Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

12467…11

Comments

  • #152
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    walshb wrote: »
    But the same suspicion does not apply because men historically and naturally have a greater propensity or inclination towards sexual abuse.
    But why does it matter if another group are a lower risk, if they are still a risk: Guns are more dangerous than knives, so we'll only ban guns? Semi-automatics are more dangerous than handguns, so we'll only ban semi-automatics?


  • #153
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    iptba wrote: »
    But why does it matter if another group are a lower risk, if they are still a risk: Guns are more dangerous than knives, so we'll only ban guns? Semi-automatics are more dangerous than handguns, so we'll only ban semi-automatics?

    Hey, I know, but it is what it is. Whether we like it or not we as humans have feelings that we cannot switch off, and I am betting that most humans would have a greater sense of fear should their child be left alone with a man, family member or otherwise.


  • #154
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    But the same suspicion does not apply because men historically and naturally have a greater propensity or inclination towards sexual abuse.
    Leaving aside that you don't actually have a breeze what this "greater propensity or inclination" constitutes, then you favour draconian measures against a group with the 'greater propensity or inclination' and little or no measures against groups who have lesser, but still measurable propensities or inclinations.

    And I don't mean just women, but as has been repeatedly pointed out family members not only have a 'propensity or inclination', but statistically greater than either men or women in general.

    At this stage, even the most dim-witted amongst us should be beginning to realize that maybe you've not really thought this through too well.
    walshb wrote: »
    Hey, I know, but it is what it is. Whether we like it or not we as humans have feelings that we cannot switch off, and I am betting that most humans would have a greater sense of fear should their child be left alone with a man, family member or otherwise.
    So we should pander to people's fears then, even if irrational? Put all Muslims in concentration camps maybe?


  • #155
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,287 ✭✭✭source


    walshb wrote: »

    Hey, I know, but it is what it is. Whether we like it or not we as humans have feelings that we cannot switch off, and I am betting that most humans would have a greater sense of fear should their child be left alone with a man, family member or otherwise.

    Good job the African Americans, homosexuals, women, * insert minority group here, don't share your opinion. Otherwise African Americans would still be riding on the back of buses, homosexuals would be getting imprisoned, women would be in the kitchen, and we would probably still be ruled by the British.

    Why should we just accept something that we know to be wrong? I am not a paedophile or rapist, I am a man. I shouldn't be treated like a criminal around children simply because I have a penis.


  • #156
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Well, Corinthian, seeing as you are so intent on coming across as belittling and smarmy I won't get into the discussion any more with yourself. It would only waste thread space!


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It is about the hysteria that has engulfed society with regard to the protection of children and how this justified such discrimination against men.

    You cannot defend such hysteria without accepting similar policies directed against families, and defend it is what you're doing; bizarrely on the basis of remaining ignorant of the issues and trusting that our elected politicians know best.

    Did you believed Bertie too when he said the property market would have a soft landing?

    Yes.

    The Thread topic is"

    "Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?"

    Procedures to vet individuals are fine. No one is really challenging them, though their implementation has been and is still is quite a mess and often sexist.

    But this is not the big issue ! The issue is about the hysteria that is impacting in a serious way on ordinary decent men's ability to interact with children in a normal and proper way across all levels of our society.

    That hysteria is being whipped up by the inability, similar to that demonstrated by walshb, to grasp the proportionate risk and threat to children by men in ordinary everyday situations. This is largely caused by the Media but also by individual's inability to filter the Media coverage, and the lack of education in our society on how to learn how to do this.


  • #158
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    source wrote: »
    Good job the African Americans, homosexuals, women, * insert minority group here, don't share your opinion. Otherwise African Americans would still be riding on the back of buses, homosexuals would be getting imprisoned, women would be in the kitchen, and we would probably still be ruled by the British.

    .

    Not sure what this has to do with men and women and how they are perceived as regards children and the sexual abuse of children. The facts and statistics place men quite a deal ahead of women when it comes to the committing of sexual crimes against children.


