Pedophilia, molestation, etc.

In England, normaly it is not like that at a car show. At least, it never used to be when I went to them as a child. I don't really say I wound like to see either, lesbien's or gay's. They both smell like puff.

I can say like this... two of my friends have told me that they had been sexually abused by someone in their family. That's a huge number, as i dont have 500 female friends ;)

I've come to the conclusion that Sweden is a nation of Pedophils.... Sorry swedes, but that's the harsh truth.

I agree with molestation if the kids are between 15 and 16 yrs old.

No actually, those kids should be shot.
And the molestors should be shot, while at it.

I don't think it is deserving of death...
life in prison at most, depending on the situation, motive, and so forth.

I said while at it, because there were some bullets left.
I have a little problem with 15-16yrs old kids those days :wacko: Or they got a problem with me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

I don't think it is deserving of death...
life in prison at most, depending on the situation, motive, and so forth.

---

Molesters in jail..ehhh they are dead meat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by �p1r�t�S_dc�

Molesters in jail..ehhh they are dead meat

---

In England they put them in isolation, I believe. But yeah, I don't think there is any justification for killing someone by law.

You know pedophelia is terrible and all but where is the line for age drawn? At some point they are old enough to make their own choices. If a 16 year old choices to have sex should that be considered wrong? They can take people's lives into their hands by driving but aren't old enough to make choices about sex its rather contradictory.

Which actually brings something to mind. My brother is a transporter at a hospital. He told me once that if he or any other male had to transport a 16 and below female that another female transporter had to accompany them. However if the girl was pregnant she was no longer considered a child even at 13 years old and he could transport her alone.

In Japan, the legal age of concent is 13. I think it is something like 5% of schoolgirls have commited prostitution. And people wonder why so many men want to go to Japan :wacko:

actually there are several website you can go to nowadays, that you type in your city, and it roams around the list of registered sex offenders and child molestors and brings up there exact address, and sometimes phone numbers and jobs too. at some times this can be ignorant, since some actual accused sex offendors and accused child molestors are actually innocent, rare but it happens. If you watch Law & Order: Special Victims Unit on USA everyday, it sometimes shows how this can go wrong. but anyway, life in jail sometimes seems kind of over doing it, i mean some people are full fledged psycho's when some people were tempted and seduced by underage teenagers, it all goes to show that when your tempted by a teenager some people cant resist themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by �p1r�t�S_dc�

Molesters in jail..ehhh they are dead meat

---

yeah, thats as good as a death sentence right thurr. xena, you don't justify death by law...is that because of your beliefs? and, as a scenerio....what if someone you loved dearly was murdered right in front of you. you wouldn't want that killer dead? or would you be content with knowing that they have to spend life in jail, which considering the person took a life, isn't much of a punishment anyway, to me.

How do pedophiles make their cases, you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by assnake

...some people were tempted and seduced by underage teenagers...

---

They say that they were seduced.


Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by �p1r�t�S_dc�

Molesters in jail..ehhh they are dead meat

---

yes, child molestaters are really unwelcomed, even in jail.

as for the age line... it's hard to say. nowadays it's somewhere along the age of 14, but long ago I think it was a lot younger, and age difference didn't matter much either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

In Japan, the legal age of concent is 13. I think it is something like 5% of schoolgirls have commited prostitution. And people wonder why so many men want to go to Japan :wacko:

---

Thats what im talkin bout :dance:....... jk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by �p1r�t�S_dc�

Molesters in jail..ehhh they are dead meat

---

hmmm don't drop the soap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lygerzero

hmmm don't drop the soap

---

MMM, please drop the soap Lyger
*hort*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

life in prison at most, depending on the situation, motive, and so forth.

---

That is much worse than death...

Yes a person can be seduced by a teenager. Just being under 18 doesn't maker someone a bright eyed innocent. Besides a one eye handicapped monkey could seduce you if they know how to push your buttons.

does that include you:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

That is much worse than death...

---

jail life really depends.

