Quizzes & Puzzles41 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.
Interesting, Marge. According to you, the only other person on this thread indulging in "reasoned, informed debate" just so happens to be the one who agrees with you. What a startling coincidence! Yet when stevie21, who dares to disagree with you and who also holds a psychology degree and IS therefore "qualified to talk about the workings of the human mind", makes a perfectly eloquent post arguing against you, you dismiss it as a "childish rant" and resort to personal insults by deriding his educational achievements - where's the "reasoned, informed debate" in that? Or is it a case of "do as I say, not as I do"? It's not much of a debate if you only listen to those who are on your side.
Here's a friendly tip. Try accepting that people can have a different viewpoint to you and still be intelligent and educated. You have your opinion. Fine, you're entitled to it. Just realise that other people are entitled to have different views (with or without a psychology degree) without being patronised or regarded as stupid. As for telling FP to "contribute something to the thread or get off it", until you become the AB Editor, I don't believe it's your right to decide who may or may not post, ta very much.
Here's a friendly tip. Try accepting that people can have a different viewpoint to you and still be intelligent and educated. You have your opinion. Fine, you're entitled to it. Just realise that other people are entitled to have different views (with or without a psychology degree) without being patronised or regarded as stupid. As for telling FP to "contribute something to the thread or get off it", until you become the AB Editor, I don't believe it's your right to decide who may or may not post, ta very much.
The point is that 'opinions' mean nothing unless you can back them up. This is not about a religious kind of 'belief' in something...although about half the posts on this thread are of this type: "I think they should be castrated"..."I don't think they should be castrated". Now, thanks for sharing either of those, but they are equally worthless. Provide information or a reasoned argument, or both, but just saying 'I feel this' or 'I feel this REALLY strongly' is just a complete waste of time. For a bunch of us to come together in unison shouting 'we ALL feel this' is just a waste of a thread.
Of COURSE, if other people feel they have different information or reach different conclusions based on reason, I will accept that I may be wrong and will examine my own position, but where I see reason being drowned out by people that want to shout out with no support for what they say, I will point it out for what it is.
Millions of Germans had their 'opinion', and it would have only taken one man of reason to show that they were all wrong.
Ah, now that's more like it. Not bad. 84 posts on this thread before Godwin's Law kicked in ;-)
I see the point you're making and I agree that it's all too easy to form an instant opinion without having a reason for it, but as long as we are talking opinions as opposed to facts, I don't think it's a matter of being right or wrong. I may disagree with some (by no means all) of your views, but I wouldn't be blunt enough to say you were wrong unless I had conclusive proof - in which case it would no longer be a matter of 'opinion' at all.
Anyway, can paedophiles be "cured" by treatment? I don't think you can give a blanket yes or no. I would suggest some can, some can't. Perhaps more to the point, as Philtaz has mentioned, some want to be treated, some don't. Even if they are forced into treatment, there's the chance some may try every trick in the book to avoid it. Whatever your take on their morality or mentality, there's no denying some of these people are fiendishly clever, and not above putting on an act if it means being let back into society. If there are those who can be successfully treated, fine, treat them, but be very, very sure that it's worked before they're released.
Ultimately, when deciding how to deal with paedophiles, the welfare of children should not be the prime concern - it should be the ONLY concern, and IF that means throwing the paedos to the lions, so be it.
Anyway, this has whiled away a morning - I'd better do some work now!
I see the point you're making and I agree that it's all too easy to form an instant opinion without having a reason for it, but as long as we are talking opinions as opposed to facts, I don't think it's a matter of being right or wrong. I may disagree with some (by no means all) of your views, but I wouldn't be blunt enough to say you were wrong unless I had conclusive proof - in which case it would no longer be a matter of 'opinion' at all.
Anyway, can paedophiles be "cured" by treatment? I don't think you can give a blanket yes or no. I would suggest some can, some can't. Perhaps more to the point, as Philtaz has mentioned, some want to be treated, some don't. Even if they are forced into treatment, there's the chance some may try every trick in the book to avoid it. Whatever your take on their morality or mentality, there's no denying some of these people are fiendishly clever, and not above putting on an act if it means being let back into society. If there are those who can be successfully treated, fine, treat them, but be very, very sure that it's worked before they're released.
