Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Paedophiles and Sex Offenders
I appreciate this is a touchy subject, but this a spin off from joules99's question about 'Hanging'. What do people (especially parents) think the fate of (forensically proved) paedophiles and sex offenders should be ? I've made my feelings on the subject perfectly clear and you can see these by clicking on the link in the following post. Does anyone else share my views, or am I alone in my 'vigilante' style of thinking ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pjm007. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
stevie21, You are quite obviously wasting your time mate. That degree in Psychology was obviously gained by the skin of your teeth whilst entertaining lecturers in the union bar with your 'I can drink a pint in 3 seconds' show, spending your year out sampling the choicest mind bending drugs on offer in Thailand and reading the odd copy of The Sun that the janitor left in the common room which you read in between numerous games of pool.
You and I (who are at opposite ends of the educational spectrum) are not worthy. We must bow our heads in shame!
Marge, you disappoint me. If my rant was so childish then surely you'd be able to dismiss it more convincingly. With evidence to the contrary, for example (rather than questioning my education. And *I'm* childish?)
Anyway, I'm interested in your opinion seeing as it's contrary to almost every other poster on here, yet you're sticking to your guns. What's your reasoning?
I've not yet read your rationale behind your opinions.
Also - my misquotations. Tell me what the original quotes were and how I've misrepresented them. (I don't think I have).
Finally:
"Why do you think the sexual component *does* set it apart from other non sexual disorders?"
"Why do you think cognitive approaches are used?"
"How would YOU go about dealing with something that will never be found out"
Anyway, I'm interested in your opinion seeing as it's contrary to almost every other poster on here, yet you're sticking to your guns. What's your reasoning?
I've not yet read your rationale behind your opinions.
Also - my misquotations. Tell me what the original quotes were and how I've misrepresented them. (I don't think I have).
Finally:
"Why do you think the sexual component *does* set it apart from other non sexual disorders?"
"Why do you think cognitive approaches are used?"
"How would YOU go about dealing with something that will never be found out"
Sex gives enormous pleasure, the release of chemicals during sexual pleasure give such a high that the situation of the pleasure acts as a powerful reinforcer, more than almost any other natural process. This is why people who are naturally disinclined to paedophilic tendencies, can become inclined towards them through sexual gratification during exposure to paedophilic material. This helps to explain the disproportionate explosion in the numbers accessing paedophilic material on the internet. The police "cannot cope with the numbers". It also sets it apart from other cognitive processes, which do not share the power of its conditioning element and which engage conscious rational processing to a larger extent.
Cognition and the application of it to psychological study and treatment have become dominant in the last 10 years probably because it's the model which offers the best fit for how the mind and mental processes work, while providing a useful framework for treatment. I agree that Psychology went through a period of 'adolescence', toying with behaviourism and psychoanalysis before resting on what appears to something more experimentally grounded. If you think it is just 'here today, gone tomorrow' like the others, please flesh that out a bit.
I also hold degrees, among them psychology and have contributed to a paper which satisfactorily employed cognitive processing to reach robust conclusions. I do not understand how you have come through 3 years of a psychology degree and yet throw out the notion of cognitive processing with such gusto.
As for those who are paedophilic but are as yet unconvicted, what type of intervention do you suggest, apart from cognitive, and why would you reject it?
I'm not answering the last quote you turn back at me, because it's a misquote, I never wrote it.
Philtaz, you have just made me laugh out loud. I was feeling rather down until I read your last posting. Why do some people stoop to being so personal and obnoxious when having an argument. I am not about to join in with this one, because I am unworthy of comment - I didn't actually get a degree, just studied to degree level.
Best wishes.
I am unsure what Marge infers in her posting. Doesn't distract me from my work at all. I don't work! I'm too thick and haven't got any degrees.
Hi Netibiza with your good old fashioned common sense!
I seriously believe that having degrees doesn't necessarily mean people are of high intelligence. It means they study and learn from books and are good at putting essays together. It doesn't always mean they can think for themselves.
Having a degree does not mean a higher degree of intelligence, if you put together two people of the same intelligence and one thinks they are dead clever as the result of the degree, they may be leading themselves astray.