If you're a child molester. say goodbye to ur penis or something..

but there are people who live in the ghettos that'd rather be in jail, cuz they feed you there are you're sheltered in a way too. You gotta be the dominant one though.

I hear in jail, people fuck their cell mate in the ass, not cuz it's a gay thing, but cuz it's this dominance thing... the weaker one receives. lol dunno.

lol you cant be born and straight away be gay :\ like people have said.. it's a decision.. just like how people can decide what type of car they like.. or what type of girls/guys they like.. etc etc... it's not a mental problem..

-

as for this thread...

there was a recent case 20 mins away from where i live (by car). There is a junior-high school thats located near heaps of houses/flats/etc.. and apparently some guy moved into a house that was close to the school and watched these kids walk to and from school everyday... however, 1 child who escaped from this guy.. told the school, and apparently a bunch of seniors went by his flat and laid the smack down on him..

Cops came obviously, the seniors were not fined.. they found disturbing images in the flat.. which lead to court, etc etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RekuZa

lol you cant be born and straight away be gay :\ like people have said.. it's a decision.. just like how people can decide what type of car they like.. or what type of girls/guys they like.. etc etc... it's not a mental problem..

---

I do not recall anyone puting homosexuality off to some mental disease or problem.

It's a decision? Based on what? Do you actually believe that homos are homos just because they choose to? Do you really believe that they would expose themselves to the hatred and "misundertanding" of the rest of society willingly? I, for one, do not believe this and have had homos tell me that they would change what they are if that only meant that they would be accepted by society, or at least left the fuck alone, but they can't. No, I sincerely believe this isn't so.

Malice pegged it perfectly if a person is born gay whatever gene causes a person to be such would have died off every time it rears up. Since a gene that causes homosexuality would eventually destroy the species and would obviously never have been passed on. If you accept that a person is born gay then you are accepting that magically some "gay gene" appeared in the persons genetic structure which would if a male extended from the father. However, this contradicts itself since if any person had this "gay gene" they would never have passed on their genetic material since male and male cannot reproduce together. To even propose that a person can be born gay practically spits in the face of realistic biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThugMaloy

Malice pegged it perfectly if a person is born gay whatever gene causes a person to be such would have died off every time it rears up. Since a gene that causes homosexuality would eventually destroy the species and would obviously never have been passed on.

---

:dizzy: Obviously? Hahaha, make me laugh while you're at it.
If you wish to use logic as an argument, you should take some time to use it yourself. An homo's penis doesn't melt in a vagina. God, this is ridiculous. How many gay men have had kids and a wife as a front only to get out of the closet when they're 40? If it is a gene, it surely has been passed on. Look at history and the influence of the Church and find out how people were forced to do things they would have never done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThugMaloy

If you accept that a person is born gay then you are accepting that magically some "gay gene" appeared in the persons genetic structure which would if a male extended from the father.

---

Yes, "magic" is the key. :eyeball:
When you don't comprehend genetics, why don't you excuse yourself from using it as an argument? Yeah, how about recessive genes? I'm sure you know about those, but did you excluded them willingly to serve a biased logic? Give time to the genetics domain for it to find everything there is to know about the human genome, i.e. analyse all the data, then we'll discuss this theory, ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00460.htm

Why are most harmful genes recessive? What would happen if
they were dominant?

The most harmful genes are recessive because that is really
the way they can survive. If a harmful gene were dominate,
the individual likely won't live long enough to have
offspring (although modern medicine is changing this
situation). That's why dominate harmful genes are so rare.

(Look up how Sickle Cell Aenima has survived if you want
want a really cool harmful genetic disorder that has a very
big advantage to some of those who carry it).

Recessive genes are pretty cool because they are able to
hide within a population, without falling out of a gene
pool. (It's important to keep in mind that recessive genes
are as likely to fall out of a gene pool as dominate
genes). For instance - my dad has blue eyes, and my mom
has brown eyes. I have brown eyes but I am carrying the
blue eye gene - but it doesn't show up. I am as likely to
pass on my dominate brown eyed gene as my blue eyed gene -
thus the survival of either is 50/50. The same goes for
harmful genes. They are able to survive in the gene pool
and are able to be passed on because they, like my dad's
blue eyed gene, are able to hide. Unless I marry someone
who also has a blue eyed gene (ha! - if only I can find a
sucker) then there is no way my blue eyed gene could show
up. Harmful recessive genes work the same way.