  • #159
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    walshb wrote: »
    BTW, it may sound harsh, but "potentially" every man is an abuser. Any person who decides to leave their child alone with a male will take a risk. Yes, one could say the same about a woman, but statistics will clearly show that males are far more likely to sexually abuse children. That is backed up by facts. And, like it or not most men and women would have less concern about leaving their child alone with a female.
    OK, so suppose we as a society agreed with you and prevented men from having any involvement with children (including their own - unless supervised by a suitable female of course :rolleyes:). Suppose we made this law.

    How long would it be before the "facts" showed that statistically 100% of all child abuse carried out was perpetrated by women?
    walshb wrote: »
    Well, Corinthian, seeing as you are so intent on coming across as belittling and smarmy I won't get into the discussion any more with yourself. It would only waste thread space!
    Some opinions deserve to be belittled, ridiculed and treated with scorn. You happen to be espousing one of them here: misandry.


  • #160
    Neeson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭Neeson


    walshb wrote: »
    I am betting that most humans would have a greater sense of fear should their child be left alone with a man, family member or otherwise.

    Is that like saying that a woman fears when she leaves the children with the husband for the day while she goes off to work?Surely that thought wouldn't cross her mind.


  • #161
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    Well, Corinthian, seeing as you are so intent on coming across as belittling and smarmy I won't get into the discussion any more with yourself. It would only waste thread space!
    With all due respect, everyone is going to end up coming across as belittling and smarmy with you sooner or later here, because that's what happens when you try to explain a pretty simple logical concept to someone who cannot seem to grasp it, no matter how simple you make it for them.

    You seem confused at why people are mentioning women or families, but really; it's not rocket science. Policies are enacted on the basis that they are based on sound principles and all we are doing in bringing in comparisons with women or families is highlighting that these principles are not sound. It's just basic testing of a hypothesis, which to date is drawing a blank with you.

    Instead, you are seemingly happy to 'trust' that they are, and express your opinion that they are, solely on the basis that the powers that be apparently think so.

    Realistically, what do you expect?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    source
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,287 ✭✭✭source


    walshb wrote: »
    Not sure what this has to do with men and women and how they are perceived as regards children and the sexual abuse of children. The facts and statistics place men quite a deal ahead of women when it comes to the committing of sexual crimes against children.

    I'm comparing the situation with men at the moment with other marginalised groups from the past number of decades, and describing what the present day would be like for those groups if they had said, "It is what it is" and not stood up to say the situation they found themselves in was wrong.

    What is being discussed in this thread, is an injustice against men. A very real injustice as outlined by many of the threads contributors.

    Sure we could all just lie down, and say we're all peados and rapists, don't let us near women or children unsupervised. Or we could discuss the topic rationally then stand up and fight for our right not to be labeled as criminals just because of our genetic make up. If it was any other group being marginalised like this there would be war, but it's okay when it's men.......this is an attitude that has to change.


  • #163
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    It's occasionally said, sometimes when being sympathetic (e.g. John Lonergan, former governor of Mountjoy), that most of the people in Mountjoy/Dublin prisons come from certain Dublin postcodes. Would it be ok to have rules banning people from these postcodes from certain activities (I don't know, maybe going in to shops would be one example)? Seems like similar logic.


  • #164
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    iptba wrote: »
    I went to an all boys school run by a religious order. Some of the religious used to take quite an interest in the pupils - they had no children of their own so could be like mini-father figures. I felt I was helped by their interest in me and how I was getting on. Sometimes I was in one of their rooms.

    Of course, such closeness to religious orders did cause problems in Ireland. It is probably better that some of these practices have stopped. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a loss even in these cases.

    I know you didn't mean it as such but I think it is important to point out that only a tiny percentage of Priest/brothers etc are responsible for the levels of abuse we have seen. I have great sympathy for current religious who are viewed with even greater suspicion by society than men in general.


  • #165
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I know you didn't mean it as such but I think it is important to point out that only a tiny percentage of Priest/brothers etc are responsible for the levels of abuse we have seen. I have great sympathy for current religious who are viewed with even greater suspicion by society than men in general.
    Thanks. Yes, agree. But having rules that a child doesn't go into anybody's bedroom, as I did with one of the priests, are probably better - that was the point I was trying to make, but probably should have made more clearly.

    Some things can be discussed much better on a one-to-one level in a quiet area, with somebody who is interested, and having a reduction in opportunities does have down sides.