However, what exactly is wrong with someone formally delving into a subject, to understand what people have said about it and to find out what kind of investigations have been made into the subject and to try to make some investigations themselves. If it's done formally, it's done carefully and it's done with accountability. Sounds like a far better option than the 'guesswork of common sense' to me.
What do you think? Or should I say 'What do you think, FP, with a little bit of your vitriolic hatred thrown in?'
Mmm, obviously sarcasm and irony aren't your strong suit FP.
There was no stooping to a personal level, I was making reference to MargeB rubbishing the degree of stevie21.
People have posted on here who are infinitely more academically qualified and educated than I and would therefore not rubbish their academic achievements.
I feel it fair though to question their stance and they to question mine on matters of such gravitas.
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/results.html
Interesting poll results from 2004.
FP, apologies in advance if I've caused offence but need clarification.
Were you having a go at me for thinking I was having a go at stevie21 or were you referring to the MargeB post just before mine, as you haven't made it clear who was stooping to a personal and obnoxious level?
Having re-read your posts I am now left in some doubt!
Hey Philtaz (and MargeB) - I don't need you rubbishing my degree. I can do that enough myself.
Again, to quote the magnificent Marge...
The "release of chemicals" during sex is possibly qualitatively unique???
By definition, the ebullient Marge is reducing sex (for the sake of illustration) to a physiological argument. Thus, it MUST mean that sex leads to a significant difference in the type or amount of neurotransmitter released. Or, possibly, a novel synaptic response. Which is it?
This is obviously easily tested and confirmed experimentally. I await with baited breat the Marge paper in a learned journal.
Even better... given that cognition = thinking. reread paragraph 2.
"THINKING, and the application of it to psychological study and treatment have become dominant in the last 10 years probably because it's the model which offers the best fit for how the mind and mental processes work"
Brain whacking stuff. In 5 years time the idea that cognitive anything apeared in a treasured journal will probably seem ludicrous. Why didn't we realise it was Freudian all along?
"I also hold degrees" (plural) - do you hold a Psychology degree from a university?
Do you have an aversion to answering the direct quesions I put to you?
"I'm not answering the last quote you turn back at me, because it's a misquote, I never wrote it."
I know. It's a bad question which you asked of us. You see that? YOU asked that question. In fairness, you've not answered any of the other questions put to you.
Have a nice weekend.
Again, to quote the magnificent Marge...
The "release of chemicals" during sex is possibly qualitatively unique???
By definition, the ebullient Marge is reducing sex (for the sake of illustration) to a physiological argument. Thus, it MUST mean that sex leads to a significant difference in the type or amount of neurotransmitter released. Or, possibly, a novel synaptic response. Which is it?
This is obviously easily tested and confirmed experimentally. I await with baited breat the Marge paper in a learned journal.
Even better... given that cognition = thinking. reread paragraph 2.
"THINKING, and the application of it to psychological study and treatment have become dominant in the last 10 years probably because it's the model which offers the best fit for how the mind and mental processes work"
Brain whacking stuff. In 5 years time the idea that cognitive anything apeared in a treasured journal will probably seem ludicrous. Why didn't we realise it was Freudian all along?
"I also hold degrees" (plural) - do you hold a Psychology degree from a university?
Do you have an aversion to answering the direct quesions I put to you?
"I'm not answering the last quote you turn back at me, because it's a misquote, I never wrote it."
I know. It's a bad question which you asked of us. You see that? YOU asked that question. In fairness, you've not answered any of the other questions put to you.
Have a nice weekend.
MargeB - to my mind you've gone too deeply into the subject - a paedophile should be stopped from hurting children - unfortunately until they hurt one, not much can be done - therein lies the problem. But please don't wrap them up in cotton wool - these are the bad people our parents warned us against. It's all getting too personal when we basically all agree. MargeB you certainly put up a good argument
Philtaz, I wasn't being sarcastic.
Stevie, I hold a psychology degree from a University, I value the opinions of those who do not have a psychology degree, but I'll point out nonsense when I see it, nothing to do with having a degree. You misquote me again, and your reply...to be honest, I can't make sense of it. Cognition does not just mean 'thinking', and your neuroscience stuff...nuff said.