It's for this reason that testing oneself of genetic
disorders before having babies isn't a bad idea, especially
if harmful genetic diseases have shown up in your family.
Two individuals could be carring a very nasty recessive
gene and have NO CLUE it's in the genetic make-up - but
could easily show up in their children. Good mechanism for
hinding and survival, don't you think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThugMaloy

However, this contradicts itself since if any person had this "gay gene" they would never have passed on their genetic material since male and male cannot reproduce together. To even propose that a person can be born gay practically spits in the face of realistic biology.

---

Yeah, read a book and keep an open mind. Either that, or listen in your biology class. :P

doubley pwned.

hmm, i dont see the ownership anywhere. If the gene is so recessive, then just why is it popping up everywhere? I have never seen so many recessive genes pop up at one time. And how does this also explain bi-sexuals? Are they semi-recessive? And a man posing as straight to have children will pass on the gene, but it will still die out eventually with this generation that isnt in the closet. Stop playing like everyone else is a retard, cause its very condecending and ass-holey.

And if it is a gay gene, how can a man have sex with a woman to pose as straight? :nosweat: sounds like a personal choice to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

Xena, you don't justify death by law...is that because of your beliefs? and, as a scenerio....what if someone you loved dearly was murdered right in front of you. you wouldn't want that killer dead? or would you be content with knowing that they have to spend life in jail, which considering the person took a life, isn't much of a punishment anyway, to me.

---

Yes, somewhat. I personly too, don't think taking a life is going to make anything better. Let them live with themself's. There is always the scnerio were an innocent is found guilty for a crime they didn't commit. There is also the chance that someone might acturly regret doing what they did. I'm not saying that an horendous crime like this should be forgiven just like that, but if they feel contrite heart, then living with what they have done will haunt them for the rest of thier lives. That is just two examples, becuase the way I see it, killing someone will not make anything better. If the offender really is that dangerous, then locking them in prison is the only way.

As for vengance, I believe in forgivness personaly. It takes alot more courage to not take revenge. I would most probably never forgive someone for killing a loved one. But killing that person will not bring my loved one back. Someone has to stop the cycle of hatred, I would be a murderer just like the person I murdered. What if someone else wanted to take vengance upon me, for killing that person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

That is much worse than death...

---

I did say at most. They have to live with themselfs, It's a matter of how dangerous they are. I think there was new system's installed about this. Fist one being, severe sex offender's get "neutered" as it were. Which is supposed to stop them ever wanting sex, a harsh punishment for a male I'm sure. Secondly, Electronic tags be attached to potentially dangerous offenders, monitoring thier every move. (This is in England, mind you.) Of course, the law is not 100% fool proof, they could easily let some phyco go free (unkowingly) and allow him (or her) to go and do harm.

I think that child sex offenders should duffer the super harsh punishments. T have sex with a 16 year old isnt that bad (my opinion), but to have sex with a 7 year old is fucking sick. Though both are considered child molesting, i think there should be some more definition on the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice2501

hmm, i dont see the ownership anywhere.

---

Look again. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice

If the gene is so recessive, then just why is it popping up everywhere? I have never seen so many recessive genes pop up at one time.

---

People are more open and accepting of differences. Duh! It's not suddenly manifesting itself, it wasn't dormant, homos are just not feeling like they should have to hide it anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice

And how does this also explain bi-sexuals? Are they semi-recessive?

