|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
Bacasper, all joking and NAMBLA-sponsored studies aside, do you think it would be cool to put your junk in a child?
If you think that's cool (and you come off as justifying it), you are sincerely messed up.
Leave the little ones alone. Why you would pick this battle I don't even wanna know, but please go back to worrying about your own grassy knoll and Roswell and the rest of the tin foil hat material.
You're a little creepy, and I don't think I'm alone in saying so.
Give it a good long rest. |
I have posted documentation, including the best peer-reviewed research and government studies, only to be responded to by someone's gut feelings, unsubstantiated opinion, ad hominems. This response epitomizes the witchhunt mentality which surrounds this subject, so I must thank caniff for giving me the chance to address it.
When unable to counter uncomfortable facts before one, rather than attempt to deal with or understand them, the witchhunter hurls the dreaded accusation in the attempt to bully one into silence. This is the typical witchhunt tactic. Unfortunately, this works with most people, even those who may actually try to give fair consideration to this difficult subject.
I, however, have seen many lives of both adults and youths unnecessarily ruined by both false and true allegations, as well as true victims of sex abuse, and I know the scientific literature on the subject. Your bullying tactic will not work on me.
I have not mentioned NAMBLA nor putting one's �junk� in a child, nor did I make the comment just previous to this
| caniff wrote: |
| How much did pre-pubescent Gary Coleman make? |
Just who is the one with the unhealthy obsessions here? |
Jeez, Ba, you got me pegged. My gut feeling is indeed that diddling kids is wrong, and to hell with your pseudo-crap.
I've already said that false prosecutions are an issue, but other than that it's a no-brainer - hands (and other parts) off the kiddies. End of story.
Last edited by caniff on Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
Bacasper, all joking and NAMBLA-sponsored studies aside, do you think it would be cool to put your junk in a child?
If you think that's cool (and you come off as justifying it), you are sincerely messed up.
Leave the little ones alone. Why you would pick this battle I don't even wanna know, but please go back to worrying about your own grassy knoll and Roswell and the rest of the tin foil hat material.
You're a little creepy, and I don't think I'm alone in saying so.
Give it a good long rest. |
I have posted documentation, including the best peer-reviewed research and government studies, only to be responded to by someone's gut feelings, unsubstantiated opinion, ad hominems. This response epitomizes the witchhunt mentality which surrounds this subject, so I must thank caniff for giving me the chance to address it.
When unable to counter uncomfortable facts before one, rather than attempt to deal with or understand them, the witchhunter hurls the dreaded accusation in the attempt to bully one into silence. This is the typical witchhunt tactic. Unfortunately, this works with most people, even those who may actually try to give fair consideration to this difficult subject.
I, however, have seen many lives of both adults and youths unnecessarily ruined by both false and true allegations, as well as true victims of sex abuse, and I know the scientific literature on the subject. Your bullying tactic will not work on me.
I have not mentioned NAMBLA nor putting one's �junk� in a child, nor did I make the comment just previous to this
| caniff wrote: |
| How much did pre-pubescent Gary Coleman make? |
Just who is the one with the unhealthy obsessions here? |
Jeez, Ba, you got me pegged. My gut feeling is indeed that diddling kids is wrong, and to hell with your pseudo-crap. |
You can feel whatever you want to, but any attempt to put that up against hard data and science is ludicrous, nor does it justify repeatedly violating the ToS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| nor does it justify repeatedly violating the ToS. |
I never called you anything directly, but nice try at a whine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have really mixed feelings about this. I think first of all that our current obsession with the tragedy of sex abuse has caused a self-fulfilling prophecy. Victims of abuse are made to believe that their entire life has been destroyed. If you make it the end of the world, then of course, it's the end of the world. I think people are encouraged to dwell on it too much and not move on with their life. Of course for victims of incest this is much more difficult because you have the added situation of your family being involved. But if someone is touched up by a neighbor or something they shouldn't be made to feel that their childhood is gone.
I also think the way that we deal with the perpetrators of abuse is probably counter productive. I don't know what the answer is but there's got to be a better way.
I also think that the media obsession over sex abuse has perhaps attracted more people to it by raising the attraction to what is forbidden.
Another thing, we have raised the definition of children to include anyone under 18 and I think that could also be a mistake. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with someone in their 30s or 40s having sex with a teenager, but I don't really consider it to be the same as child abuse.
Lastly, we've had too many people fall through the cracks of these harsh policies. Children being labelled as sex offenders because they molested other children, teens busted for sexting, people busted for innocent nude pictures.