  • #166
    Feathers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Feathers


    walshb wrote: »
    Who is blanketing all men?

    [two seconds later]

    BTW, it may sound harsh, but "potentially" every man is an abuser. Any person who decides to leave their child alone with a male will take a risk.

    :pac:
    walshb wrote: »
    Yes, I agree with that. If my young child, boy or girl was alone on a flight for whatever reason I would not disgaree with the airline, and I would have no issue with complying with the rule either.

    Why just an airline then — should I be allowed sit beside an unaccompanied minor in the cinema? On the bus? Surely an aeroplane is a relatively safe environment, full of people moving around the whole time? Pretty arbritary decision, especially if you disagree with the bookstore?
    walshb wrote: »
    Anyway, we live in a world where men and women are seen as that bit different when it comes to children. Men are seen as a far greater threat to a child in a sexual sense. That is the way it is. The statistcis back up this. What else can we use?

    [#STATISTICS KLAXON#] I'm sorry, you've mentioned statistics so many times, it's about time you trotted some out hard facts, otherwise it's all pie in the sky.


  • #167
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Feathers wrote: »
    :[#STATISTICS KLAXON#] I'm sorry, you've mentioned statistics so many times, it's about time you trotted some out hard facts, otherwise it's all pie in the sky.

    http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp

    No pie in the sky here. I would have thought it was common knowledge that men are more likely to commit sexual crimes against children than women are. Taking this and using it I don't see how it's odd to see that men will be looked at more closely than women when a situation arises where men are left to work with children. The statistics say that men are the sex that are more likely to commit sexual crimes against children. That doesn't mean women should get a free pass. I never said this.

    Anyway, the only hysteria seems to be on this thread. Nobody is saying that men should be banned from contact with children. But, any man who wishes to work with children I would expect and hope that he would be properly vetted and that his work with children would be monitored.


  • #168
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Sleepy wrote: »
    OK, so suppose we as a society agreed with you and prevented men from having any involvement with children (including their own - unless supervised by a suitable female of course :rolleyes:). Suppose we made this law.

    How long would it be before the "facts" showed that statistically 100% of all child abuse carried out was perpetrated by women?

    My god! Where did I say men should be prevented from having any involvement with children?

    I'm done here. If my posts cannot be read properly what is the point. I have never said or implied that men should be banned or stopped from working with children.

    As to the other side: The family. Never said or implied that men should be removed from children within their family.


  • #169
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    walshb wrote: »
    I'm done here.
    We can only hope!
    If my posts cannot be read properly what is the point.
    Everyone is reading your posts correctly. You are, however posting utter crapola, where in lies your problem.
    I have never said or implied that men should be banned or stopped from working with children.
    ...just not allowed to sit beside them in a public place (an aeroplane) in case they can't overcome the urge to rape them. Which is a despicable position to hold.
    As to the other side: The family. Never said or implied that men should be removed from children within their family.
    Why? According to the stats, aren't they the most likely to abuse?


  • #170
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Thread here about taking photos in a playground http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056787453

    Father went nuts at someone taking photos but if it was a woman I bet there would have been no problem.


  • #171
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    I'm done here. If my posts cannot be read properly what is the point.
    Your posts are being read properly unfortunately. Perhaps you've been unable to express yourself correctly, which is a distinct possibility, but if multiple readers all come to the same conclusion, you can't really suggest that all of us can't read - it's more likely that you can't write.
    I have never said or implied that men should be banned or stopped from working with children.
    Actually you did. You came here and, playing the role of apologist, stated only that men are statistically more likely to be abusers - at no point did you in any way suggest that the present policies that are forcing men to distance themselves from children are in any way exaggerated or misguided. Neither did you suggest that any other group should be subject to any such policy.

    That's a pretty clear position; you have no issue with these policies, nor that they target only men and you agree with the basic justification behind them.
    As to the other side: The family. Never said or implied that men should be removed from children within their family.
    Who mentioned only family men? I and other posters suggested all family members, including women and children (statistically, I believe it is far more likely to be a sibling than an adult male).

    Where does this fixation of yours that only men are a threat to children come from? You can't seem to even conceive of anyone else representing one.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Zulu wrote: »
    Why? According to the stats, aren't they the most likely to abuse?

