I looked and looked, but everywhere I checked said that either Denmark or more often no one "owns" the north pole. Of course, since it's not land anyway, I'm not sure anyone could truly own it. Do you have a source I could see?
Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters?
In the weeks after columbine, a Canadian tried to do copy-cat killing spree. But being Canadian, and apparently an idiot, he didn't have access to firearms, and he tried it with a knife. Result: 6 (IIRC) injured, including the idiot himself, no one killed. Why? Because it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and if you come at guy with a knife in a school, you risk getting beaten down with a chair.
If the Columbine kids had access to better weapons, they would simply have suceeded in killig more people.
But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools, and they'll suspend you for simply looking like you're thinking about shooting someone, there hasn't been as many school kid massacres. Just like there haven't been that many "ramming jet planes full of fuel and people into crowded buildings" recently either. I guess attention-seeking assassins want to be original in their murders.
Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.
The "cops" did most of the dammage there. Nerve gas before that... Man, it sucks being an hostage in or around Russia: the terrorists are doing as much as the government to keep you alive!
No: Adams had written a zillionth draft, one he considered "final".
Then he died. And the studio rewrote the script, most probably to undo all the compromises they had to grant Adams.
Damn I'm tired of repeating this. Here, read how the CEO of the studio spins it:
It was well over a year after his passing that Douglas' widow, Jane Adams, encouraged us to move forward with the film as Douglas undoubtedly would have wanted. Karey Kirkpatrick, who had written the hugely successful "Chicken Run",
was hired to complete the work Douglas had started on a film adaption of the book.
"Had started". Ah! That's not how he put it, before he died.
I have followed all of the movies and Ep II is way too complicated (not to mention boring). I had to watch it three times in order to understand ANY of the politics (on HBO -- I wasn't about to pay to see the movies in the theater again).
I consider Ep II to suffer from a similar problem to Godfather III. Each movie is way too complex (the Senatorial politics of Ep II/the Vatican politics of G-III)). And, each movie has one horrendous acting performance (Hayden Christiansen/Sophia Coppolla).
The Imax version of EpII was quite good. For technical reasons they had to cut over 20 minuttes from the film for it to fit on an Imax reel, so it's the same movie, but with 20 minutes less of Anakin whining. Much better movie, I think I'm even gonna wait for the Imax of epIII, spare me the useless bits.
Nobody is forcing you to watch it, but there are those of us who enjoy the show.
I have only seen season one eps... dear lord tell me you didn't actually LIKE those! The crap, the lameness! Argh!
Whenever a channel I recieve gets arouns to the "good" season (the current one), I'll try to see if it's true that they, er, what's the opposite of jumping a shark? Burrowed under the tiger?
He did actually do some harm. He is some way contributed to the demand for child porn. Some poor kid had to get abused for the photograph he has hoarded on his computer. That could have been one kid who wasnt abused but for the demand this guy created for kiddy porn.
There's so many things wrong with that broken logic I don't know where to begin.
The fact that the pictures were already produced? The fact that the people who did the abuse would have done it anyway?
So many... I'll just leave you to your well-meaning insanity I guess.
Verbal abuse. "Suck my dick, Vicky", and so on and so forth. Showing them porn pictures, spying on them like that guy in the article, etc.
None of those meet the definition of "child molestation".
Main Entry: molest
Pronunciation: m&-'lest Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass 1 : to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect 2 : to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on
Sexual interaction with children is not OK, but the thing that makes it horribly awful is the way our society treats sexuality and children.
I was interested in girls from about 8 or 9 on. And it wasn't because of any exposure to sexuality from inappropriate sources either. I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do with them, but I was interested, and I purposely spent a lot of time with them.
The thing is, children have a sexuality, but it's distinct from the sexuality of adults.
Keeping those two separate is good, but people also tend to deny children their sexuality. Which is bad. Teaching them what is and isn't appropriate, what is to be done only in private, etc, is fine, but here's a "sex is bad mmmkay" attitude that isn't healthy.
Take the whole "OMG kids see pr0n on the net" fiasco. The first pron movie I saw was a copied tape when I was 14. It showed blowjobs and "facials" that I didn't want to see. I wanted to look at naked women, not see them do that gross stuff with hairy men. But nooooooo, ALL nudity is treated the same. "Softcore" nudity (I wanted to see stuff at 14, not just plastic boobs in glamour settings, I wanted natural and exposed) or hardcore gangbangs are treated equally, so kids who would be more than happy with naked girls frolicking end up getting hardcore full-on porn.
Boys get interested in girls before they are 18, denying them the right to learn about girls until they are 18 is insane. Treating simple nudity and the ritualised acts of the pornographic industry as one and the same is completely irrational, and counterproductive.
I think a more rational approach to this issue would do us a whole lot of good.
