|
When have I done that, and when have I put forward that idea?
That chemically castrated sex offenders offend doesn't really support the power theory. Also, it doesn't disprove the evolutionary theory because I'm sure there hasn't been time to select against castrated offenders, or any reason to build up an aversion to sexual encounters just because you lack the means to reproduce. Doesn't infertile men have sex or masturbate?
Why can't I speak about women's fantasies?
You clearly didn't understand my post of you think I said all rape victims are young beautys, or that it matters if some rape victims are grey (?) or disabled.
Ok, sorry, not every, just most.
And you keep implying that you don't like the "feminist agenda", so could this possibly lead to you being biased and refusing to believe theories that support this agenda?
|
On December 22 2010 12:02 CheekyDuck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 11:54 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 11:39 LazyMacro wrote:On December 22 2010 11:28 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 09:48 CheekyDuck wrote:On December 22 2010 01:30 Mayfly wrote:On December 21 2010 23:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 21 2010 20:36 Jswizzy wrote:On December 21 2010 20:27 qwaykee wrote:
i think there is a difference between being pedophile and abusing children. when i think pedophile its a person that gets aroused by children, he doesn't have to abuse them of any sort. and its not something you could just turn off, just as being homosexual I doubt there is a pedophile gene, esp when you consider how hight the rate of child abusers who were also abused them selves is. I would think that most people who feel this way about kids were molested themselves at an impressionable age and could never quite come to terms with it leaving them sexually confused for the rest of their lives. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals just don't hold up in my book. There's a large difference here. Child molesters (what you're describing) aren't necessarily attracted to children - they do it because it's something they experienced as children and so feel that it's necessary, they need the control, etc. etc... Similar to rapists. They don't usually rape out of sexual desire, they do it for psychological control. I don't really have time to debunk you except to say that pretty much everything you said is false. Rape is very much a "sexual desire," and child molesters are not what they are because of something that happened to them during childhood. Read less bad psychology. What bad psychology books are you reading? its 101 that its more about power and control than a sexual urge. Its ridicules to offer chemical castration to these sickies for a lighter sentence, to have the bastards reoffend anyway. yes they reoffend without there junk working! because its in the mind, the pleasure comes from being dominate not so much the actual act. It is also fact that an abused child has a potentially higher risk to offend once in adult hood. There has also been many cases of abused children, abusing other children. I don't trust many fields of psychology since what they're doing is not science and the results mostly not sprung from a desire to find truths. And that's where the stuff about "power and control" comes from. It's a feminist theory to explain away rapists as women-haters. If rape really was about control and "getting back at women" you'd find it hard to explain why young (and attractive) women are usually the victims and not old women, and that the rapist himself is usually young and not old. Same thing goes for social groups. One other thing to think about is that rape is common in certain situations, for instance war. Do soldiers just get more power-hungry all of a sudden? Rape is common among animals and also among humans up until not long ago. Most people are the result of a rape that happened from anywhere right before they were born to 200 years ago or something. It's been a valid reproductive strategy evolutionary speaking. All men are (genetically) capable of rape, the difference is that it doesn't take that much for some, and for most it would take something like a war situation and some peer pressure to do it. Successful rapists in the past have simply passed on their genes (since it was impossible to determine who the child belonged to, the husband that perhaps stayed to raise the baby couldn't kill it). Rape is a very common sexual fantasy for women because of this. Also, the chances of conception is higher in rape scenarios, as it is in extramarital sex as well. This theory can explain most if not all questions about rape, which the power theory cannot. About pedophilia then: No, there is no causal relationship between being abused as a child and growing up to be an offender. If you want to make that argument you have to attempt to prove it. And while it's true that many child sex offenders are not pedophiles (they simply choose children because it's easy), more than half are according to the studies I've read. Also, I've never mentioned chemical castration so I don't know why you brought that up. With regards to the psychology bashing: You aren't really supporting why you don't listen to psychology. The study of psychology is inherently not "science" in the way I think you mean. Psychology is the study of that which is, by definition, not entirely subjective. That's why all established psychological principles are considered to be general truths, but not necessarily applicable in all instances. What I mean is that in math and science, it is what it is. One plus one always equals two; in psychology, you're taking an incredibly complex organic system and attempting to study it to learn more. (Oh what's that about not seeking truth?) The problem is that there are so many factors involved, sometimes you get odd or unexpected results. You also get a lot of very useful information, but everyone is always sitting there waiting to bash a study if its findings are "obvious" to the average person. Precisely because the study of complex systems is so complex you can reach conclusions that you want to reach and back them up half-assedly and anyone with an agenda can pick them up as proof to support any change they want to make. For instance the power theory that conspicuously pleases the feminist agenda that men hates women, blah blah. do you hate women? i dont think the feminist agenda came to that conclusion about (child) rape. where did you get that from?
