I do not know who you think I am.  I can assure you that I am not the poster you chased off the site and don't plan to post reason why I sent you the pm. ...--Bbut I was amused to see that NASD is wanting to check our behavior which was myonly post.  Ask the mods to check my ip address against who asked to leave the site.  I am in training and just got hired as a fa at a company I don't want to mention. This topic isn't about the job.  It's about religion.  Whomit, you engaged me in this topic and when I call you on your faulty thinking, you do not allow me to address your reactions to my statements.  You are one-sided and if someone proves you to be wrong, you attempt to admonish them and accuse them of being "your friend". 

As I said in my pm, you want to be a shock jockey.  The kitchen is getting too hot and you want me to leave because you know I am right.  

Tough cookies. You addressed my rebuttal and I shall comment like it or not.  

I noticed several people here who have very similar writing styles.  Remarkably, whomit, your writing resembles allrites and he did seem to agree with you, too.

I don't care to run this thread but will address your reaction to my comment if you don't mind endulging me here.

unless yuou’d like to have that pm conversation.

I don't want to ruin your thread so will address my disagreement via pm's since I have no alternative. As you noticed, I only had one post and don't care to post much on this site.  TGP has been more to my liking for my purposes. I do not use this name on that site.  You had wrong interpretations of my reaction that is fine if no one benefits from my insights but you. 

pm forthcoming. 

[quote=anonymous]

“I’d bet a milkshake, that if the church offered only free psychotherapy and no cash to anyone who had been “molested” you would see very few takers.”

I'm sure that this is true.  So what.  It doesn't change the fact about what happened to them.  It just means that free psychotherapy doesn't make it worth it to the victims to have this take center stage in their life again.  Can't you understand that they want the church and the priests to be punished.

I'd punish lots of people if the cash went straight into my pocket. I'd sell alot of life insurance too.

The fact is that money (the universal solvent)  pulls all these "victims" out of the woodwork should be raising up a very big red flag. It means that most of these actions vs the church are motivated by greed in excess of a need for healing.

People who may have suffered at best an intangible harm are collecting alot of very tangible cash.

At best this is a medical issue and should be treated as such.

Well at least I can understand why you  are backing up Whomit in this conversation.

The fact is that money (the universal solvent)  pulls all these "victims" out of the woodwork should be raising up a very big red flag. It means that most of these actions vs the church are motivated by greed in excess of a need for healing.

"Victims" in quotes.  I guess that is because to you the children did nothing more than engage in premarital sex as opposed to having the innocence of their childhood's taken from them.   How much money is needed to heal?  The answer is money and healing is not related.  The better question is how much money is needed to punish the church and the priests for their actions.  Without the money, many of the victims simply felt that nothing positive would come out of coming forward. 

People who may have suffered at best an intangible harm are collecting alot of very tangible cash.

Tangible/Intangible....so what.  Lock a kid in his room for 10 years and the harm will be intangible. 

There is an enourmous tendancy in this society to criminalise and punish alot of things which are really issues of disicipline. 

Since the priests didn't have enough discipline they molested children.  The Church didn't have enough discipline so they allowed it to continue.   Silly me.  I thought that people needed to take responsibility for their own actions.  I didn't realize that if someone wasn't disciplined, that would make a very good reason for their actions and they should not be punished.   I've got no problem with someone getting help if they don't have enough "discipline".  As long as help doesn't get in the way of the punishment.

Anony,

I really don't see what you're getting so exercised about. I understand what you're saying and I understand what you mean but I don't agree with several of your premises. Not least of which being the value of "the innocence of youth" and the ability of that quality to be taken. Further, I think that you are assuming that the altar boys involved here are younger then they were.

Lets take the second first. Altar servers are not 5 and 6 and 7 year olds, they have to have the maturity to be able to follow directions and coordinated enough to carry and hold stuff, alert and aware enough not to let the water and/or the wine spill. We're talking 9, 10 years old before they start.

The other day it was reported that some sicko kidnapped a two year old, molested and killed her. It's important not to assume that there is only one level of molester and that all are equally wrong. You agree with this premise, otherwise you wouldn't make the distinction of child molester v. boss secretary, but you don't seem to make it amongst the category of child molesters.

