Frank Merton wrote:I see pedophilia as a medical issue that has criminal aspects when acted out. The public hysteria and the selling of newspapers and the gaining of TV ratings by stirring up this hysteria is particularly distasteful.

In Vietnam 18 is the age of consent and under 14 and the police get involved, but there is no publicity destroying the families and lives involved. A tribunal sorts it out quietly and may send the offender to jail but more likely a "re-education camp" (Vietnam is not a country to visit if you are looking for sex of any sort. Of course sex happens here, even prostitution, but it is not advisable), although the worst that usually happens to foreigners in ordinary sex crimes is expulsion (especially in countries where the foreigner then has to deal with his or her own country's laws).

Crimes are crimes Frank. Part of the problem with crimes in a religious setting is that churches and ministers "get a free ride" in terms of community trust, often meaning police will not question clerics on principle etc. Further, in some religions various sexual offenders will try and use religion as making them immune from the laws of the land. When I was a teacher at Uni, I had to keep my police clearence certificate current. It was assumed as part of the job. But few religious clerics or teachers are compelled to this, and in many jurisdictions, it is not even a legal requirement, or if it is, it is not enforced. There was a recent case in Australia of a Muslim man marrying a very young girl [12 yo or summat] and in his defence he said the girl was willing and it was compatible with his faith. This is the sort of shit we have to deal with, and the Royal Commission on child abuse is beginning to adress this, and hopefully loopholes will be closed and this sort of predation on innocents will be reduced.

Crimes are acts some appropriate body (legislature) has deemed worthy of criminal penalties. The interests of society, not the moral attitudes of anyone, should be the predominate consideration, even though I will admit that often is not the case.

I do not see pedophilia as a crime; I do see rape as a crime and when one partner is too young to give reasoned consent, then it becomes rape. These are things that should be investigated by the police and social workers and then resolved by an appropriate tribunal, generally on a case by case basis and without the glare of publicity serving to interfere with the outcome that is best for all, or at least does the least harm. This is one of my criticisms of most Western societies where they seem determined to destroy the lives of the child and the family.

Frank Merton wrote:Crimes are acts some appropriate body (legislature) has deemed worthy of criminal penalties. The interests of society, not the moral attitudes of anyone, should be the predominate consideration, even though I will admit that often is not the case.

I do not see pedophilia as a crime; I do see rape as a crime and when one partner is too young to give reasoned consent, then it becomes rape. These are things that should be investigated by the police and social workers and then resolved by an appropriate tribunal, generally on a case by case basis and without the glare of publicity serving to interfere with the outcome that is best for all, or at least does the least harm. This is one of my criticisms of most Western societies where they seem determined to destroy the lives of the child and the family.

Pedophillia is not a crime, but the sexual assault of a child is, and that is what we are talking about Frank. There is considerable scientific and medical evidence as to the physical and mental damage done to children from these violent assaults. Don't try to sugar-coat this shit.
The aim is to save such children [both those who have been abused], and those who are at risk. If a cleric or family member is abusing a child then that is a dysfunctional situation that needs remedy. Victims need medical and psychological support, and the [convicted] predators need to be locked up to make the community safe.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Frank Merton wrote:Crimes are acts some appropriate body (legislature) has deemed worthy of criminal penalties. The interests of society, not the moral attitudes of anyone, should be the predominate consideration, even though I will admit that often is not the case.

I do not see pedophilia as a crime; I do see rape as a crime and when one partner is too young to give reasoned consent, then it becomes rape. These are things that should be investigated by the police and social workers and then resolved by an appropriate tribunal, generally on a case by case basis and without the glare of publicity serving to interfere with the outcome that is best for all, or at least does the least harm. This is one of my criticisms of most Western societies where they seem determined to destroy the lives of the child and the family.

Pedophillia is not a crime, but the sexual assault of a child is, and that is what we are talking about Frank. There is considerable scientific and medical evidence as to the physical and mental damage done to children from these violent assaults. Don't try to sugar-coat this shit.
The aim is to save such children [both those who have been abused], and those who are at risk. If a cleric or family member is abusing a child then that is a dysfunctional situation that needs remedy. Victims need medical and psychological support, and the [convicted] predators need to be locked up to make the community safe.

I will sugar-coat this if it needs it, and your attitude strikes me as doing more harm than good. That a sexual assault has happened has to be determined, then whether or not there is a pattern. The age and attitude of the victim is all at issue, as well as the details of the circumstance (such as whether or not the child was harmed).

Whether all children subject to sexual abuse are harmed is likely, but so are all children subjected to parental abuse in the name of discipline. So what subsequently needs doing is to minimize the damage, and that means keeping it out of the newspapers and keeping the lawyers away.

Frank Merton wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Frank Merton wrote:Crimes are acts some appropriate body (legislature) has deemed worthy of criminal penalties. The interests of society, not the moral attitudes of anyone, should be the predominate consideration, even though I will admit that often is not the case.

