Would you accept a child molester.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your ideas and opinions are coming across as pompous, condescending, insulting, reductive

Any argument countering such simplistic and naive opinions as proposed by some here would inevitably end up sounding pompous, condescending, insulting and reductive. There really are only so ways of telling someone they're talking horseshìt, I'm afraid.

and relaying lazily on the old devils advocate stance to avoid putting forth your own dumb opinions to be criticised and torn apart.

And again, I have not avoided this, I have given my own opinion on this subject in another thread and have said so and where. There people did attack my opinion and rather than whinge about being bullied by the liberal agenda, I defended it.

Really you ought to stop saying such STUPID things that demean the whole argument just so you can feel better about the remedial ideas that pop out of your head.

You've not really demonstrated anything stupid that I may have said though. You've accused me of a few things without citing anything specific and I've rebutted this.

Now it might cheer up certain posters to hear you on the soap box, but in terms of debate you've not done much more than introduced a bit of rabble rousing rhetoric.

Talk about insecurity.:rolleyes:

LOL. Pot. Kettle. Principessa.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Any argument countering such simplistic and naive opinions as proposed by some here would inevitably end up sounding pompous, condescending, insulting and reductive. There really are only so ways of telling someone they're talking horseshìt, I'm afraid.

And again, I have not avoided this, I have given my own opinion on this subject in another thread and have said so and where. There people did attack my opinion and rather than whinge about being bullied by the liberal agenda, I defended it.

You've not really demonstrated anything stupid that I may have said though. You've accused me of a few things without citing anything specific and I've rebutted this.

Now it might cheer up certain posters to hear you on the soap box, but in terms of debate you've not done much more than introduced a bit of rabble rousing rhetoric.

LOL. Pot. Kettle. Principessa.

My post wasnt to contest your arguments or affirm them, but to demonstrate a linguistic game.

Not to worry, I'll bring out the finger puppets for you.

Eck.. I'll stop picking on you now, not really a fair fight.

pwd

Someone who molests children is clearly a sociopath.
Someone who has kids with a child molestor is clearly an idiot.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

My post wasnt to contest your arguments or affirm them, but to demonstrate a linguistic game.

You accused me of a linguistic game, not demonstrated it though.

Eck.. I'll stop picking on you now, not really a fair fight.

I'll concede that we are having a linguistic game now, if it makes it easier for you then.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

You accused me of a linguistic game, not demonstrated it though.

I'll concede that we are having a linguistic game now, if it makes it easier for you then.

I did, in post 201.

goat2

pwd wrote: »

Someone who molests children is clearly a sociopath.
Someone who has kids with a child molestor is clearly an idiot.

has anyone told her, that he is likely to molest again, and this time it could be her neighbour, or her own children by him,
will she go out evenings with family and friends and live the offsprings home with this man,
this is all future thinking
she would want to think hard

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I did, in post 201.

No, you clearly just made an accusation. Just saying something is so does not make it so or otherwise demonstrate it.

irishh_bob

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did the ruling psychiatrist cite personal liberty or some other topic common to 'PC Liberalism' when imposing this veto or was his/her reasoning, officially at least, medical?

Is your relative considered a danger to the community? How significant (public nuisance or a threat to life)? Would sectioning him substantially assist in his treatment or is it designed just get him out of sight?

Additionally, if he were to be sectioned, who pays for it? Could you have him sectioned if you went private? Could the consideration ultimately be budgetary?