No, do you?
Mostly because feminists like to talk about it that wayand that it's usually listed as a "feminist theory" a little here and there. I didn't say they came up with it themselves, more that it's *a possibility* that the theory came forth to please such an agenda. That is reason enough to doubt any studies and conclusions coming from any field really, but mostly the social sciences that makes such occurrences so easy.
|
The "Feminist agenda" is merely for equality of both sexes. Actual feminists do not hate men, they just believe in equality. Someone who calls themselves a feminist and hates men or claims that all men are evil or something along those lines is an extremist.
Feminists often speak out against some people's claim that the victim was "asking for it" because they dressed provocatively or something. That's the most common thing I've heard feminists say about rape.
|
Mayfly it means the assults are sexual but not driven by soley your sex organs. They commit sexual assults without the possiblity of sexual gratification.
so i ask you if not to reproduce or "get off" why do the reoffend?
and you say:
"Doesn't infertile men have sex or masturbate?" this is not the effect of chemical castration
Why can't I speak about women's fantasies? if people who have studied the minds of pedos and rapists have no merit, why does your hollow conclusion draw merit?
Please read up on it, as sadly its people like you that are giving these creeps lighter sentences, everyone knowns chemical castration does not work, because the intent is in the mind.
|
On December 22 2010 12:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
When have I done that, and when have I put forward that idea?
That chemically castrated sex offenders offend doesn't really support the power theory. Also, it doesn't disprove the evolutionary theory because I'm sure there hasn't been time to select against castrated offenders, or any reason to build up an aversion to sexual encounters just because you lack the means to reproduce. Doesn't infertile men have sex or masturbate?
Why can't I speak about women's fantasies?
You clearly didn't understand my post of you think I said all rape victims are young beautys, or that it matters if some rape victims are grey (?) or disabled.
Ok, sorry, not every, just most. And you keep implying that you don't like the "feminist agenda", so could this possibly lead to you being biased and refusing to believe theories that support this agenda?
It certainly could in other arenas, but this is related to genetics and evolutionary theory and I just stated facts. Rape isn't by any means "solved", but that it has its roots in genetics is fact. If you don't believe that I guess you don't have to, but to me it's obvious and I don't think we have anything to talk about if there's such a large chasm between us.
|
On December 22 2010 12:18 CheekyDuck wrote:
Mayfly it means the assults are sexual but not driven by soley your sex organs. They commit sexual assults without the possiblity of sexual gratification.
so i ask you if not to reproduce or "get off" why do the reoffend?
and you say:
"Doesn't infertile men have sex or masturbate?" this is not the effect of chemical castration
Why can't I speak about women's fantasies? if people who have studied the minds of pedos and rapists have no merit, why does your hollow conclusion draw merit?
Please read up on it, as sadly its people like you that are giving these creeps lighter sentences, everyone knowns chemical castration does not work, because the intent is in the mind.
When have I uttered anything that would support lighter sentences or chemical castration? Don't put words in my mouth, thank you.
|
Rapists are predators, not humane misunderstood creatures trying to spread there seed for humanity or some idolized idea of instinctive procreation.
