding. ... :hmph:

Why, anyway? Do you have a problem with my moderation? Would you rather I let people like Cons Himself attack people such as yourself? :stare:

 

[15357]

They were kidding. ... :hmph:

Why, anyway? Do you have a problem with my moderation? Would you rather I let people like Cons Himself attack people such as yourself? :stare:

I was kidding too...

I just remembered that.


sorry if it had offended you in any way possible

 

[bliink]

I was kidding too...

I just remembered that.


sorry if it had offended you in any way possible

only in every way possible... ach.. my heart is breaking...

/sarcasm

 

[DoctorWeeTodd]

I'm a liberal myself...but I think convicted child molestors and violent rapists should have their balls sliced right off (None of that wussy chemical bullshit, in fact don't even give them anesthia.

Here in California, the funny thing is the left has done more to locking away sex offenders than the right which is generally regarded as being more tough on crime. (Too busy dealing with those awful "evil" drug abusers.)

 

[Solaris]

FFS stop blaming peodophiles on Liberals. It really weakens your argument.

Its amazing how many people are suggesting torture here. When sadam torure people we go to war, but when we do.......

Seriously - Torture is wrong. Prison will do nicley.