Of course I do think people who abuse children must be stopped. I just think the way we deal with this needs to be changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| candyteacher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| candyteacher wrote: |
| Wheather a meta analysis B*S study or not I'm never gonna thing its okay and Im never gonna believe it doesnt leave a lasting effect on anyone. |
So your stance is that facts and data are totally meaningless and only your gut instinct matters? Are you by chance religious? |
Not religious in the slightest, Iv never been. In this case when someone is citing a study to try to suggest that sexually abusing a child doesn't harm them, forgive me for being cinical. |
Be cynical if you like, but at least consider the data. I don't think the stance he's taking is, "This study says sexual abuse isn't as damaging as we've been lead to believe, so it's a-okay," but rather, "This study says sexual abuse isn't as damaging as we've been lead to believe, so let's calm down and start being rational in our response to it instead of enacting panicky, horrible laws which cause social problems without actually solving any." |
This is exactly right.
Anyone who claims to truly care about kids ought to be jumping for joy upon finding out that kids we thought were traumatized for life are actually not and that most recover fully and quickly. Why some on this thread suffer from a need to see kids damaged is beyond me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| riverboy wrote: |
Agree 100% with Caniff. I can't seem to understand Bacasper's obsession with unjust sex laws; to the point of him defending kiddie porn.
I also agree with Fox in the fact that there is a withch hunt mentality going on in both Canada and the US regarding child sexual abuse. When I am talkng about kiddie porn, it am left scratching the last few hairs out of my head, that people actually feel that downloading child porn --with young children having intercourse- is totally acceptable. It says a lot about society today. |
So unjust laws are cool with you. OK, got it.
But I have never "defended" kiddy porn as such. I have railed against draconian penalties and branding as child pornographers grandmothers photographing their grandkids in the tub, fathers photographing their newborns breastfeeding, and teens sending their nude cellphone shots to their boyfriends.
It is completely illogical to say you are against this witchhunt mentality while at the same time supporting draconian penalties. The level of the witchhunt increases with the penalties.
| NovaKart wrote: |
| I also think that the media obsession over sex abuse has perhaps attracted more people to it by raising the attraction to what is forbidden. |
This is exactly the point Prof. Adler makes in the article I cited earlier in the thread.
I mean, even if one has no interest whatsoever in viewing kiddy porn, when one learns that looking at a single photograph can get you ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine, one is bound to get pretty damn curious.
Last edited by bacasper on Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Why some on this thread suffer from a need to see kids damaged is beyond me. |
Yeah, that must be what it - those who call BS on your propositions are really the child abusers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Another thing, we have raised the definition of children to include anyone under 18 and I think that could also be a mistake. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with someone in their 30s or 40s having sex with a teenager, but I don't really consider it to be the same as child abuse. |
Agree with you here. But they've got to draw the line somewhere, and 16-18 seems to make the most sense, since most are still in school under that age. But I always cringe when I read about some 19 year getting intimate with his 17 year old girlfriend. Authorities need more common sense, or need to be given more leeway instead of strictly applying the law.
As for punishing people for just being in possession of videos or pictures. I say no, what happens if someone draws some pictures. In some countries drawings of Simpsons characters in certain positions can get you thrown in jail. That is ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Agree with you here. But they've got to draw the line somewhere, and 16-18 seems to make the most sense, since most are still in school under that age. |
We don't actually have to draw a hard line, though. Rather, being of age 18 or below could simply be a "flag" rather than a determiner, warranting investigation but not necessarily litigation. Talk to the minor; try to design a simple series of questions which can determine whether or not they're really capable of understanding sex and consenting to it (most of them will probably pass such a test). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| nor does it justify repeatedly violating the ToS. |
I never called you anything directly, but nice try at a whine. |
This entire post is ad hominem:
| caniff wrote: |
Bacasper, all joking and NAMBLA-sponsored studies aside, do you think it would be cool to put your junk in a child?
If you think that's cool (and you come off as justifying it), you are sincerely messed up.
Leave the little ones alone. Why you would pick this battle I don't even wanna know, but please go back to worrying about your own grassy knoll and Roswell and the rest of the tin foil hat material.
You're a little creepy, and I don't think I'm alone in saying so.
Give it a good long rest. |
as well as this comment
| Quote: |
| to hell with your pseudo-crap. |
Nice try at a weasel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Why some on this thread suffer from a need to see kids damaged is beyond me. |
Yeah, that must be what it [is] |
Why else would anyone persist in rejecting the science that demonstrates otherwise AND has been corroborated?
| Fox wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Agree with you here. But they've got to draw the line somewhere, and 16-18 seems to make the most sense, since most are still in school under that age. |
We don't actually have to draw a hard line, though. Rather, being of age 18 or below could simply be a "flag" rather than a determiner, warranting investigation but not necessarily litigation. Talk to the minor; try to design a simple series of questions which can determine whether or not they're really capable of understanding sex and consenting to it (most of them will probably pass such a test). |
jvalmer, why must we draw a line? Why can't cases be considered individually, as Fox suggests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| nor does it justify repeatedly violating the ToS. |
I never called you anything directly, but nice try at a whine. |
This entire post is ad hominem:
| caniff wrote: |
Bacasper, all joking and NAMBLA-sponsored studies aside, do you think it would be cool to put your junk in a child?