I do not see pedophilia as a crime; I do see rape as a crime and when one partner is too young to give reasoned consent, then it becomes rape. These are things that should be investigated by the police and social workers and then resolved by an appropriate tribunal, generally on a case by case basis and without the glare of publicity serving to interfere with the outcome that is best for all, or at least does the least harm. This is one of my criticisms of most Western societies where they seem determined to destroy the lives of the child and the family.

Pedophillia is not a crime, but the sexual assault of a child is, and that is what we are talking about Frank. There is considerable scientific and medical evidence as to the physical and mental damage done to children from these violent assaults. Don't try to sugar-coat this shit.
The aim is to save such children [both those who have been abused], and those who are at risk. If a cleric or family member is abusing a child then that is a dysfunctional situation that needs remedy. Victims need medical and psychological support, and the [convicted] predators need to be locked up to make the community safe.

I will sugar-coat this if it needs it, and your attitude strikes me as doing more harm than good. That a sexual assault has happened has to be determined, then whether or not there is a pattern. The age and attitude of the victim is all at issue, as well as the details of the circumstance (such as whether or not the child was harmed).

Whether all children subject to sexual abuse are harmed is likely, but so are all children subjected to parental abuse in the name of discipline. So what subsequently needs doing is to minimize the damage, and that means keeping it out of the newspapers and keeping the lawyers away.

Please read before you say anything else.

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

You are either ignorant/incredibly naive about this matter, or a child abuser yourself.

No, conspiracy theories are not destroying democracy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24650841

Wait a minute! Aren't these the people who broadcast a video reporting a building having collapsed with the building still standing in the video?

They have the nerve to talk about conspiracies?

psik

Yeah, the same people who reported the death of Gabrielle Giffords.

No conspiracy, just cock up.

psikeyhackr wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24650841

Wait a minute! Aren't these the people who broadcast a video reporting a building having collapsed with the building still standing in the video?

They have the nerve to talk about conspiracies?

psik

Far more fruitful would be an investigation into how conspiracies are destroying democracy. There's almost infinite materials available of actual malfeasance and criminal acts against the public interest, and one need not depend on crackpot ideas about what 'conspiracy theorists' are thinking or their alleged 'psychology'.

But apparently it's more trendy to vilify 'conspiracy theorists' than to understand the reality of our situation.

proudfootz wrote:Far more fruitful would be an investigation into how conspiracies are destroying democracy.

But apparently it's more trendy to vilify 'conspiracy theorists' than to understand the reality of our situation.

Is the lack of scientific understanding on the part of the majority of the population a large part of what is wrong with democracy in a technological society?

If we had a society where 30% of the population could recognize what was wrong with the physics of the twin towers wouldn't the perps have concluded it was too dumb an idea to even try? It never would have happened.

That is why I no longer care who did it. The issue is an educational system that wastes kid's time on trivia. Compare Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story. That was so useful.

psik

Paul wrote::roll:

Yeah, the same people who reported the death of Gabrielle Giffords.

No conspiracy, just cock up.

People die all of the time. Did they have live video of Gifford while they reported her death? How often do buildings over 300 feet tall collapse? What kind of "cock up" predicts an event that almost never happens as though it had already happened? If they reported the collapse and then it didn't happen I would call that a "cock up".

psik

psikeyhackr wrote:Is the lack of scientific understanding on the part of the majority of the population a large part of what is wrong with democracy in a technological society?

Personally, I think the real issue is people not bright enough to realise that they are out of their depth, whether in science, engineering, or statistics.

People who actual scientists and engineers would typically laugh at behind their backs, if not in their faces, yet who think having a little knowledge qualifies them to pontificate on whatever they choose, and who automatically blame differences of opinion between them and anyone else as being due to everyone's failings but their own.

As Dirty Harry said: A man's got to be aware of his limitations.

tolman wrote:As Dirty Harry said: A man's got to be aware of his limitations.

Yeah, we have had almost FIFTEEN YEARS to notice that making physical or virtual models of the north tower collapse has been beyond the limitations of all of our engineering schools.

So all some other people can do is blow smoke and try to make this a personal issue instead of a matter of physics.

Get everyone to understand 8th grade physics. What engineering school has said anything about the center of mass of the tilted top portion ofthe south tower in 15 years?

psik

So says someone whose engineering experience extends to making retarded paper models and then whining about actual engineers.

Have many people punched you in the face in the last fifteen years?

If not, does that prove it was 'beyond their limitations'?

To me, it would suggest their experience told them they had better things to do to and/or you weren't worth the bother.

Though I suspect if you kept on badgering many of the engineers I know, they might do a Buzz Aldrin and take a different view.

The job of engineers is engineering, not trying to satisfy people like you, which you have amply demonstrated is a waste of time.