---

If people are feeling fine with just receiving and giving sexual pleasure, then why shouldn't they do it with both males and females? That is a choice, they can stop anytime, or be with a man for a while, then a woman, and so on. There seems to be three distinctive groups: heteros, homos and bi. Are bi people homos that don't care? Heteros that feel a bit curious? Or born like that? I dunno, either ways, they won't die off just for being born so.
Theories are being developped as new discoveries are made regarding the existence of semi-dominant or recessive genes, but I wouldn't know about those.
Semi-recessive or dominant phenotypes? Hum, interesting... could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice

And a man posing as straight to have children will pass on the gene, but it will still die out eventually with this generation that isnt in the closet. Stop playing like everyone else is a retard, cause its very condecending and ass-holey.

---

No, it might still go on. Say it's recessive and that the male has a male child. If he gets the gay-Y gene, and later on has a female child, she won't get it. See the idea? Read the quote from up there or search the net for further info on the sunject.
I'll stop treating others like retards when they stop posting before researching their info. Just believing something doesn't make it true. I wish it were that easy, but it obviously isn't. And, FYI, I can live with myself being a condescending asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice

And if it is a gay gene, how can a man have sex with a woman to pose as straight? :nosweat: sounds like a personal choice to me.

---

Easy, because of social pressure. Can you imagine what it was like when -I'm repeating myself here too much to believe it- religion held so much sway over people that they would give money to the Church just to feel better about themselves, or ostracise some poor person for being different (gay, red-headed, left-handed...) . Just think about the 50's, ask your parents or grandparents what happened to people who were openly gay, if there were any.

We should have a seperate thread for gay discussion. This is getting foncusing.

social pressure makes a gene recessive and then acceptance makes it become suddenly dominant? That seems to be strangely coincidental. As a matter of fact, the whole recessive gene theory is just that, a theory. Just like the one about darwin and whatever the hell else. Fuck this gay debate, im not gay, im not interested in supporting thier lifestyle, and as long as they dont try to make me accept them with open arms, then i dont have anything against them.

Back to the debate on hand, does anyone else agree that there should be more defenition as to specific of child molestation? I had an 18 yer old GF when i was 16, and i dont think what we did would qualify as molesting (i think thats consenting age btw). So what about a 14 and 16 year old? How do we define this in a better way. A 17 year old who grabs up on some 20 year olds jock is not the same as a 10 year old doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

Yes, somewhat. I personly too, don't think taking a life is going to make anything better. Let them live with themself's. There is always the scnerio were an innocent is found guilty for a crime they didn't commit. There is also the chance that someone might acturly regret doing what they did. I'm not saying that an horendous crime like this should be forgiven just like that, but if they feel contrite heart, then living with what they have done will haunt them for the rest of thier lives. That is just two examples, becuase the way I see it, killing someone will not make anything better. If the offender really is that dangerous, then locking them in prison is the only way.

As for vengance, I believe in forgivness personaly. It takes alot more courage to not take revenge. I would most probably never forgive someone for killing a loved one. But killing that person will not bring my loved one back. Someone has to stop the cycle of hatred, I would be a murderer just like the person I murdered. What if someone else wanted to take vengance upon me, for killing that person?

---

First question: Can a society deal with the costs of keeping such individuals in prison? Here, in Canada, one cell for one year costs around 90000 C$. That is one cell, one person.

Second question: If a criminal has to live with the burden of his crimes, how can he feel the pressure of those when most of his liberties are taken away? I believe that living in the harsh environment that prisons harbour can seriously hinder the process of remorse. They have to fend for themselves before feeling sad for doing something that might be natural to them. That is, MIGHT BE.

Third question: You say that forgiving is more demanding than harnessing a grudge (taking revenge). Wouldn't you agree that if a person lets go of a grudge, it means that they are not strong enough, either physicaly or mentaly? I believe that letting go of ones bad emotions, or even accepting the apologies of the criminal, is like leaving the door wide open for a reenactment of the disgusting acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

I did say at most. They have to live with themselfs, It's a matter of how dangerous they are. I think there was new system's installed about this. Fist one being, severe sex offender's get "neutered" as it were. Which is supposed to stop them ever wanting sex, a harsh punishment for a male I'm sure. Secondly, Electronic tags be attached to potentially dangerous offenders, monitoring thier every move. (This is in England, mind you.) Of course, the law is not 100% fool proof, they could easily let some phyco go free (unkowingly) and allow him (or her) to go and do harm.