I think that applies to every single thing in the world : )
Ask the Manhattan Project people. Ask Nobel. In this case, it's not: "Bad people might also use them." This is the information age. Bad people WILL use this.
Did Novel refrain from making dynamite just because bad people could then use it?
Why do you think this is the case? - Does it have anyhting to do with the type of crime that molestation is?
It's because no matter how low you get, you need someone lower than you. They need to feel that what THEY did isn't that bad, so they have a standard of what is worse than anything. Beat up another dad at your son's hockey game? At least you didn't touch a kid inapropriatly. Stole an convent's renovation money? You can always make yourself look and feel better by throwing feces on the bed of the child molester.
The guy that is in prison for assault and battery gets to assault and beat up the guy in there for touching kids (I'm in Canada, they got wise and don't put these types of people together, knowing full well that it's a death sentence for the pedophile). Whatever you do to them is ok because touching kids is the lowest of the low.
Hetereosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, S&M, watersports, pedophilia etc are all the same, a sexual orientation you are born with.
People aren't born with an interest in urine, or in giving and recieving pain. All that stuff is learned behaviours.
The "I was born that way" argument is just an attempt to legitimise it, to put it on the same level as races, so that they can recieve the same "protection" as for racial discrimination.
Likewise, a psychologist friend of mine was pointing out recently that the Internet has made it easier than ever before to catch child molesters without making any significent increase in the numbers of them. In other words: the Internet is the single greatest anti-child-molestation system ever invented.
Sure. But how many of those are just lurkers, hoarding the kiddie porn but not actually touching the kids?
Maybe they're catching them before they act, but then, you send a guy in the hell that is the prison system for something that didn't actually harm anyone, I'm kinda worried that when he gets out he's gonna want to get in on the real action. And will have been desensitized to violent sexual agressions. Hopefully not.
Now, there are people out there making the kiddie porn. These people scare me. I'd be extatic if the police concentrated their effort through interpol in catching these sick fucks, but knowing human nature, and from paying attention to the news, I know that lazy cops are simply busting the local hoarders. The more "electronic child pornography files" the better. They get to look like heroes by arresting non-dangerous targets with massive amounts of increminating evidence. Looks good on your record, stuff like that.
And instead you would have them let out again and molesting more children. That's humane? You are a sympathiser. Child molestor's who spend 50 years in jail come out and fuck kiddie's again. There is no CURE for this, IMHO death penalty is the ONLY OPTIONS
The recidivism rate for child molesters is around 17 percent, according to Dr. Karl Hanson, a psychologist with the Office of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in Canada and a leading researcher in the field. Already far lower than the public tends to think, the rate may drop by as much as seven points with the completion of a cognitive-behavioral program like D'Amora's.
However, it can also allow someone to satisfy that desire through sheer fantasy (written stories, role-playing, artwork, etc.), removing the need to act upon the desire in real life.
True, but kiddie-porn spam could rekindle a dormant abherrant fantasy.
I wonder why police don't focus on these people, they are not only abusing children, but doing it as a business.
If you ask me, the right to anonymity should be above all, but it kinda makes you sad when you think how encryption could be used by these molesters in order to avoid police, FBI and such.
Hmmm...
If you ask me, the right to [a car] should be above all, but it kinda makes you sad when you think how [a car] could be used by these molesters in order to avoid police, FBI and such.
Let's not ban good things because bad people might also use them. 'kay?
The article refers to these people as monsters. I can see how someone who hurts children is a monster.
But, I wonder. What about those that are in the initial phase of this "monstrosity". Does that are feeling sexually attracted to children, who have thoughts about acting on those feelings, but haven't harmed anyone yet. What can they do?
The thoughts they have makes them monster to 99% of people. They're not gonna get help, they're gonna repress those feelings, let these frustrated impulses fester, until it overruns their reason and they finally go ahead and find themselves a small defenseless child to make their victim.
I think that making this a thought crime to be hidden is making the real crime, the one with victims, more common. The article mentions judgement, and a treatment to learn to controll their evil impulses. Wouldn't it be better if they learned to controll themselves before they did things that they can't take back?
I wonder how many people we know have these feelings... just waiting to find themselves in a situation where it'll come out... scary.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked and looked, but everywhere I checked said that either Denmark or more often no one "owns" the north pole.
Of course, since it's not land anyway, I'm not sure anyone could truly own it.
Do you have a source I could see?
You could ask the government of Canada.
Or CNN.
You didn't even bother to look at Wikipedia?
Canada IS NOT the northern most country. That would be Greenland (Denmark).
Canada owns the North Pole. Can't go any further north than "around the north pole".
Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters?