You sir are high.
|
On December 22 2010 12:22 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 12:18 CheekyDuck wrote:
Mayfly it means the assults are sexual but not driven by soley your sex organs. They commit sexual assults without the possiblity of sexual gratification.
so i ask you if not to reproduce or "get off" why do the reoffend?
and you say:
"Doesn't infertile men have sex or masturbate?" this is not the effect of chemical castration
Why can't I speak about women's fantasies? if people who have studied the minds of pedos and rapists have no merit, why does your hollow conclusion draw merit?
Please read up on it, as sadly its people like you that are giving these creeps lighter sentences, everyone knowns chemical castration does not work, because the intent is in the mind. When have I uttered anything that would support lighter sentences or chemical castration? Don't put words in my mouth, thank you.
when you argue its ALL about sex and sexual urges, as long as that idea is alive thats whats happening.
|
On December 22 2010 12:16 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 12:02 CheekyDuck wrote:On December 22 2010 11:54 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 11:39 LazyMacro wrote:On December 22 2010 11:28 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 09:48 CheekyDuck wrote:On December 22 2010 01:30 Mayfly wrote:On December 21 2010 23:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 21 2010 20:36 Jswizzy wrote:On December 21 2010 20:27 qwaykee wrote:
i think there is a difference between being pedophile and abusing children. when i think pedophile its a person that gets aroused by children, he doesn't have to abuse them of any sort. and its not something you could just turn off, just as being homosexual I doubt there is a pedophile gene, esp when you consider how hight the rate of child abusers who were also abused them selves is. I would think that most people who feel this way about kids were molested themselves at an impressionable age and could never quite come to terms with it leaving them sexually confused for the rest of their lives. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals just don't hold up in my book. There's a large difference here. Child molesters (what you're describing) aren't necessarily attracted to children - they do it because it's something they experienced as children and so feel that it's necessary, they need the control, etc. etc... Similar to rapists. They don't usually rape out of sexual desire, they do it for psychological control. I don't really have time to debunk you except to say that pretty much everything you said is false. Rape is very much a "sexual desire," and child molesters are not what they are because of something that happened to them during childhood. Read less bad psychology. What bad psychology books are you reading? its 101 that its more about power and control than a sexual urge. Its ridicules to offer chemical castration to these sickies for a lighter sentence, to have the bastards reoffend anyway. yes they reoffend without there junk working! because its in the mind, the pleasure comes from being dominate not so much the actual act. It is also fact that an abused child has a potentially higher risk to offend once in adult hood. There has also been many cases of abused children, abusing other children. I don't trust many fields of psychology since what they're doing is not science and the results mostly not sprung from a desire to find truths. And that's where the stuff about "power and control" comes from. It's a feminist theory to explain away rapists as women-haters. If rape really was about control and "getting back at women" you'd find it hard to explain why young (and attractive) women are usually the victims and not old women, and that the rapist himself is usually young and not old. Same thing goes for social groups. One other thing to think about is that rape is common in certain situations, for instance war. Do soldiers just get more power-hungry all of a sudden? Rape is common among animals and also among humans up until not long ago. Most people are the result of a rape that happened from anywhere right before they were born to 200 years ago or something. It's been a valid reproductive strategy evolutionary speaking. All men are (genetically) capable of rape, the difference is that it doesn't take that much for some, and for most it would take something like a war situation and some peer pressure to do it. Successful rapists in the past have simply passed on their genes (since it was impossible to determine who the child belonged to, the husband that perhaps stayed to raise the baby couldn't kill it). Rape is a very common sexual fantasy for women because of this. Also, the chances of conception is higher in rape scenarios, as it is in extramarital sex as well. This theory can explain most if not all questions about rape, which the power theory cannot. About pedophilia then: No, there is no causal relationship between being abused as a child and growing up to be an offender. If you want to make that argument you have to attempt to prove it. And while it's true that many child sex offenders are not pedophiles (they simply choose children because it's easy), more than half are according to the studies I've read. Also, I've never mentioned chemical castration so I don't know why you brought that up. With