    Yes, according to stats it is males who mostly sexually abuse children within the family. The world is not perfect. We cannot save everyone. I would think it very crazy if a law was passed banning males (men and boys and teens) from interacting with children within the family, wouldn't you? There would be a whole lot of decent males missing out. So, what's your point?

    You can look and search all you like. I never said or implied that men/males should be removed from the family or banned from ever working with children due to a sexual abuse risk.


  • #173
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    I would think it very crazy if a law was passed banning males from interacting with children within the family, wouldn't you? There would be a whole lot of decent males missing out.
    There already are, due to both the restrictions, the threat of false accusation and the emphasis solely on men committing abuse (as demonstrated repeatedly by you in this discussion). You seemingly have little problem with this - 'you can't please everyone' is your only defence.
    You can look and search all you like. I never said or implied that men/males should be removed from the family or banned from ever working with children due to a sexual abuse risk.
    Except that you have, as I demonstrated in my previous reply. Denying it repeatedly does not make it any less the case.


  • #174
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Except that you have, as I demonstrated in my previous reply. Denying it repeatedly does not make it any less the case.

    You have shown nothing.

    So, please show me clearly where I advised or agreed that males should be removed from the family, and banned from working with children. Please, be accurate. Vagueness and wanting something to seem like something else won't cut it.

    BTW, I also never ever said that ONLY males were a threat, but if it makes your argument more pleasing, sure throw that in too.


  • #175
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    So, please show me clearly where I advised or agreed that males should be removed from the family? Please, be accurate. Vagueness and wanting something to seem like something else won't cut it.
    No one has ever accused you of saying that males should be removed from the family, I was referring to your acceptance of policies that de facto banned men from working with children.

    Indeed, you're the only one who's equated the argument that family members being a greater threat must mean only male family members here, which is telling to say the least. Everyone else suggested this in a non-gender specific manner.
    BTW, I also never ever said that ONLY males were a threat, but if it makes your argument more pleasing, sure throw that in too.
    You've made only passing mention of women being a threat and in fact never even questioned how none the barriers that now face men apply to women. Apparently 'you can't please everyone' is your approach to this.


  • #176
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No one has ever accused you of saying that males should be removed from the family, I was referring to your acceptance of policies that de facto banned men from working with children.

    Indeed, you're the only one who's equated the argument that family members being a greater threat must mean only male family members here, which is telling to say the least. Everyone else suggested this in a non-gender specific manner.

    You've made only passing mention of women being a threat and in fact never even questioned how none the barriers that now face men apply to women. Apparently 'you can't please everyone' is your approach to this.

    We the people make policies all the time. I am not saying I agree with all of them or all of their detail. I never pushed for a ban. I simply said that I would be in acceptance of rules and policies brought in to protect children. And, yes, in this world today and for many years males are seen as more of a threat to children in a sexual way. I didn't make that up. That is the way it is. With this is mind I don't at all find it odd or wrong that males will then face more scrutiny when it comes to working with children. It sort of seems a logical human conclusion. Sure, it may upset many males, but it's nothing strange.

    I also said that some rules may go too far. Some I agree with. I agreed on the airline one. Big deal. This agreement is then flipped by some here to make out that I am anti male involvement with children. Absurd.

    And what is wrong with me and you having a polite and respectful discussion about it without labelling each other as ignorant or lacking intelligence etc? I am not saying my view is correct, but why the need to be condescending and belittling. It sorta' ruins a discussion. I mean, we're all on the same team, right? We all want our children protected. Maybe I am a bit OTT, but my intentions are on the level.


  • #177
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    eviltwin wrote: »
    You sound paranoid. My first thought when I see a man with a child who is not his own is not "paedophile". I don't know anyone who would think that way either.

    Well if you walked across the exact same scene, (a young child in an apparently distressed state with what may be a stranger causing the distress), what's the first concern you would have? If I was out for a walk and wandered across a similar scene, if the child was really upset and a man has approached the child, my very first concern would be that I had stumbled across something that may be criminal in nature to say the least.