Ultimately, when deciding how to deal with paedophiles, the welfare of children should not be the prime concern - it should be the ONLY concern, and IF that means throwing the paedos to the lions, so be it.
Anyway, this has whiled away a morning - I'd better do some work now!
-- answer removed --
EI D, Yes of course having natural protective parental instincts is backwards and childlike. Infact you repulse me! If some vile pervert put your children (if you have any) through a nightmare ordeal, perhaps you would prefer to concentrate your emotions on comforting the poor misguided nonce, who didn't know what he was doing, ah isn't that sweet of you. Get a grip of reality and try getting your priorities right !
As for doing the torturing myself, if some sick pervo ever did anything to my kids then YES, I would be more than happy to oblige. Then I suppose you think I would be just as bad as the perpetrator, somehow I think not!!
I don't have any kids, I have a nephew, and I think that's almost enough to see roughly where you're coming from. I don't go in for violence of any sort, but if I was a betting man I would have to stake my money on something not so good happening to someone that did anything to my nephew. I suspect this is heavily amplified if it's one's own kids.
I would want to protect him not just because he's a kid, and thus very vulnerable, though. I would also largely want to protect him because he's a human being. And I would (and have) protected other human beings from this assault of different kinds.
So I watch out for him, partly because he's a kid, partly because he's a human being. I will protect him from various things, including violence.
I don't have any kids, I have a nephew, and I think that's almost enough to see roughly where you're coming from. I don't go in for violence of any sort, but if I was a betting man I would have to stake my money on something not so good happening to someone that did anything to my nephew. I suspect this is heavily amplified if it's one's own kids.
I would want to protect him not just because he's a kid, and thus very vulnerable, though. I would also largely want to protect him because he's a human being. And I would (and have) protected other human beings from this assault of different kinds.
So I watch out for him, partly because he's a kid, partly because he's a human being. I will protect him from various things, including violence.
I don't doubt that El D has the same kind of desire to do probably nasty things to anyone who does what we're talking about here. The only thing is, that he's reflected on it (pjm you seem to be missing this), and has decided otherwise. This does NOT mean that he necessarily wants to give paedophiles a hug, as the only alternative to torture (I think you're being a bit narrow minded here pjm). The alternative is to cut convicted paedophiles off from children. If you chose to torture them, what would this achieve? Would it stop the paedophic acts? No. Would it lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and increase general disrespect for other people and the duty of protection? Probably, yes.
I can see the attraction to various people of standing up on their chair (Philtaz, pjm), beating their brow and suggesting that they alone are the truly strict, caring people, and that their resolve to take a knife to torture an offender somehow gives them the moral high ground and anyone who has a different view is a bleeding-heart liberal with no concept of the pain that victims/their families go through. Not the case. It's just that the benefit of a bit of age and maturity shows that societies based on mob rule, eye for an eye, and torture, ultimately break down completely. Check out Nigeria, rwanda, zimbabwe, large sections of the middle East, Congos.
I can see the attraction to various people of standing up on their chair (Philtaz, pjm), beating their brow and suggesting that they alone are the truly strict, caring people, and that their resolve to take a knife to torture an offender somehow gives them the moral high ground and anyone who has a different view is a bleeding-heart liberal with no concept of the pain that victims/their families go through. Not the case. It's just that the benefit of a bit of age and maturity shows that societies based on mob rule, eye for an eye, and torture, ultimately break down completely. Check out Nigeria, rwanda, zimbabwe, large sections of the middle East, Congos.
MargeB,
El D(on another category question) have made reference to myself advocating torture of these types of offenders. I challenge both of you to copy/paste anything I have said to that end. I have advocated carrying out the death penalty but have not done so regards torture, quite the opposite. I'm not the sort to go bleating the AB Ed over something like this, just the sort who doesn't like being misqouted.
Please quote me accurately or not at all.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank97 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles170 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles185 mins ago
Crosswords190 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles221 mins ago