As to the innocence of youth. within the time frame of these abuses that are being paid out on now (certainly within the lifetimes of the parents) children were basically seen as property. You raised your kid that way you wanted to and if that meant beating the snot out of them, that was your business. "Spare the rod spoil the child." was axiomatic, "Children should be seen and not heard" was the golden rule. It was in 1938 that FDR signed the Child Labor Laws (actually, the Fair Labor Standards act)

Our attitude towards children has changed 180 degrees for a whole host of pop philosophical reasons "You'll give him a complex!" replaced earlier admonitions. Now we worship at the feet of "the innocence of youth" and, ironically, we've shortened that innocence by indulging it. Now 5 year olds know the words to songs by Akon and l'il Kim. & year olds dress like 27 year old hookers and youth is all about materialism and social engineering as parents do everything they can to make life fulfilling for their children. Children have come to expect to be driven to play dates and dance class and organized baseball games and travel soccer teams that take the family out of state every other weekend and every holiday season.

I think that you are looking at this issue through the lens of today's perception of children. I disagree.

Children are a lot tougher than we expect. They can put up with a lot more than we demand of them. We haven't evolved to the point where children are made out of porcelain.

This doesn't mean that what happened is "right" it doesn't mean that the church wasn't too slow in recognizing the issue and correcting it.

All it says is that kids are tougher than you think they are and if you stop making them a victim they'll stop being a victim.

One last idea... Think about the best thing that ever happened to you as a child (or as an adult). Is that the person that you are? The best thing that ever happened?

Now think about the worst thing that ever happened to you. Is that who you are?

If it's not true for you, that you are the best thing or the worst thing that ever happened, then why would it be reasonable to think that these people are the worst thing that ever happened to them?

It's not.

Now that we know that it's 9 year olds being molested instead of 7 year olds that is supposed to make a difference?

It's important not to assume that there is only one level of molester and that all are equally wrong.

All belong in jail.  The boss/secretary is not molestation and not comprable.

In the 60's, 70's and 80's, kids were seen as property?  Even so, they weren't the property of the pedophile priests.

Children are a lot tougher than we expect. 

Some are.  Some aren't.  Regardless, this doesn't lesson the crime.

Now think about the worst thing that ever happened to you. Is that who you are?

The worst (or best) thing doesn't make you the person who you are.  It does in many, many cases have a profound impact on your life and is certainly an influencing factor on making you the person who you are.   If that worst thing is the result of a criminal act, the perp should pay the price.  Don't you think that it is reasonable that the worst thing that happens to a person would have a profound influence on the rest of their lives?

Child molesters belong in jail for the rest of their lives or at least until they are too old to be a threat to other children.  They prey on people who are defenseless and for this they deserve no leniency.

[quote=anonymous]

The fact is that money (the universal solvent)  pulls all these “victims” out of the woodwork should be raising up a very big red flag. It means that most of these actions vs the church are motivated by greed in excess of a need for healing.

"Victims" in quotes.  I guess that is because to you the children did nothing more than engage in premarital sex as opposed to having the innocence of their childhood's taken from them.

Right now its just a wave of accusations, no one has any way to figure out if the claims of abuse are legitimate or not. If anything happened or not.

The Church is being weak by giving in on this, since it is optically bad to challenge the truthfulness of the "victims". All the victims have a sob story, but did it really happen?

Right now anyone can go and claim "That dirty preist touched my wee-wee, and I was harmed for life! Only a large cash payment can help me!"

How much money is needed to heal? The answer is money and healing is not related.

That's not what the plaintiff's lawyers are saying...

The better question is how much money is needed to punish the church and the priests for their actions.  Without the money, many of the victims simply felt that nothing positive would come out of coming forward.

So it is about money and not healing. Please forgive me if I am not that impressed with crass motives.

People who may have suffered at best an intangible harm are collecting alot of very tangible cash.

Tangible/Intangible....so what.  Lock a kid in his room for 10 years and the harm will be intangible.

And the damage done is not something that can be cured with cash.

There is an enourmous tendancy in this society to criminalise and punish alot of things which are really issues of disicipline. 

Since the priests didn't have enough discipline they molested children.  The Church didn't have enough discipline so they allowed it to continue.   Silly me.  I thought that people needed to take responsibility for their own actions.  I didn't realize that if someone wasn't disciplined, that would make a very good reason for their actions and they should not be punished.   I've got no problem with someone getting help if they don't have enough "discipline".  As long as help doesn't get in the way of the punishment.