---

If you neuter a man, he can still commit acts of aggression towards a child. Removing the balls - the testosterone - will greatly diminish the desire for sexual pleasure. Therapy has been proven useless in most cases, only leading pedophiles to believe that they don't want to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice

social pressure makes a gene recessive and then acceptance makes it become suddenly dominant? That seems to be strangely coincidental. As a matter of fact, the whole recessive gene theory is just that, a theory. Just like the one about darwin and whatever the hell else. Fuck this gay debate, im not gay, im not interested in supporting thier lifestyle, and as long as they dont try to make me accept them with open arms, then i dont have anything against them.

---

What??? No. Haven't you been reading? I'm done arguing this with someone who doesn't even read what I post. You would understand the difference between recessive and dominant genes if you'd read that small article I posted.

Say that homosexuality has been there for a long period of time, except that the homos didn't feel like being as such for the sole fact that it wasn't tolerated. Now it is, hence them poping up everywhere, as you said it yourself. Clearer now?

Hum, genes do exist. Is there a gay gene? Who knows? I still believe so, simply because I cannot see any situation leading to a man or woman wanting to have sex with another person of the same sex, much less with kids or animals. Could be a predisposition, a "weakness" that need only be awoken through some developmental parents-related issue or lack. I dunno.

And about those other theories, they are elaborated upon facts. The way they are used, now that differs. In comparison with religion, they both work the same.
Fact: we are.
-Darwin: we came to be through probabilities and evolution from smaller organisms.
-Religion: God created us.
Who's right??? Who knows, as long as people are content with their beliefs and are happy through those, I don't freaking care. It still comes down to the fact that facts can be interpreted in many ways.

I'm not gay either, but I don't see why I should, like you, harbour some angsty feelings towards them, it's simply unjustified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice

Back to the debate on hand, does anyone else agree that there should be more defenition as to specific of child molestation? I had an 18 yer old GF when i was 16, and i dont think what we did would qualify as molesting (i think thats consenting age btw). So what about a 14 and 16 year old? How do we define this in a better way. A 17 year old who grabs up on some 20 year olds jock is not the same as a 10 year old doing it.

---

There are judges just for that, to use their judgement to find what is right and what isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evans

What??? No. Haven't you been reading? I'm done arguing this with someone who doesn't even read what I post. You would understand the difference between recessive and dominant genes if you'd read that small article I posted.

Say that homosexuality has been there for a long period of time, except that the homos didn't feel like being as such for the sole fact that it wasn't tolerated. Now it is, hence them poping up everywhere, as you said it yourself. Clearer now?

Hum, genes do exist. Is there a gay gene? Who knows? I still believe so, simply because I cannot see any situation leading to a man or woman wanting to have sex with another person of the same sex, much less with kids or animals. Could be a predisposition, a "weakness" that need only be awoken through some developmental parents-related issue or lack. I dunno.

And about those other theories, they are elaborated upon facts. The way they are used, now that differs. In comparison with religion, they both work the same.
Fact: we are.
-Darwin: we came to be through probabilities and evolution from smaller organisms.
-Religion: God created us.
Who's right??? Who knows, as long as people are content with their beliefs and are happy through those, I don't freaking care. It still comes down to the fact that facts can be interpreted in many ways.

I'm not gay either, but I don't see why I should, like you, harbour some angsty feelings towards them, it's simply unjustified.

---

Dude, im done on this topic, post all you want to after it all. I read your posts and dont agree, and i know the difference between rec and dom genes. And plz, for the second time, stop assuming you know shit about me :-P . i dont know you, and you dont know if i have any angst. Good night on this thread. :sleep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malice2501

Dude, im done on this topic, post all you want to after it all. I read your posts and dont agree, and i know the difference between rec and dom genes. And plz, for the second time, stop assuming you know shit about me :-P . i dont know you, and you dont know if i have any angst. Good night on this thread. :sleep:

---

Don't believe that I'd "bash" you now that I know you won't answer.
Well, some of your thoughts tend to show you misunderstand the definitions of recessive and dominant genes, but meh.
As for the "shit about you", it's enough to say that what you post regarding your position when faced with the idea of having to deal with homos tends to further in my mind that you do have negative feelings towards the gays.
Oh well, this was getting interesting.
'Night thread. :nod:

Evans has a problem with gays, that's about it.
Hein ma choune? :P

That said, his theory can't be proved wrong either.