In the weeks after columbine, a Canadian tried to do copy-cat killing spree. But being Canadian, and apparently an idiot, he didn't have access to firearms, and he tried it with a knife. Result: 6 (IIRC) injured, including the idiot himself, no one killed. Why? Because it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and if you come at guy with a knife in a school, you risk getting beaten down with a chair.
If the Columbine kids had access to better weapons, they would simply have suceeded in killig more people.
But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools, and they'll suspend you for simply looking like you're thinking about shooting someone, there hasn't been as many school kid massacres. Just like there haven't been that many "ramming jet planes full of fuel and people into crowded buildings" recently either. I guess attention-seeking assassins want to be original in their murders.
Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.
The "cops" did most of the dammage there.
Nerve gas before that... Man, it sucks being an hostage in or around Russia: the terrorists are doing as much as the government to keep you alive!
No: Adams had written a zillionth draft, one he considered "final".
Then he died.
And the studio rewrote the script, most probably to undo all the compromises they had to grant Adams.
Damn I'm tired of repeating this.
Here, read how the CEO of the studio spins it:
"Had started". Ah! That's not how he put it, before he died.
I have followed all of the movies and Ep II is way too complicated (not to mention boring). I had to watch it three times in order to understand ANY of the politics (on HBO -- I wasn't about to pay to see the movies in the theater again).
I consider Ep II to suffer from a similar problem to Godfather III. Each movie is way too complex (the Senatorial politics of Ep II/the Vatican politics of G-III)). And, each movie has one horrendous acting performance (Hayden Christiansen/Sophia Coppolla).
The Imax version of EpII was quite good.
For technical reasons they had to cut over 20 minuttes from the film for it to fit on an Imax reel, so it's the same movie, but with 20 minutes less of Anakin whining.
Much better movie, I think I'm even gonna wait for the Imax of epIII, spare me the useless bits.
He's breaking the things that he originally wrote to wink at the audience, and that's stupid.
I think George Lucas and Rick Berman meet secretly in dark places to scheme, laughing, drinking to "evil", wearing purple and green outfits.
Nobody is forcing you to watch it, but there are those of us who enjoy the show.
I have only seen season one eps... dear lord tell me you didn't actually LIKE those! The crap, the lameness! Argh!
Whenever a channel I recieve gets arouns to the "good" season (the current one), I'll try to see if it's true that they, er, what's the opposite of jumping a shark? Burrowed under the tiger?
my hair is just as much human cells as an embryo - no crime getting it cut.
Only the growing basal part of the hair is alive. The rest is dead, which is why it doesn't hurt when you cut it, but it does you pull it.
I don't disagree with your point, but your example is way off : )
He did actually do some harm. He is some way contributed to the demand for child porn. Some poor kid had to get abused for the photograph he has hoarded on his computer. That could have been one kid who wasnt abused but for the demand this guy created for kiddy porn.
There's so many things wrong with that broken logic I don't know where to begin.
The fact that the pictures were already produced?
The fact that the people who did the abuse would have done it anyway?
So many...
I'll just leave you to your well-meaning insanity I guess.
On the outside, as a corrections client, he PROBABLY gets punished again if he re-offends. On the inside, he won't have a chance to re-offend.
So... no one should ever be left out of prison? One strike and you're out, forever?
None of those meet the definition of "child molestation".
Sexual interaction with children is not OK, but the thing that makes it horribly awful is the way our society treats sexuality and children.
I was interested in girls from about 8 or 9 on. And it wasn't because of any exposure to sexuality from inappropriate sources either. I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do with them, but I was interested, and I purposely spent a lot of time with them.
The thing is, children have a sexuality, but it's distinct from the sexuality of adults.
Keeping those two separate is good, but people also tend to deny children their sexuality. Which is bad.
Teaching them what is and isn't appropriate, what is to be done only in private, etc, is fine, but here's a "sex is bad mmmkay" attitude that isn't healthy.
Take the whole "OMG kids see pr0n on the net" fiasco. The first pron movie I saw was a copied tape when I was 14. It showed blowjobs and "facials" that I didn't want to see.
I wanted to look at naked women, not see them do that gross stuff with hairy men. But nooooooo, ALL nudity is treated the same. "Softcore" nudity (I wanted to see stuff at 14, not just plastic boobs in glamour settings, I wanted natural and exposed) or hardcore gangbangs are treated equally, so kids who would be more than happy with naked girls frolicking end up getting hardcore full-on porn.
Boys get interested in girls before they are 18, denying them the right to learn about girls until they are 18 is insane.
Treating simple nudity and the ritualised acts of the pornographic industry as one and the same is completely irrational, and counterproductive.
I think a more rational approach to this issue would do us a whole lot of good.
I think that applies to every single thing in the world : )
I'm 32 [...]
On the other hand, I doubt I'll ever date a 19 year old again. Those chicks are nuts!!