I don't see where punishment helps the situation for anyone involved. It's not going to heal anyone, and its not going to deter anyone. What purpose does it serve?

I don't see where punishment helps the situation for anyone involved. It's not going to heal anyone, and its not going to deter anyone. What purpose does it serve?

Great logic.  By this reasoning, pedophiles shouldn't be put in jail because jail won't act as a deterrent and it won't help the victims.

You don't think that the Church having to pay $600 million dollars won't stop them from looking the other way?   You don't think that a victim getting some of this $600 million won't help improve their life.

The primary purpose of punishment is to punish.  It's not to heal and it's not to deter.  These may be secondary reasons, but certainly not primary ones.

[quote=anonymous]

I
don’t see where punishment helps the situation for anyone involved.
It’s not going to heal anyone, and its not going to deter anyone. What
purpose does it serve?

Great logic.  By this reasoning, pedophiles shouldn't be put in jail because jail won't act as a deterrent and it won't help the victims.

Pretty much, putting them in jail costs alot of tax payer money and doesn't make the public much safer over some sort of residential treatment program.

You don't think that the Church having to pay $600 million dollars won't stop them from looking the other way?   You don't think that a victim getting some of this $600 million won't help improve their life.

No I don't. If the victims had pure motives they wouldn't be seeking cash payment.

It's not even proven that this is anything other than people trying to cash in on massive hysteria.

The primary purpose of punishment is to punish.  It's not to heal and it's not to deter.  These may be secondary reasons, but certainly not primary ones.

So what is the benefit of punishment?

How many children get molested by pedophiles who are in jail?

Anonymous,

Yes we are all well aware of your POV, it is not at all complicated and it is the product of a failed educational system.

There absolutely is a difference between a 7 year old and a 9 year old. Does this difference make having sexual relations with this child ok? Not in our culture, No. Nobody ever said that it did. But there is a difference between the Priest seducuing a 12 year old boy and a sociopath living out his fantasy on a two year old girl that he then kills.

I know that you don't want to concede any point to me because in your mind that means that your "White" has turned to "Black" so I won't expect to hear you accept that all rape is comparable, (can be compared) and then qualified as to serverity and depravity. For example, Statutory Rape can be a lesser crime than date rape. There is the case of the husband, who married his wife in a state where the age of consent is 16, he was 19. The baby was born and he was arrested based on the evidence of the the baby proving that he had sex with a girl under the age of consent. That's statutory rape. But who was raped by which statutes?

Peewee Herman was arrested once for having "Kiddie Porn" in his house, he had a copy of the Rob Lowe sex tape and a copy of a Tracy Lords tape. That's the same as someone looking at (or worse, producing) snuff films of 4 year olds? (interestingly, it has been decided that even watching CGI images of kiddie porn is illegal, this is thought police sort of stuff, that we as freedom loving Americans should be against, but we're not!)

Ruhipnol, administered to a girl of the consenting age and then she gets gangbanged by the entire frat is a much more serious crime, worse, in my estimation than the priest situation. So you see, there are gradations in severity crimes, whether you want to concede the point or not.

Allreit makes a very subtle point here that I must say is also beyond your displayed capacity to grasp. He has given this discussion a wholey different direction to explore, the efficacy of imprisonment. This nation has more people incercerated per capita (at least) than any other nation on the planet, and yet we still have crime. At what point do we ask ourselves if this makes any sense? Are we by definition insane as a nation?

Your Hanrabian notion that prison is for punishment is a failed paradigm. I don't really expect you to understand this either, and so I'm asking myself why I'm bothering to explain it.

And now I'm going to stop.

Priests don't seduce 12 year old boys.  They molest them.

My POV isn't complicated because the idea that molester's should be incarcerated isn't a complicated idea.

I have never said, nor do I believe, that all rape is comparable.  I'm probably on your side that much that is called "rape" is not rape.

If part of the idea of prison for child molestors is to protect other children, prison works perfectly.   Prison may not be a deterrent, but lack of prison is not a deterrent either.  Given a choice, I'd rather see the bad guys in prison.