Finally, is a delusional (seemingly schizophrenic) individual on a par as one who is in no way delusional, but has a sexual compulsion?

since when do senior medics explain themselves to mere mortals so no my extended family did not get a direct explanation as to why the application was vetoed , they were however told by several doctors ( of various kinds ) that its extremley rare for someone to be committed against thier will in this country unless you more or less kill someone and then it is through the criminal arena so its a judge who imposes incarceration and not a doctor , this IMO can be interpetrated as a liberal policy

as regards how much of a nuisance my cousin is , his mom and brother are both seriously depressed as a result of his behaviour , my aunts daughters havent been able to visit the family home in years for fear of attack , im not sure whether that meets present day criteria in terms of warranting institutionalisation , one thing i do know is that a day will come when the state will be forced to act in dealing with my cousin , wooly liberalism usually involves talking alot of shop , wringing hands and offering meaningless platitudes , thats ok for a while but eventually concrete efforts are required

irishh_bob

pwd wrote: »

Someone who molests children is clearly a sociopath.
Someone who has kids with a child molestor is clearly an idiot.

do you know how long the average sentence is for child mollestation in this country ???

six months , what i ask , makes the law believe that taking six months out of a sociopaths life is going to change thier tendencies in anyway , the liberal left who increasingly call the shots behind the scenes in this country , believe in taking equality to such an extreme that the future of a child mollestor is just as important to protect as that of an innocent kid

The Corinthian

irishh_bob wrote: »

since when do senior medics explain themselves to mere mortals so no my extended family did not get a direct explanation as to why the application was vetoed

Senior medics will give an explanation when you demand it - if they don't they get sued or worse - so I find that difficult to believe.

they were however told by several doctors ( of various kinds ) that its extremley rare for someone to be committed against thier will in this country unless you more or less kill someone and then it is through the criminal arena so its a judge who imposes incarceration and not a doctor , this IMO can be interpetrated as a liberal policy

And I've been told that there is no shortage of people who are committed by a solicitor who is on one of the panels representing them. So, should I believe you or him? Do you have evidence of your claims?

as regards how much of a nuisance my cousin is , his mom and brother are both seriously depressed as a result of his behaviour , my aunts daughters havent been able to visit the family home in years for fear of attack , im not sure whether that meets present day criteria in terms of warranting institutionalisation , one thing i do know is that a day will come when the state will be forced to act in dealing with my cousin , wooly liberalism usually involves talking alot of shop , wringing hands and offering meaningless platitudes , thats ok for a while but eventually concrete efforts are required

I'm sorry, but to be institutionalized you need behavior that may lead to serious endangerment of themselves or others. That your cousin may be a nutcase and one who makes life Hell for others, I'm sure is true, but were we to lock up people on the basis that they make life Hell for others, then most divorce cases would end up with one or both parties in the rubber room.

irishh_bob

The Corinthian wrote: »

Senior medics will give an explanation when you demand it - if they don't they get sued or worse - so I find that difficult to believe.

And I've been told that there is no shortage of people who are committed by a solicitor who is on one of the panels representing them. So, should I believe you or him? Do you have evidence of your claims?

I'm sorry, but to be institutionalized you need behavior that may lead to serious endangerment of themselves or others. That your cousin may be a nutcase and one who makes life Hell for others, I'm sure is true, but were we to lock up people on the basis that they make life Hell for others, then most divorce cases would end up with one or both parties in the rubber room.

how many cases have you hear of involving doctors that were sued , doctors botch operations and proceedures all the time resulting in people dieing and nothing happens , a doctor in drogheda removed hundreds of womens wombs and the f***er didnt even loose his pension, get real

as for your other comment , how many estranged husbands or wives freak thier partners out on a daily basis by telling them how much pain the guy reading the news will suffer in hell , thats the kind of ****e my cousin persecutes his immediete family with on a daily basis , screaming insane theorys at the top of his voice , its well for you that get can be so smug regarding the families of those who are not right in the head , like those who run mental health , your prepared to tollerate thier lives being made a hell in your pursuit of extending equality and rights to those who are not the full schilling

xxchloexx

Not a snowballs chance in hell. They disgust me , in my opinion they're nothing but scum. Absoloute filth , there is no way any child of mine would be near someone who looks at them in a sick way. Your job when you have children is to protect them at all times and make sure they are not in danger , by living with a child molester you are doing the total oposite , you never know when that dirt bag is going to touch a child again , once you have urges to touch a child your mentally not right in the head , lock them all up thats what i think!

metrovelvet

xxchloexx wrote: »

Not a snowballs chance in hell. They disgust me , in my opinion they're nothing but scum. Absoloute filth , there is no way any child of mine would be near someone who looks at them in a sick way. Your job when you have children is to protect them at all times and make sure they are not in danger , by living with a child molester you are doing the total oposite , you never know when that dirt bag is going to touch a child again , once you have urges to touch a child your mentally not right in the head , lock them all up thats what i think!