High five!
I made that decision when I was 24.
Ask the Manhattan Project people. Ask Nobel. In this case, it's not: "Bad people might also use them." This is the information age. Bad people WILL use this.
Did Novel refrain from making dynamite just because bad people could then use it?
Why do you think this is the case? - Does it have anyhting to do with the type of crime that molestation is?
It's because no matter how low you get, you need someone lower than you. They need to feel that what THEY did isn't that bad, so they have a standard of what is worse than anything.
Beat up another dad at your son's hockey game? At least you didn't touch a kid inapropriatly.
Stole an convent's renovation money? You can always make yourself look and feel better by throwing feces on the bed of the child molester.
The guy that is in prison for assault and battery gets to assault and beat up the guy in there for touching kids (I'm in Canada, they got wise and don't put these types of people together, knowing full well that it's a death sentence for the pedophile). Whatever you do to them is ok because touching kids is the lowest of the low.
I am assuming that you do not have any children -
These people in general - and this animal Roy in particular have no business walking the street.
Animal?
RTFA: He came on to her and touched her hips, all the way down to the elastic band of her underware.
He did a little prison, he's on probation for 35 years. Part of his probation is to never be anywhere with young girls.
Aside from a sadistic desire to see him suffer as much as possible, how could his punishment be more effective if he were in prison?
Hetereosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, S&M, watersports, pedophilia etc are all the same, a sexual orientation you are born with.
People aren't born with an interest in urine, or in giving and recieving pain. All that stuff is learned behaviours.
The "I was born that way" argument is just an attempt to legitimise it, to put it on the same level as races, so that they can recieve the same "protection" as for racial discrimination.
Errr....what protocol, exactly, does one use to employ the internet as a "vehicle for child molestation"?
Verbal abuse.
"Suck my dick, Vicky", and so on and so forth. Showing them porn pictures, spying on them like that guy in the article, etc.
Likewise, a psychologist friend of mine was pointing out recently that the Internet has made it easier than ever before to catch child molesters without making any significent increase in the numbers of them. In other words: the Internet is the single greatest anti-child-molestation system ever invented.
Sure.
But how many of those are just lurkers, hoarding the kiddie porn but not actually touching the kids?
Maybe they're catching them before they act, but then, you send a guy in the hell that is the prison system for something that didn't actually harm anyone, I'm kinda worried that when he gets out he's gonna want to get in on the real action. And will have been desensitized to violent sexual agressions. Hopefully not.
Now, there are people out there making the kiddie porn. These people scare me. I'd be extatic if the police concentrated their effort through interpol in catching these sick fucks, but knowing human nature, and from paying attention to the news, I know that lazy cops are simply busting the local hoarders. The more "electronic child pornography files" the better. They get to look like heroes by arresting non-dangerous targets with massive amounts of increminating evidence. Looks good on your record, stuff like that.
Sometimes, when the discussion is way over your head, you can best contribute by keeping quiet.
I see you're philosophy is "do as I say, not as I do".
So, your great-great-grandparents were sick fucks when they got married at 14 and had kids a year later?
My grandfather was Jerry Lee Lewis, you insensitive clod!
P.S. Crap, I just made a joke in a pedophelia thread, I'm going to hell! Oh no!
However, it can also allow someone to satisfy that desire through sheer fantasy (written stories, role-playing, artwork, etc.), removing the need to act upon the desire in real life.
True, but kiddie-porn spam could rekindle a dormant abherrant fantasy.
I wonder why police don't focus on these people, they are not only abusing children, but doing it as a business.
If you ask me, the right to anonymity should be above all, but it kinda makes you sad when you think how encryption could be used by these molesters in order to avoid police, FBI and such.
Hmmm...
If you ask me, the right to [a car] should be above all, but it kinda makes you sad when you think how [a car] could be used by these molesters in order to avoid police, FBI and such.
Let's not ban good things because bad people might also use them. 'kay?
The article refers to these people as monsters.
I can see how someone who hurts children is a monster.
But, I wonder. What about those that are in the initial phase of this "monstrosity". Does that are feeling sexually attracted to children, who have thoughts about acting on those feelings, but haven't harmed anyone yet.
What can they do?
The thoughts they have makes them monster to 99% of people. They're not gonna get help, they're gonna repress those feelings, let these frustrated impulses fester, until it overruns their reason and they finally go ahead and find themselves a small defenseless child to make their victim.
I think that making this a thought crime to be hidden is making the real crime, the one with victims, more common. The article mentions judgement, and a treatment to learn to controll their evil impulses. Wouldn't it be better if they learned to controll themselves before they did things that they can't take back?
I wonder how many people we know have these feelings... just waiting to find themselves in a situation where it'll come out... scary.