    For too long in this country, the culture seemed to have been to turn a blind eye to these very kind of incidents, I personally am young enough to remember a consistent child abuser operating in the primary school that I attended in the 1980's, and there was no way other teachers were not aware of what was going on, but all turned to turn a blind eye, whether it was out of some kind of a misplaced deference to the Catholic Church or whatever, (it was a Christian Brother's School), but a lot of what was going on, was down to some kind of a fúcked up culture of not interjecting when there was every probability that an horrific act of child sexual abuse was happening or about to happen.

    So the natural and inevitable consequence of years of this, which has been aired in the media for the last 20 years in particular, and also compounded by the fact that years of media coverage that has rightfully exposed how paedophiles act and behave and gain access to children, in terms of how cunning and manipulative they can be, I think has naturally brought us to a place of excess caution now needs to be the order of the day.

    Sadly, I can't disagree with many of the guys posting on here, I would be somewhat reluctant to get involved in any kind of voluntary work involving children.

    One thing that is thankfully getting done, and I've been told this by my mates who are fathers, is that there is an excellent "staying safe" educational program in primary schools now, so that the day is thankfully gone where a child being abused, will simply not be aware of the fact that they are being abused.

    The one glaring area where this whole problem is not being done justice though I think, to the extent where most guys appear to feel somewhat under a cloak of suspicion if left on their own around a child, is when it comes to judicial sentencing for crimes involving sexual abuse.

    I don't know how we have a situation in 2012 where we are hearing judgements along the lines of, "the media coverage in relation to this crime is sentence enough for the accused", so a suspended sentence is issued. That's completely unacceptable in this day and age, there needs to be compulsory minimum custodial sentences handed down for these type of crimes, something along the lines of the 10 year mandatory sentence for drug dealing.

    It is a very interesting topic for discussion though...


  • #178
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Fear, moral panic and trial by media seems to be the order of the day at the moment.

    It's an insidious form of censorship that's slowly strangling freedom of speech and expression. All in the best interests of 'society' of course.

    SD


  • #179
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Fear, moral panic and trial by media seems to be the order of the day at the moment.

    It's an insidious form of censorship that's slowly strangling freedom of speech and expression. All in the best interests of 'society' of course.

    SD

    I dunno, the crime often is sentenced in such a bizarre way by the Irish courts, that you could only exercise precaution in this day and age and I say that as a guy without any kids.

    It's a sad reflection on our society in 2012, that for all our freedom, for all our wonderful technology, for all our apparent advancement and development as a species, that a male adult cannot be left alone with a child without being placed under some kind of a suspicion.

    The sad reality is that there are apes and monkeys down in the Zoo in the park who are trusted far more around their young in terms of the community that they reside in, than is the case for humans. Some statement really that, isn't it?!??!?


  • #180
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    I dunno, the crime often is sentenced in such a bizarre way by the Irish courts, that you could only exercise precaution in this day and age and I say that as a guy without any kids.

    It's a sad reflection on our society in 2012, that for all our freedom, for all our wonderful technology, for all our apparent advancement and development as a species, that a male adult cannot be left alone with a child without being placed under some kind of a suspicion.

    The sad reality is that there are apes and monkeys down in the Zoo in the park who are trusted far more around their young in terms of the community that they reside in, than is the case for humans. Some statement really that, isn't it?!??!?

    It may seem sad, but so so many children have been abused. I would rather a watchful eye than a "free for all."


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    walshb wrote: »
    It may seem sad, but so so many children have been abused. I would rather a watchful eye than a "free for all."

    Sounds like it's failing to deal with the problem to me. If we dealt with convicted child molesters properly in this country, through the judicial process, I reckon we'd have a lot less people offending. Some of the sentencing decisions we see, you'd have to wonder were the judiciary trying to send out a message that it was some type of a petty crime.

    Sure aren't the government going to imminently release a load of murderers and sex offenders because they urgently need the jail space for TV license defaulters, sure what else would you expect to happen when this is how we are running our society?


  • #182
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Sounds like it's failing to deal with the problem to me. If we dealt with convicted child molesters properly in this country, through the judicial process, I reckon we'd have a lot less people offending. Some of the sentencing decisions we see, you'd have to wonder were the judiciary trying to send out a message that it was some type of a petty crime.

    Sure aren't the government going to imminently release a load of murderers and sex offenders because they urgently need the jail space for TV license defaulters, sure what else would you expect to happen when this is how we are running our society?