[quote=joedabrkr]

[quote=anonymous]How many children get molested by pedophiles who are in jail?[/quote]

And yet, whomit, you did not address the above question…
[/quote]



The answer is probably very few, and not more than if those same people
were in a residential treatment program. Infact given that prison
sentances are finite, you have to consider rates of redicivism after
they get released.



What seems to get lost is the huge opportunity cost of tying up capital
in prisons (vs schools etc) and the huge ongoing costs of incarceration
(vs spending the money on schools, lower taxes etc).



The obsession with punishment per se instead of the desired outcomes is silly.
Of course the prison unions/law enforcement/criminal justice complex
folks have a big stake in promoting a need for their services.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Anonymous,

Yes we are all well aware of your POV, it is not at all complicated and it is the product of a failed educational system.

There absolutely is a difference between a 7 year old and a 9 year old. Does this difference make having sexual relations with this child ok? Not in our culture, No. Nobody ever said that it did. But there is a difference between the Priest seducuing a 12 year old boy and a sociopath living out his fantasy on a two year old girl that he then kills.

Whomit who do you think you are are? George Eastman? You're intorducing color into our black and white world.

Ruhipnol, administered to a girl of the consenting age and then she gets gangbanged by the entire frat is a much more serious crime, worse, in my estimation than the priest situation. So you see, there are gradations in severity crimes, whether you want to concede the point or not.

There could no worse crime possible than than some kid getting his wee-wee touched. It's the most awful this imaginable. Worse than murder, rape, terrorism and every other crime combined.

Allreit makes a very subtle point here that I must say is also beyond your displayed capacity to grasp. He has given this discussion a wholey different direction to explore, the efficacy of imprisonment. This nation has more people incercerated per capita (at least) than any other nation on the planet, and yet we still have crime. At what point do we ask ourselves if this makes any sense? Are we by definition insane as a nation?

No, you are insane for questioing the obvious logic of locking everyone up.

Your Hanrabian notion that prison is for punishment is a failed paradigm. I don't really expect you to understand this either, and so I'm asking myself why I'm bothering to explain it.

That's Hammurabi, and I think pedophiles should have their wee-wee's and hands cut off live on cable tv. And every child should be made to watch, so as to deter them from growing up to be pedophiles.

And now I'm going to stop.

Not least of which reason being that they were crossed posts. I started writing my post before I went to lunch and then finished after I got back, during which time I did not see Anonymous' overpowering  question.

Anonymous does not show that he understands the first thing about the criminal justice system. He doesn't want to admit that there are degrees of crime and that people are incarcerated for various lengths of time based on the severity of the crime and other mitigating factors.

Nor is there any light bulb going off in his head about the relative numbers either way on the molestation issue. He shows Chicken Littleism in his fear of what might happen to the children, as if an entire generation is at risk. This mindset is brought on by too much credibility given to "gut instinct" and the lack of practice in being skeptical of the numbers being tossed around.

If you go by the numbers put forth by the Fear Media children are being disappeared like during the Pinochet regime!

So the point is that you don't put people in jail "for life" for crimes that are relatively minor (relative to someone selling heroin to middle schoolers, or someone who tortures, rapes and kills co-eds, or someone who bilks thousands of people out of millions of dollars savings, or someone who conspires to blow up a federal building, or someone who uses substandard concrete to build the dam).

It would have been at least a half step more sophisticated if Anonymous had called for chemical castration of the offender. But to think that jail is the answer is juvenile.

The obsession with punishment per se instead of the desired outcomes is silly.

When someone molests the child, there are two major desired outcomes.  1) Punish the molester.  2) Make sure that the molester can't molest again.  As long as the molester is in jail, the desired outcome is achieved.

Your Hanrabian notion that prison is for punishment is a failed paradigm.

I have no clue what Hanrabian means.  What is a failed paradigm is trying to use prison for anything else other than punishment.  It fails at rehab.  It fails as a deterrent.  It fails at education.  It fails at turning people into productive members of society.  It is only successful as punishment and keeping criminals from brutalizing society while they are still locked up.

The obsession with punishment per se instead of the desired outcomes is silly.

Isn't it the desired outcome that the pedophile be removed from society and the opportunity to molest more children?  If that means incarceration then so be it. 

If you think incarceration is too expensive, then I suggest a strategically placed bullet is much more cost effective and permanently gives us the desired outcome.