If you think that's cool (and you come off as justifying it), you are sincerely messed up.
Leave the little ones alone. Why you would pick this battle I don't even wanna know, but please go back to worrying about your own grassy knoll and Roswell and the rest of the tin foil hat material.
You're a little creepy, and I don't think I'm alone in saying so.
Give it a good long rest. |
as well as this comment
| Quote: |
| to hell with your pseudo-crap. |
Nice try at a weasel. |
Okay, I did get a little ad hominemey (sorry), but I feel that you're line of reasoning opens the door to a slippery slope.
I also would feel more comfortable (as might kids in general) if there is zero tolerance approach taken in regards to adults having sexual contact with children.
I really don't care about peoples' sexual prediliictions, as long as it involves consenting adults. Children (our society has decided) are unable to provide that consent - and frankly I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Okay, I did get a little ad hominemey (sorry), but I feel that you're line of reasoning opens the door to a slippery slope. |
Apology appreciated, but just so we know what we are talking about, my line of reasoning is what specifically?
| Quote: |
I also would feel more comfortable (as might kids in general) if there is zero tolerance approach taken in regards to adults having sexual contact with children.
I really don't care about peoples' sexual prediliictions, as long as it involves consenting adults. Children (our society has decided) are unable to provide that consent - and frankly I agree. |
What is your definition of "child"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| Okay, I did get a little ad hominemey (sorry), but I feel that you're line of reasoning opens the door to a slippery slope. |
Apology appreciated, but just so we know what we are talking about, my line of reasoning is what specifically?
I'm not going to try to put words in your mouth, but I disagree for one thing about possessing kiddie porn. I believe it only serves to enhance the sexually objectification of children in some people's minds, and that it could lead to thoughts of "trying it out for oneself". Look, I believe there are people who would have these thoughts regardless, but allowing them a steady dose of such material seems very wrong to me.
| Quote: |
I also would feel more comfortable (as might kids in general) if there is zero tolerance approach taken in regards to adults having sexual contact with children.
I really don't care about peoples' sexual prediliictions, as long as it involves consenting adults. Children (our society has decided) are unable to provide that consent - and frankly I agree. |
What is your definition of "child"? |
You want me to pull out a number, based on my instinct rather than years of study? Okay, under 16 seems reasonable but also arbitrary.
Look, I agree that some sanity needs to injected into the debate (such as in cases like Fox pointed out about an 18 y.o. boinking his 17 y.o. girlfriend. Shoot, I'm a "victim" as well since I was dating a senior when I was a freshman in high school, but I certainly didn't feel like a victim then or since.
Sigh - I feel like the judge (U.S. Supreme Court ?) who famously said, in regards to what is obscene, "I know it when I see it."
I agree with zero tolerance, but I also agree that the limits shoud be recalibrated and in some cases flexibility should be a component. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I'm not going to try to put words in your mouth, but I disagree for one thing about possessing kiddie porn. I believe it only serves to enhance the sexually objectification of children in some people's minds, and that it could lead to thoughts of "trying it out for oneself". Look, I believe there are people who would have these thoughts regardless, but allowing them a steady dose of such material seems very wrong to me. |
What I have railed against is the overbroad application of these laws, thus ensnaring teenage lovers, parents and grandparents. Combine that with draconian sentencing, and it makes for tremendous injustices.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| What is your definition of "child"? |
You want me to pull out a number, based on my instinct rather than years of study? Okay, under 16 seems reasonable but also arbitrary.
Look, I agree that some sanity needs to injected into the debate (such as in cases like Fox pointed out about an 18 y.o. boinking his 17 y.o. girlfriend. Shoot, I'm a "victim" as well since I was dating a senior when I was a freshman in high school, but I certainly didn't feel like a victim then or since.
Sigh - I feel like the judge (U.S. Supreme Court ?) who famously said, in regards to what is obscene, "I know it when I see it."
I agree with zero tolerance, but I also agree that the limits shoud be recalibrated and in some cases flexibility should be a component. |
Yes, 16 is arbitrary, and there will always be those borderline cases which are grey areas. How can you possibly have zero tolerance when clear definitions are not made? It is illogical to ask for zero tolerance and flexibility simultaneously.
And I'd be careful of making the admission you just did. Teens have been locked up for contempt of court for failing to denounce their boy/girlfriends, and you could also be charged with accessory to child sex abuse.
So how does it feel to be a child sex predator enabler? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