regards to the psychology bashing: You aren't really supporting why you don't listen to psychology. The study of psychology is inherently not "science" in the way I think you mean. Psychology is the study of that which is, by definition, not entirely subjective. That's why all established psychological principles are considered to be general truths, but not necessarily applicable in all instances. What I mean is that in math and science, it is what it is. One plus one always equals two; in psychology, you're taking an incredibly complex organic system and attempting to study it to learn more. (Oh what's that about not seeking truth?) The problem is that there are so many factors involved, sometimes you get odd or unexpected results. You also get a lot of very useful information, but everyone is always sitting there waiting to bash a study if its findings are "obvious" to the average person. Precisely because the study of complex systems is so complex you can reach conclusions that you want to reach and back them up half-assedly and anyone with an agenda can pick them up as proof to support any change they want to make. For instance the power theory that conspicuously pleases the feminist agenda that men hates women, blah blah. do you hate women? i dont think the feminist agenda came to that conclusion about (child) rape. where did you get that from? No, do you? Mostly because feminists like to talk about it that wayand that it's usually listed as a "feminist theory" a little here and there. I didn't say they came up with it themselves, more that it's *a possibility* that the theory came forth to please such an agenda. That is reason enough to doubt any studies and conclusions coming from any field really, but mostly the social sciences that makes such occurrences so easy.
No. Just no. You completely fail to understand psychology. The "power theory" and the "feminist theory" explaining rape motivation are different. The former did not originate out of feminist ideology.
|
It leaves one party feeling entirely powerless. From that point of view, it is certainly about power.
|
On December 22 2010 12:25 CheekyDuck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 12:22 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 12:18 CheekyDuck wrote:
Mayfly it means the assults are sexual but not driven by soley your sex organs. They commit sexual assults without the possiblity of sexual gratification.
so i ask you if not to reproduce or "get off" why do the reoffend?
and you say:
"Doesn't infertile men have sex or masturbate?" this is not the effect of chemical castration
Why can't I speak about women's fantasies? if people who have studied the minds of pedos and rapists have no merit, why does your hollow conclusion draw merit?
Please read up on it, as sadly its people like you that are giving these creeps lighter sentences, everyone knowns chemical castration does not work, because the intent is in the mind. When have I uttered anything that would support lighter sentences or chemical castration? Don't put words in my mouth, thank you. when you argue its ALL about sex and sexual urges, as long as that idea is alive thats whats happening.
I haven't said that either. Anything else you want to falsely credit to me?
To make rapists extinct first you have to understand them, something you clearly are not willing to do.
|
On December 22 2010 12:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 12:16 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 12:02 CheekyDuck wrote:On December 22 2010 11:54 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 11:39 LazyMacro wrote:On December 22 2010 11:28 Mayfly wrote:On December 22 2010 09:48 CheekyDuck wrote:On December 22 2010 01:30 Mayfly wrote:On December 21 2010 23:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 21 2010 20:36 Jswizzy wrote:
[quote]
I doubt there is a pedophile gene, esp when you consider how hight the rate of child abusers who were also abused them selves is. I would think that most people who feel this way about kids were molested themselves at an impressionable age and could never quite come to terms with it leaving them sexually confused for the rest of their lives. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals just don't hold up in my book. There's a large difference here. Child molesters (what you're describing) aren't necessarily attracted to children - they do it because it's something they experienced as children and so feel that it's necessary, they need the control, etc. etc... Similar to rapists. They don't usually rape out of sexual desire, they do it for psychological control. I don't really have time to debunk you except to say that pretty much everything you said is false. Rape is very much a "sexual desire," and child molesters are not what they are because of something that happened to them during childhood. Read less bad psychology. What bad psychology books are you reading? its 101 that its more about power and control than a sexual urge. Its ridicules to offer chemical castration to these sickies for a lighter sentence, to have the bastards reoffend anyway. yes they reoffend without there junk working! because its in the mind, the pleasure comes from being dominate not so much the actual act. It is also fact that an abused child has a potentially higher risk to offend once in adult hood. There has also been many cases of abused