For the prison thing, i'm all behind him (nononono, im not yet in).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polobunny

Evans has a problem with gays, that's about it.
Hein ma choune? :P

That said, his theory can't be proved wrong either.

For the prison thing, i'm all behind him (nononono, im not yet in).

---

Yeah, I'm jealous that they have swayed you in their community. :P
Pis? Le souper, ca c'est bien d�roul�, ma chouette? :D

Yup, just exchanging ideas. But for whom is that meant?

Yeah, prisons are just too freaking pricy here. But I won't rant on that here. Not needed.

vBulletin bug, hurray! Where and how can I report this?
Seem to have fixed itself, good lord vBulletin is based on such a strong architecture! :O

But yeah, prison cells are extremely pricey, I don't have that much money invested for me at home, why should I stay "clean", it would be better for me to commit a crime. Actually i'm thinking about raping a gay, so people are afraid I rape them while in prison. Where's lagwagon when we need him :nosweat:

What are you talking about?

I totally edited that out, the bug seem to be gone since I posted after you reposted.

Well this is a public forum, so I shall humor your question. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evans

First question: Can a society deal with the costs of keeping such individuals in prison? Here, in Canada, one cell for one year costs around 90000 C$. That is one cell, one person.

---

Evidently so, if they spend thier funds a bit wiser. *Points at hospitals �2,000,000 art budget*

I am talking about England, by the way. I could not speak for other country's.
Did you know in England we have a prison that is completly empty? It is capable of holding 300 or so prisoners. Here is the punch line, it is still being fully staffed and gaurded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evans

Second question: If a criminal has to live with the burden of his crimes, how can he feel the pressure of those when most of his liberties are taken away? I believe that living in the harsh environment that prisons harbour can seriously hinder the process of remorse. They have to fend for themselves before feeling sad for doing something that might be natural to them. That is, MIGHT BE.

---

The custodial system will never be a perfect one. Prison will never be a nice place to go, or at least shouldn't. Mind you, I have heard a few cases of people wanting to prison, because of the fact it's free. In Isreal, (I am talking about bible times) there was no prison. During the period when they were obedient, crime was punished by either re-payment, work (Labour) or death. There was no need for prisons. If someone is sent to prison today, will that aid the victim? rather, re-paying back what was taken, or something practical like working to give back to the community. The death sentace, was used for major crimes back then. When the sense of justice was perfect, that is. But times have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evans

Third question: You say that forgiving is more demanding than harnessing a grudge (taking revenge). Wouldn't you agree that if a person lets go of a grudge, it means that they are not strong enough, either physicaly or mentaly? I believe that letting go of ones bad emotions, or even accepting the apologies of the criminal, is like leaving the door wide open for a reenactment of the disgusting acts.

---

If an offender repeates the act, then obviosly they didn't learn thier lesson the first time they were punished.

If you think someone is weak for letting go of a grudge, then you must have no forgivness in you. Accepting apologies, I did not say. Rather not taking revenge by murder. It can be hard to let something go, it does not nessacerily mean someone is weak, not physicaly. So you believe being mentaly strong is giving in to anger, rather then having the self control to do the right thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evans

If you neuter a man, he can still commit acts of aggression towards a child. Removing the balls - the testosterone - will greatly diminish the desire for sexual pleasure. Therapy has been proven useless in most cases, only leading pedophiles to believe that they don't want to do it.

---

They recive both in some cases. I thought they recived therapy already, the neutering is a new thing. By the way, I forgot to mention the neutering is voluntary. It does have an effect which help's at least, of what was been reported anyway.