    Paedophiles IMO have a disease. The urge is just overwhelming. I am not sure legislation or different penalities would change much.

    The greatest portection a child can have is from their parents. Now, I am speaking about two loving parents. Neither being a sexual abuser, just so we are clear. It is up to a child's parents to protect them as much as they can, and if that means being very reluctant to leave their child alone with a man or a woman, then so be it.

    One Example: You have a young child and she wants to stay in a friend's house. Check it out. I know you cannot know for certain about what will or will not happen, but be very very cognisant. We cannot live in total fear, but being thorough, careful and diligent doesn't necessarily equate to a state of living in fear.


  • #183
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    walshb wrote: »
    Paedophiles IMO have a disease. The urge is just overwhelming. I am not sure legislation or different penalities would change much.

    No more than murderers have a disease. :rolleyes:

    Even if I were to accept that that were true, in the interests of the common good, they can and should be chemically castrated upon conviction. Because letting them return to society with their "disease", means that all men are under a suspicion that is simply intolerable in this day and age, and these offenders have a deviance and a cunning about them that no amount of "supervision" can manage.

    Personally, and call me the big man/have a go hero all day long on the thread, I couldn't give a fúck, if anyone sexually interfered with a child of mine, I would personally remove their genitalia with a fúcking chainsaw.

    I (obviously), think that it is wrong, the amount that we tolerate in our society these days, we tolerate TV license defaulters imprisoned and predatory child abusers being handed down suspended sentences, where the judge appears to think, "ah sure the media coverage is sentence enough".

    Face up to it, society is completely broken and I don't think many of us have faced up to the extent to which our society is completely and totally and immeasurably fúcked up.

    For all our technology and our freedoms and our opinions, we are going backwards. Only during our last presidential election, one of the candidates was a documented serial apologist for a child abusing friend, to such an extent, where he used the letter headed notepaper of one of the houses of the Oireachtas, to petition for judicial leniency on his behalf by the sentencing authorities!

    The same candidate for our presidency, had what could only have been described as the strangest of views in relation to male adults having what he called "consensual" sex with male teenage children who were well under the age of consent, yet this guy gets to run for the presidency of this country and nobody takes issue with it because he happens to be gay?!?

    And we wonder why people have concerns for their children in Ireland these days when such blatant hypocrisies and double standards are not just tolerated, but are actually considered acceptable from people who want to occupy the highest office in the country?!?


  • #184
    Neeson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭Neeson


    walshb wrote: »
    Paedophiles IMO have a disease. The urge is just overwhelming.

    Just as much as homosexuals. Or heterosexuals.


  • #185
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Neeson wrote: »
    Just as much as homosexuals. Or heterosexuals.

    If you say so.


  • #186
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    No more than murderers have a disease. :rolleyes:

    Not sure. Many people who have committed murder never set out to commit murder. Circumstances are very important. Many people who committed murder never expressed a passion or desire to commit the act of ending a person/persons life. Paedophiles have an urge, a craving and a passion to abuse or engage in sexual activity with pre pubescent humans. Not sure of the exact definition of a paedophile. Maybe I am slightly off?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Neeson wrote: »
    Just as much as homosexuals. Or heterosexuals.

    Maybe the use of the word disease is inaccurate, as your analogy would lead me to believe. Heterosexuals have urges, as do homosexuals. Then there are heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles.


  • #188
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    walshb wrote: »
    Not sure. Many people who have committed murder never set out to commit murder. Circumstances are very important. Many people who committed murder never expressed a passion or desire to commit the act of ending a person/persons life. Paedophiles have an urge, a craving and a passion to abuse or engage in sexual activity with pre pubescent humans. Not sure of the exact definition of a paedophile. Maybe I am slightly off?

    You are clearly confusing murder with manslaughter. One of the tests for a murder conviction to be possible is in fact the degree to which the act has been premeditated. If the act was not premeditated, then it is not murder, it is manslaughter.

    In favour of my argument, predatory sexual abusers clearly do share a premeditated urge to abuse, not unlike how a convicted murderer has exercised the cunning and the foresight to act upon an urge to take a life.