children, abusing other children. I don't trust many fields of psychology since what they're doing is not science and the results mostly not sprung from a desire to find truths. And that's where the stuff about "power and control" comes from. It's a feminist theory to explain away rapists as women-haters. If rape really was about control and "getting back at women" you'd find it hard to explain why young (and attractive) women are usually the victims and not old women, and that the rapist himself is usually young and not old. Same thing goes for social groups. One other thing to think about is that rape is common in certain situations, for instance war. Do soldiers just get more power-hungry all of a sudden? Rape is common among animals and also among humans up until not long ago. Most people are the result of a rape that happened from anywhere right before they were born to 200 years ago or something. It's been a valid reproductive strategy evolutionary speaking. All men are (genetically) capable of rape, the difference is that it doesn't take that much for some, and for most it would take something like a war situation and some peer pressure to do it. Successful rapists in the past have simply passed on their genes (since it was impossible to determine who the child belonged to, the husband that perhaps stayed to raise the baby couldn't kill it). Rape is a very common sexual fantasy for women because of this. Also, the chances of conception is higher in rape scenarios, as it is in extramarital sex as well. This theory can explain most if not all questions about rape, which the power theory cannot. About pedophilia then: No, there is no causal relationship between being abused as a child and growing up to be an offender. If you want to make that argument you have to attempt to prove it. And while it's true that many child sex offenders are not pedophiles (they simply choose children because it's easy), more than half are according to the studies I've read. Also, I've never mentioned chemical castration so I don't know why you brought that up. With regards to the psychology bashing: You aren't really supporting why you don't listen to psychology. The study of psychology is inherently not "science" in the way I think you mean. Psychology is the study of that which is, by definition, not entirely subjective. That's why all established psychological principles are considered to be general truths, but not necessarily applicable in all instances. What I mean is that in math and science, it is what it is. One plus one always equals two; in psychology, you're taking an incredibly complex organic system and attempting to study it to learn more. (Oh what's that about not seeking truth?) The problem is that there are so many factors involved, sometimes you get odd or unexpected results. You also get a lot of very useful information, but everyone is always sitting there waiting to bash a study if its findings are "obvious" to the average person. Precisely because the study of complex systems is so complex you can reach conclusions that you want to reach and back them up half-assedly and anyone with an agenda can pick them up as proof to support any change they want to make. For instance the power theory that conspicuously pleases the feminist agenda that men hates women, blah blah. do you hate women? i dont think the feminist agenda came to that conclusion about (child) rape. where did you get that from? No, do you? Mostly because feminists like to talk about it that wayand that it's usually listed as a "feminist theory" a little here and there. I didn't say they came up with it themselves, more that it's *a possibility* that the theory came forth to please such an agenda. That is reason enough to doubt any studies and conclusions coming from any field really, but mostly the social sciences that makes such occurrences so easy. No. Just no. You completely fail to understand psychology. The "power theory" and the "feminist theory" explaining rape motivation are different. The former did not originate out of feminist ideology.
Ok.
|
believe what you want, im done, hate women, men rape to get off.... blah blah blah
no hope for the world, just burn all the books now, eat mcdonalds and watch porn that has 18 + people involved.
|
Australia8532 Posts
So there is no way that rape is about achieving sexual gratification through exertion of power, dominance and control?
|
On December 22 2010 12:40 bkrow wrote:
So there is no way that rape is about achieving sexual gratification through exertion of power, dominance and control?
Yes, there is.
Men have been selected for all that (power, dominance and control), so rape could certainly be an unwanted by-product of that in the selection process.
|
On December 21 2010 15:37 CheekyDuck wrote:
what a setup.
i think the book is disgusting, but to arrest someone over a book... crazy.
there are many tv shows svu? should they all be arrested? where does it stop?
Because there is a difference between a television drama, which is a fictional story intended for entertainment, and an instruction manual for pedo's...
|
United States24680 Posts
On December 22 2010 14:14 Ridiculisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 15:37 CheekyDuck wrote:
what a setup.
i think the book is disgusting, but to arrest someone over a book... crazy.
there are many tv shows svu? should they all be arrested? where does it stop?