Part of the problem is they have managed to worm their way into the dsm manual under the listing "paraphliliac mental disorder". So people are looking at it now like a sex preference, like being gay or having a foot fetish or along those lines and leaving the sociopathic, vampiric, compulsive, predatory profile out of it.

In fact the APA had found themselves in a bit of a fix when NAMBLA celebrated the change. I think they are still sorting it out. I suspect you will find a change in the taxonomy again in a year or two.

The Corinthian

irishh_bob wrote: »

how many cases have you hear of involving doctors that were sued , doctors botch operations and proceedures all the time resulting in people dieing and nothing happens , a doctor in drogheda removed hundreds of womens wombs and the f***er didnt even loose his pension, get real

Actually most of the time the hospitals get sued and the doctors never practice again. Naturally this is not much help if the doctor is retired, but only because of lack of legislation - which has subsequently been introduced, I believe.

Nonetheless, the system of sectioning patents is legally regulated and there are special courts for this. I find it difficult to believe that given all this that your family cannot get an answer, let alone appeal such decisions.

as for your other comment , how many estranged husbands or wives freak thier partners out on a daily basis by telling them how much pain the guy reading the news will suffer in hell

Some certainly are that bad and harassment by ex's is a real problem for many - further inflamed in that ex's can use child custody, maintenance and legal harassment as weapons in such harassment.

Perfectly 'sane' people make the lives of others a misery all the time. I'm surprised you deny this.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Part of the problem is they have managed to worm their way into the dsm manual under the listing "paraphliliac mental disorder". So people are looking at it now like a sex preference, like being gay or having a foot fetish or along those lines and leaving the sociopathic, vampiric, compulsive, predatory profile out of it.

I'm going to really piss off some people now but...

Paraphilias are literally abnormal sexual orientations or preferences, and by abnormal, it simply means "not the norm or average".

Once homosexuality became accepted, then such preferences or orientations were no longer necessarily a bad thing and the question simply became one of boundaries and definitions. Sex is now fine as long as it's "between consenting individuals" - all comes down to how you define consenting or individuals. I'd foresee the decriminalization of consensual incest on this basis and what we call child abuse today is only so based upon an almost arbitrary age of consent, as low as 12 in places, and with no guarantee that it will not be lowered in the future.

This is not to say that a return to the days of Victorian sexual mores is preferable, only that there are always unforeseen consequences to our moral judgments.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm going to really piss off some people now but...

Paraphilias are literally abnormal sexual orientations or preferences, and by abnormal, it simply means "not the norm or average"..

You're taking this from the dsm I assume? You know that there are criticsims of it and it is being looked at again for its methodology.

This landed the APA in hot water because they them came out with a statement that it is still morally wrong, which as you know for a scientific organisation to come out with moral statements sort of raises eyebrows.

Anyhow...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Once homosexuality became accepted, then such preferences or orientations were no longer necessarily a bad thing and the question simply became one of boundaries and definitions. Sex is now fine as long as it's "between consenting individuals" - all comes down to how you define consenting or individuals. I'd foresee the decriminalization of consensual incest on this basis and what we call child abuse today is only so based upon an almost arbitrary age of consent, as low as 12 in places, and with no guarantee that it will not be lowered in the future.

.

Anyone could see this coming. Next they will be signed into the cohabitation bill. Equal rights and all that.

But give it a couple of years and the dsm will not list pedophilia as a sexial deviance but as part of a pathy-socio or psycho or will get its own taxonomy, and then it will be left out of the debate in your second paragraph.