  • #189
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    You are clearly confusing murder with manslaughter. One of the tests for a murder conviction to be possible is in fact the degree to which the act has been premeditated. If the act was not premeditated, then it is not murder, it is manslaughter.

    In favour of my argument, predatory sexual abusers clearly do share a premeditated urge to abuse, not unlike how a convicted murderer has exercised the cunning and the foresight an urge to take a life.

    Yes, I know. There has to be prememditaton in the eyes of the law. But leading up to this premeditation there may never have been the urge. Circumstances and situations can lead up to it. And, when does premeditation begin? I believe paedophiles are born, predisposed to be paedophiles. That was my point. Murder can be motivated by many factors. Paedophiles are motivated by sexual intimacy with pre pubescent humans.


  • #190
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    walshb wrote: »
    I mean, we're all on the same team, right? We all want our children protected. Maybe I am a bit OTT, but my intentions are on the level.
    No, we're not all on the same team: the one you seem to play for thinks it's acceptable to tar all men as abusers and legislate accordingly.

    If you take the sexism out of your posts, however, I'm sure there's few of us that would disagree that all those working in positions with small children should be properly vetted. I'm sure you'd have support for "lock them up and throw away the key" measures.

    Statistics are just data. They do not form a solid basis for legislation. The collection method of that data may have been flawed: for instance a misandrist might skew the questions in favour of women, the nature of the crime being analysed might be one where levels of reporting are off etc.

    On that last point: how many 14 year old boys do you know who would consider themselves to be being abused if they were getting unwelcome advances from a female teacher? Of that level, how many would report this to their parents? Now flip the genders.

    Data analysis is what I do for a living. The analytics extrapolated from any data set are only as good as the data they're derived from and the methodology used in their calculation. Anything involving a social element is indicative at best, totally misleading at worst. To use an example: one of the things that's becoming a big trend in my industry is analysis of mentions of an organisation on social networking sites to give an indication of the company's public image. Which category of mention do you think will be more common: complaints about a company or happy customers telling the world how great the company are?


  • #191
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    This utterly deluded argument in favour of child abusers that gets aired a lot, that they have "this uncontrollable urge", almost as though it isn't their own fault, it's just something that they happened to be born with...

    Do you think we'd tolerate for a second, the same logic and the same argument to be made in favour of people who have "an urge" to kill people, serial killers for example, and that we'd just chalk it down to these kind of people having "an urge" that they cannot control, give them a suspended sentence and then release them back out into society to offend again?!?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Well, one can choose to ignore statistics and data. But research has shown that male paedophiles are ten times more reported/registered than females. Now, allowing some leeway, let's say it's 7 times. That is still a massive difference. So, I don't see what is odd in society maybe feeling that men pose the bigger risk.

    Anyway, me: I see a man alone with a child in a park. I don't think paedophile.


  • #193
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    This utterly deluded argument in favour of child abusers that gets aired a lot, that they have "this uncontrollable urge", almost as though it isn't their own fault, it's just something that they happened to be born with...

    Do you think we'd tolerate for a second, the same logic and the same argument to be made in favour of people who have "an urge" to kill people, serial killers for example, and that we'd just chalk it down to these kind of people having "an urge" that they cannot control, give them a suspended sentence and then release them back out into society to offend again?!?

    Who's in favour of child abusers? There are some who think that a paedophile is born. Yes, they do have a choice not to abuse, but it's an urge inside them. And as someone said, or asked, is it any different than the urge of a male heterosxual to have sexual intimacy with a female?

    BTW, I also never gave my view or stance on sentencing etc for paedophiles. So, why are you making out that: "give them a suspended sentence and then release them back out into society to offend again."

    Murderer to me deserves FULL LIFE. A person who sexually abuses a child deserves, well, yes, possibly a life sentence too. Because, I for one believe that a paedophile cannot be cured. If so, then they pose a lifetime risk. So, keep them away from society.


  • #194
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    walshb wrote: »
    Who's in favour of child abusers? There are some who think that a paedophile is born. Yes, they do have a choice not to abuse, but it's an urge inside them. And as someone said, or asked, is it any different than the urge of a male heterosexual to have sexual intimacy with a female?