Because there is a difference between a television drama, which is a fictional story intended for entertainment, and an instruction manual for pedo's...
So if this guy had written the book as a fiction story that seemed like it was for entertainment but in actuality was meant for instructing others on how to perform illegal activities, how would you know whether or not to take 'action' against this book? Good luck drawing the line anywhere clearly definable.
|
Ofcourse I used completely irrational examples, they were obviously ridiculous that didnt need stating. To argue that this book should be allowed to be on sale is just as irrational, and was half the point I was making.
To satisfy you people that didnt get that, however, here is a more reasonable example for you. Following your logic, I should be allowed to sell a book "Terrorists guide to Destroying America"?. I should be allowed to sell this in America and round the world? Do you agree?
To be honest there is no discussion to be had on the subject. This is one of the few things in life where there is little discussion to be had? I am actually extremely dissapointed to see people even trying to defend it, especially on TL. My view on this community has been soured by some of the people on here, which saddens me.
Freedom of speech is being able to discuss whether this should be allowed to be sold on amazon... freedom of speech is not being able to sell this on amazon
|
On December 22 2010 18:07 Baz wrote:
Ofcourse I used completely irrational examples, they were obviously ridiculous that didnt need stating. To argue that this book should be allowed to be on sale is just as irrational, and was half the point I was making.
To satisfy you people that didnt get that, however, here is a more reasonable example for you. Following your logic, I should be allowed to sell a book "Terrorists guide to Destroying America"?. I should be allowed to sell this in America and round the world? Do you agree?
To be honest there is no discussion to be had on the subject. This is one of the few things in life where there is little discussion to be had? I am actually extremely dissapointed to see people even trying to defend it, especially on TL. My view on this community has been soured by some of the people on here, which saddens me.
Freedom of speech is being able to discuss whether this should be allowed to be sold on amazon... freedom of speech is not being able to sell this on amazon
You're a little late to that party, they already made a TV series based off your book that starred Kiefer Sutherland and went on for 9 seasons.
But you're absolutely correct, there should be little discussion on this. People like yourself are just having knee-jerk reactions at the very mention of pedophilia and calling for this guy's head and trampling all over the First Amendment in the process. Having an emotional reaction to someone's actions and using that as some kind of justification for disproportionate retribution goes against what the entire idea of laws are supposed to be about. I'm not surprised by the moral outrage, but to be frank I am surprised by the people who attempt to disguise their moral outrage with faulty, third-grade logic, trying to equate pedophilia with child rape, writing a book on crime to actually forcing people to commit the crime or something, and making all kinds of examples that actually already exist in real life that they hadn't thought of (such as your post here). You are saddened by people being against censorship and defending the right to free speech? I am saddened by your shortsighted, narrow thinking and emotional clouding of the issue, especially for someone accusing others of being irrational.
Also, I don't think anyone said Amazon should be forced to sell this book, the whole point of contention is that this guy should not have been arrested nor should his book be banned, because he has not committed any crimes.
|
On December 22 2010 18:07 Baz wrote:
To satisfy you people that didnt get that, however, here is a more reasonable example for you. Following your logic, I should be allowed to sell a book "Terrorists guide to Destroying America"?. I should be allowed to sell this in America and round the world? Do you agree?
Yes. And FYI books like the anarchist cookbook have been on sale a long time which teaches people how to make bombs and weapons. You can buy books on military sniping, how to break into cars, etc.
On December 22 2010 18:07 Baz wrote:
To be honest there is no discussion to be had on the subject. This is one of the few things in life where there is little discussion to be had? I am actually extremely dissapointed to see people even trying to defend it, especially on TL. My view on this community has been soured by some of the people on here, which saddens me.
This is wholly irrational. Who are you to say no discussion is to be had. You sound like the church. Even mathematicians question discuss basic axioms of logic. YOU many not want a discussion, but that just shows how close minded you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