DougC wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24650841

B.B.C. Article
The more information we have about what governments and corporations are up to the less we seem to trust them. Will conspiracy theories eventually destroy democracy?
What if I told you I had conclusive proof that the moon landings were faked, but I had been told to keep it under wraps by my BBC bosses acting under orders from the CIA, NSA and MI6. Most of you would think I had finally lost my mind.
But, for some, that scenario - a journalist working for a mainstream media organisation being manipulated by shadowy forces to keep vital information from the public - would seem entirely plausible, or even likely.
We live in a golden age for conspiracy theories. There is a growing assumption that everything we are told by the authorities is wrong, or not quite as it seems. That the truth is being manipulated or obscured by powerful vested interests.
And, in some cases, it is.

(Continues)

There is a solution to the problem of conspiracy theorists and their belief that everything we are told by our authorative representatives is wrong, being, to do away with the authorative representatives.

I know what i am saying is sounding daft.

But in actual fact, in a true democracy, it should be the people that are running the country, and by the fact we view our "leaders" as being "authority figures" means democracy is already not truelly in place, as those representatives, should really only be passing bills voted on by the people, with their own opinions being irrelevant.

Democracy is a form of government in which the people exercise the authority of government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

The democracy we currently have, is "representative democracy", which is where we elect officials to represent the people.

representative government or is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Though some may argue we do not really even have this, what we may have is more like a dictator democracy where we elect 4 year dictators that make all the decisions.

A real democracy would be direct democracy where the people make the decisions.

pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly. This differs from the majority of currently established democracies, which are representative democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Obviously having the people making all the decisions on policy making based upon voting on every decision, may appear harder than simply electing representatives, though it might just work in this day and age of internet, when one could simply log in to "mygov", in the morning.

So maybe the collapse of our current democratic system, would not be the end of the world, and could be replaced with an even more democratic system.

It would sort out a lot of the problems regards to conspiracy theorists worrying about what our authoritarians are doing.
Though i can see a lot of issues that would need tackling aswell, as obviously there would be the argument, are people intelligent enough and knowledgable enough to vote on policy making?

But yes, they may be destroying our current version of democracy.

Nevets wrote:I know what i am saying is sounding daft.

But in actual fact, in a true democracy

Not anything so dramatic. This is just the sight of somebody making love to the sentences he types. Would any demoncracy let one guy with a keyboard and a library narcissistically define for it what a true democracy is?

There is a solution to the problem of conspiracy theorists and their belief that everything we are told by our authorative representatives is wrong, being, to do away with the authorative representatives.

I know what i am saying is sounding daft.

But in actual fact, in a true democracy, it should be the people that are running the country, and by the fact we view our "leaders" as being "authority figures" means democracy is already not truelly in place, as those representatives, should really only be passing bills voted on by the people, with their own opinions being irrelevant.

That makes no sense at all. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

Factually, a democracy is run by the people. Those politicians go from being a normal part of the electorate to getting elected. They can also be changed.

However, human institutions self-structure, not created willingly by any one person, but by cumulative cultural practice. The Stanford Prison Experiment is a good example of this - normal dudes get randomly selected to be prisoners or prison guards, and they fall into their roles; some guards being authoritarian asshats, and the prisoners passively accepting their abuse. That effect in the political sphere gives the appearance to some people of there being a political class, whereas, it's really just them wearing the culturally respective cap.

Regardless of all this, the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that a democratic system can be expected to decide what's true; that's just a fundamental misconception. No political theorist holds that democracy produces true answers; it just aspires to solve problems to the preference of the majority. As such, when you have a poorly equipped electorate, they're going to elect representatives that are similarly poorly equipped to address problems that aren't solvable with opinions.

Even if 100% of the electorate believe climate change is false, the universe isn't obliged to change to accommodate their beliefs expressed by their democratic selection process. Instead, what happens, is you have people elected who engage in false information - like conspiracy theories - to wave away factual events and politicize them because that is literally the only way they can conceive of these issues. They're not cackling in smoky rooms about how they're pulling the wool over their citizens' eyes; they're just as ignorant as the next person.

Democracy, as Churchill said, is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. You end up with the government you deserve because of the character of the citizenry of your nation. It's no good blaming it on anyone else - it's your fellows who made it happen, so the idea that you can do away with representatives and just have not political people running the show is nonsensical as the extant system is basically that just a little more streamlined, and there's no suggestion whatsoever that a purely direct democracy would achieve any better - in factual terms - results.

Nevets wrote:democracy is already not truelly in place

Truelly! Really-o, and truelly-o. In real, genuine reality. But is it truelly, authentically genuine? Or should we be talking about reallity?

In the run up to the election here in November I see some people in my social circle freaking out about how all memes are part of a Kremlin plot to overthrow America.