    It doesn't matter whether they are born as a paedophile or whether it's something that emerges from an offenders personality over many years, it's irrelevant, same as for how murderers are dealt with, there has been an academic argument running for hundreds of years now as to whether murderers are born as murderers or whether it is something that evolved through their lifetime.

    What matters is that once they are proven to be murderers and convicted as murderers, they are then taken out of society forthwith, and it is ultimately the clear threat of that treatment by our peers via the jury process, it is the fear of that sentence being landed on any of us, that is held up against all of us by the society that we chose to live in, that we all ultimately actually rely upon for the purposes of keeping us hopefully separated throughout our lifetime, from the experience of being murdered in our beds at night.


  • #195
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Sounds like it's failing to deal with the problem to me. If we dealt with convicted child molesters properly in this country, through the judicial process, I reckon we'd have a lot less people offending. Some of the sentencing decisions we see, you'd have to wonder were the judiciary trying to send out a message that it was some type of a petty crime.

    Sure aren't the government going to imminently release a load of murderers and sex offenders because they urgently need the jail space for TV license defaulters, sure what else would you expect to happen when this is how we are running our society?

    No I don't believe they are. And I don't see the sentencing inconsistencies having any effect on the subject at hand anyway - the fear of accusations against ordinary decent men in ordinary every day situations.

    And please please please everyone .... stop feeding the troll :confused:


  • #196
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether they are born as a paedophile or whether it's something that emerges from an offenders personality over many years, it's irrelevant, same as for how murderers are dealt with, there has been an academic argument running for hundreds of years now as to whether murderers are born as murderers or whether it is something that evolved through their lifetime.

    What matters is that once they are proven to be murderers and convicted as murderers, they are then taken out of society forthwith, and it is ultimately the clear threat of that treatment by our peers via the jury process, it is the fear of that sentence being landed on any of us, that is held up against all of us by the society that we chose to live in, that we all ultimately actually rely upon for the purposes of keeping us hopefully separated throughout our lifetime, from the experience of being murdered in our beds at night.

    I agree. I believe they will always pose that risk to children. Hence I think they need to be permanently removed from society. Now, a murderer IMO deserves to never see the light of day, but I cannot say that a murderer is someone who will always pose a risk should he/she get released.


  • #197
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Is labelling someone a troll acceptable on this forum?

    Differeing views on a very gray area leads to the troll card being bandied about!:confused:


  • #198
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    Just to point out that sex crimes aren't the only type of crime where suspended sentences are handed out. Sometimes people can kill people and get suspended sentences. For example, see this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921.

    Also, in this case, there was no fine so at least one person in the thread thought she'd be acquitted. So one could say there are different types of suspended sentence, depending whether it's made clear whether somebody committed a crime or not.


  • #199
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I think generally women get a better crack of the whip when it comes to sentencing in this country.


  • #200
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    walshb wrote: »
    I agree. I believe they will always pose that risk to children. Hence I think they need to be permanently removed from society. Now, a murderer IMO deserves to never see the light of day, but I cannot say that a murderer is someone who will always pose a risk should he/she get released.

    They will, and it's exclusively because of the way that they have demonstrated the urge to premeditate their actions in that regard, instead of setting aside their urge to kill, is why there is a mandatory life sentence for this crime, and someone with a murder conviction in this state is only released on license if they ever are released. A murderer in this state is never actually free, they can always be thrown back in prison, even after being released, if they are deemed to be at risk of offending again.

    The same approach needs to be taken for convicted paedophiles. If we ever get to that place, then we'll have less of them circulating around our society being a threat to children and putting every guy who works with kids under some kind of suspicion.


  • #201
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,619 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    They will, and it's exclusively because of the way that they have demonstrated the urge to premeditate their actions in that regard, instead of setting aside their urge to kill, is why there is a mandatory life sentence for this crime, and someone with a murder conviction in this state is only released on license if they ever are released. A murderer in this state is never actually free, they can always be thrown back in prison, even after being released, if they are deemed to be at risk of offending again.

    The same approach needs to be taken for convicted paedophiles. If we ever get to that place, then we'll have less of them circulating around our society being a threat to children and putting every guy who works with kids under some kind of suspicion.

    Well, regardless of a murderer, I am in agreement that a convicted paedophile should be permanently removed from society.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement