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
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
-
No no, they can pull the free-will stuff there all they want, and that's fine. It's their belief.
But just because they believe if someone is truly sorry, then they are forgiven, that the rest of us have to as well. Because they aren't. And they should still serve the exact same jailtime as any other person guilty of the same crimes.
No excuses.
I agree. If belief excuses the harming of others, especially when they deserve no harm to be done to them, as they have caused no offence, then beliefs must be regarded as negative and harmful. People tend to think of beliefs to be a 'right', no matter what harm might come from them, but the popular idea that everyone is 'entitled to their beliefs' simply feeds the perverted mindset of perverse thinking, as it allows them to expand their perverted ideas into excuses for doing harm.
Justice, to be just (right and fair), must be based on the facts. If the facts are determined that the pervert did or failed to prevent the offensive act, then they must be punished accordingly, with no beliefs accepted as excuse.0 -
There is a lot of talk about rules, laws, canon law church law, lack of law, excuses because of this or that, but you can't have justice unless you look at the facts, and these systems of touchy-feely 'forgiveness' are a cop-out.
To anyone with a scrap of humanity within them, justice is paramount and it's the one thing humans can't live without and remain human, and is much more important than laws, as laws should only exist to serve justice, and not the other way around. Laws without justice is called oppression, so it's hardly surprising that there is so much of it going on.
I agree.0 -
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »Im English mate, I dont fully understand Ireland.
Well, maybe if I try to explain it this way - you could be Irish and not fully understand it either....
It appears to be one of the unfolding 'mysteries' that heads off down the rabbit hole and appears back in the same place later on and still leaves you wondering what's coming next.
To put it on something like and English footing, it's a bit like those who would think that QE2 is actually God's representative on earth and be pleased to be considered one of 'her subjects'...emphasis on the 'her'
0 -
Well, maybe if I try to explain it this way - you could be Irish and not fully understand it either....
It appears to be one of the unfolding 'mysteries' that heads off down the rabbit hole and appears back in the same place later on and still leaves you wondering what's coming next.
To put it on something like and English footing, it's a bit like those who would think that QE2 is actually God's representative on earth and be pleased to be considered one of 'her subjects'...emphasis on the 'her'
My family have been Catholic mostly for centuries, probably all the way back to Romano-British times, "inspite of dungeon, fire and sword".
Irish priests in England were famed for particularly "fire and brimestone" sermons- thats why I dont understand how Divine Justice could be thrown to the dogs so much in Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »My family have been Catholic mostly for centuries, probably all the way back to Romano-British times, "inspite of dungeon, fire and sword".
Irish priests in England were famed for particularly "fire and brimestone" sermons- thats why I dont understand how Divine Justice could be thrown to the dogs so much in Ireland.
Well, maybe it all depends on how you look at it? If you look at the histories, even if they are sometimes a bit patchy, it becomes clear that both the Catholics and Protestants took turns in the roles of recipient and donor on the theme of "inspite of dungeon, fire and sword", each justifying (or trying to) the harming of 'the other side'. They all claim their 'martyrs', each trying to outdo the other in the suffering stakes, even if there was no justification of doing such things in their respective books and teachings that they supposedly followed.
There simply never was "Divine Justice", which in the main is an idea that anyone who might think of harming me or my tribe will 'pay'. Everyone 'pays', especially those who might even question the madness and contradictory actions in the first place.
'Justification by faith' was and is another idea that sounds justifiable, except that it simply isn't, but we are all to a large degree formed (or is it deformed?) by the thoughts of others, much as we might like to think otherwise. The notion or image of being special and notable makes sure that we keep on beating the ancient drum of unreason, no matter what it costs, as we rarely consider the cost in advance, do we?
These images give us a sense of identity, of belonging, but do we stop and ask what exactly we belong to? And why?
Questions, questions, questions....damn questions, eh? Some people get 'offended' by questions, and then again, some don't? Ever wonder why?0 -
Well, maybe it all depends on how you look at it? If you look at the histories, even if they are sometimes a bit patchy, it becomes clear that both the Catholics and Protestants took turns in the roles of recipient and donor on the theme of "inspite of dungeon, fire and sword", each justifying (or trying to) the harming of 'the other side'. They all claim their 'martyrs', each trying to outdo the other in the suffering stakes, even if there was no justification of doing such things in their respective books and teachings that they supposedly followed.
There simply never was "Divine Justice", which in the main is an idea that anyone who might think of harming me or my tribe will 'pay'. Everyone 'pays', especially those who might even question the madness and contradictory actions in the first place.
'Justification by faith' was and is another idea that sounds justifiable, except that it simply isn't, but we are all to a large degree formed (or is it deformed?) by the thoughts of others, much as we might like to think otherwise. The notion or image of being special and notable makes sure that we keep on beating the ancient drum of unreason, no matter what it costs, as we rarely consider the cost in advance, do we?
These images give us a sense of identity, of belonging, but do we stop and ask what exactly we belong to? And why?
Questions, questions, questions....damn questions, eh? Some people get 'offended' by questions, and then again, some don't? Ever wonder why?
Why? Tradition. Loyalty to family, tribe, clan etc. It's like pulling on an old favourite jumper. It's cozy, certain and does not require thought or personal responsibility. Thought goes out the window.
SD0 -
-
StudentDad wrote: »Why? Tradition. Loyalty to family, tribe, clan etc. It's like pulling on an old favourite jumper. It's cozy, certain and does not require thought or personal responsibility. Thought goes out the window.
SD
SD, unfortunately you are so right. Conscious thought takes effort, working out, application of mind and consideration, unlike the un-thinking mechanisms of wilful avoidance of reality and responsibility.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
In fairness I've posted a fair bit of criticism of the church and its still there. Don't know what you posted but I've felt the moderating to be fair.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »Look I have made clear that I believe in the death penalty for all child rapists, but I would prefer a particularly harsh form of it for clerical child rapists-I believe that they should be punished more than lay ones. I have believe in harsh penalties who for those who allowed it to happen (possibly also the death penalty).
I agree with you completely on the punishment thing, all the more so because they were given/took up/inherited their position of supposed righteousness and were suppose to be an example to others. I often find myself wondering why judges seem to grant leniency to people who commit crimes and proffer an excuse that they were under the alleged influence of alcohol or drugs at the time. The same goes for people who blame their evil actions on 'Satan' or 'weakness' or 'sin', as though these things came from outside their own minds, which they simply do not. Evil can only come from an evil mind, one that is only concerned with their own selfish aims and drives and completely feels no empathy with the ones who might suffer from what they choose to inflict on them. The only thing that concerns them is getting caught, as they feel powerful when they can also dupe the victims.
To my mind they should be treated all the more harshly, as they chose to be out of control, and not in say the case of someone who was suffering from some genuine illness or mental breakdown, or a physical thing like a brain tumour. When you think about it, doesn't it seem ironic that we kill rats for entering our houses for food and shelter, but we are supposed to look with clemency on men who rape children? We are one messed up species.
So you seem to have a problem with not understanding them? Do you think that there is something wrong with you for that?I dont understand what was going through their minds, I can speculate- maybe they started confusing what was good for them and their reputation with what was good with God, maybe they believed that the "good name of the Priesthood" overcame the claims of Divine Justice? Maybe they started to believe that no sin was necessarily that serious- after all someone has just said in the Islam forum who claims to be a Christian that being cranky with a loved one in the morning is not that much different from raping a child because "Sin is Sin".
You see, my friend, that's where you are making the classic human mistake, like so many of us do, until the pain finally hits the brain and the light comes on – maybe. You partly answered your own self-question-statement - “ I don’t understand what was going through their minds”. Maybe we can just think about this for a second?
So you seem to have a problem with 'not understanding' them?
How could you understand? Why should you understand? Why would you want to understand?
To 'understand' a pervert, as in the sense of getting into the mindset of a pervert and appreciate their perverted point of view, you would firstly have to think like a pervert. That's why you don't understand, as you are trying to do the impossible. It's just the same as to understand what a rat thinks you would have to have the mind of a rat. Sure, you can observe it and its actions, but know what it thinks, I think not.
If you simply are not perverted, you can't even possibly even begin to imagine the twisted thought processes that inhabit their apologies for minds. They simply don't think like you, and have not even the slightest idea of how you actually think, and they most certainly do not care in any positive sense, as they simply see you as a thing, a non-being, to be used for their own base and perverted purposes. They are not actually human.
Does that seem too shocking? If it does, why does it? What else can it possibly be? If you can't find the source of the problem, look at the results and draw fair judgement from that. There is no effect without a cause, is there? Is it right or is it wrong? Does it do harm, or does it do good? Simple.
I've got plenty more on this, as it's a wide subject, but for now take care, and don't try to 'understand' perversion, but just look at the effects of it. That's enough.
F120 -
Genuinely thank you for that excellent post F12.
A lot of very valid points put across clearly. There is nothing I think I can add to it or argue against in it now.0 -
F12, you might want to rethink the extreme part of your views.
'they are not human'. This is evidently wrong.
'In order to understand a pervert you have to think like a pervert'
That's simply incorrect. In order to understand psychopathology one doesn't have to be a psychopath. For example Robert Hare who wrote a brilliant popular book on the subject 'without conscience' is not a psychopath, he is a former FBI agent and academic.
There is some wisdom in your post, that perverts use their victims without caring or seeing them as equal, but I think you might be concerned that in 'understanding' a criminal's behaviour and thought processes one is somehow dismissing the awfulness of their behaviour. Perhaps what you mean is that the sheer scale of the assaults on children is so horrendous that now is not yet the time to forensically examine their behaviour, but rather now is the time to publicly punish them?
It's easier to demonize for example nazi guards who murdered children rather than to understand the weakness in humanity that allows individuals, once they have a power structure to hide within, to turn off their conscience and act worse than any demon, as has happened so often in every decade of human history.
I guess what I'm longwindedly trying to say is that understanding is a goal of reason, not a trap.0 -
Doc Farrell wrote: »F12, you might want to rethink the extreme part of your views.
'they are not human'. This is evidently wrong.
'In order to understand a pervert you have to think like a pervert'
That's simply incorrect. In order to understand psychopathology one doesn't have to be a psychopath. For example Robert Hare who wrote a brilliant popular book on the subject 'without conscience' is not a psychopath, he is a former FBI agent and academic.
There is some wisdom in your post, that perverts use their victims without caring or seeing them as equal, but I think you might be concerned that in 'understanding' a criminal's behaviour and thought processes one is somehow dismissing the awfulness of their behaviour. Perhaps what you mean is that the sheer scale of the assaults on children is so horrendous that now is not yet the time to forensically examine their behaviour, but rather now is the time to publicly punish them?
It's easier to demonize for example nazi guards who murdered children rather than to understand the weakness in humanity that allows individuals, once they have a power structure to hide within, to turn off their conscience and act worse than any demon, as has happened so often in every decade of human history.
I guess what I'm longwindedly trying to say is that understanding is a goal of reason, not a trap.
Hi Doc. I basically agree with most of what you are saying. However, two of the key points or words that are at the hub of our posts are 'understand' and 'human'. I know what they mean to me, but I don't actually know what they mean to you, though I imagine that they really are probably not so different, and may only vary by degree of interpretation, so maybe I can explain my outlook further. Apologies for the length, but it's not something that I am able to clearly explain in brief, so I'll try and keep it simple-ish.
I had originally written something of a longer reply to HamletOrHecuba on the fundamental methods used by perverse minds, and consequently, systems (collective mindset), to manipulate their victims (whether they realise that they are or not), but on a subject like this I thought it better to limit it to the basics, as sometimes less is more useful.
I'd also like to stress that I don't profess to have all the answers, as I'm pretty sure I don't even have all the possible questions, yet, but I'm working on it. To presume, is to doom the outcome.
To me, and within the scope of my experiences, and lack thereof, of life to date, to be a true human is to possess a mind that operates according to balance and reason, using knowledge and logic to extend itself to further advancement or betterment by means of correctly perceiving reality and how it operates. This, consequently, involves the finding of truths, which are known facts derived from experience either by the being itself or previously by others. I know for a fact that there are things I know, and I also know that there are things I don't yet know, but will know, and that there are even more things that I will simply never know because I won't live long enough. That's basically is what I understand as being the nucleus of being human/humane, having an appreciation for reality and living by its rules as far as is possible. To me, living outside of that path or process is to live without reason, and thus without humanity, as if living in the shadow of it without knowing what it is.
It's easier to demonize for example nazi guards who murdered children rather than to understand the weakness in humanity that allows individuals, once they have a power structure to hide within, to turn off their conscience and act worse than any demon, as has happened so often in every decade of human history.
I appreciate your point on this, but I think we would both agree that the aim is to identify and deal with the weakness without the weakness becoming part of us in the process of trying to get some basic idea of what it does or does not do.
For example, I don't need to jump into a sewer to understand that it stinks. The smell and the view makes it obvious.
If I see a crack in a wall of my house I have to assess as to what harm it may do if left unchecked or not. Is it a superficial one, needing some filler? Is it a structural one, which will compromise the integrity of the house? If it is the latter, and I choose to ignore it, then I have no one else to blame when the doors don't close properly or some other unwanted thing happens. Some houses are built on crap foundations, so they may end up having to be knocked.
Humanity is something we develop towards or away from, by way of methodology of reasoned thinking process, or lack of it, based on knowledge, or the lack of it. To me, it is a process of improvement, and it's basically about knowing how you do and don't tick, looking at both, realising that you have both strengths and weaknesses, and not avoiding those realities. Recognise the cracks and evaluate the cost of them. To do otherwise is a certain road to failure, which, to me at least, is not what reasoned and humane existence is supposed to be about, as avoidable harm is performed or permitted by default.
Seeing no evil permits evil to exist unseen, and doesn't make it non-existent, just like the cracks, as we can well see from the content of this thread, otherwise there would be no revelations that arise from the cracks that invariably come from untrustworthy foundations. So, why do the power systems promote belief over knowledge, giving rise to cracks in their systems of power? How can they justify this method of thinking, especially as we know here it has gotten us before? Maybe they think they are special, have some sort of permit to sidestep reality at will? Maybe they are too blinded by conceit to look reality and truth in the face, as it doesn't suit their belief systems?
Why do they do it? Because they can, as they have the power Why? Because they are lacking in reason and humanity, and don't care about the consequences, as they see profit in it, for them, and them only, the collective hive of ego.
The reason that the Nazi prison guards did what they did was due to the fact that they gave up their individual powers or faculties to others, who used their collective will to commit the evil acts. Their weaknesses were exploited by the powers that they themselves lived within and under, thinking that they could somehow detach themselves from the responsibility attached to such granting of power to others. It's quite impossible, as the collective power only existed because of the sum of the individuals who contributed to it, like cells in a battery. The were led to believe that they could do so, by unreason, chanting and singing of slogans, propaganda, unbridled emotion, blind obedience to insane dogmas, but their ultimate reality was otherwise, and they could not avoid it, regardless. The lived in the dream until they awoke in the nightmare of the reality that they has helped to build in the first place, as they obviously never looked at the eventual and inevitable outcome, which was caused by the cracks in the foundational and insane bases underpinning the whole edifice. The original integrity of the foundations was based on psychopathic blind belief and uncertainty, unreality, so why wonder if they failed, why the cracks spread, and why the whole system collapsed? Could there be any other outcome?
There is no escape from the forces of cause and effect, no matter what beliefs we might like to conjure up to make us feel better. There are no 'cracks' in reality, as what's real is true, and what's true is real anyway. You can change your beliefs in a millisecond, but reality and its truths is a constant.
To my way of seeing things, being human, and consequently reason, is not a given thing, like some form of seed that will miraculously turn into good fruit without the parent plant being watered and fed well. Religion, as an example of a particular type of belief system, gives the impression that the whole kit and caboodle is somehow mysteriously transplanted or infused into the being by some unseen force or other, like some sort of download. They teach you to pray and say magic words to supposedly water the tree of your faith, to make it grow, and so it does, but as it is watered by the rains of unreason, unreason is the resultant, bitter fruit. All of the -isms are like this.
Reason can only grow according to knowledge, and religions and other belief systems teach the avoidance of knowledge, so reason cannot be god-given, for if it is, then it leaves many deprived of what they would need to attain humane existence. This, from my own observations, is how we end up with contradictory and perverse actions and mindset within power organisations, as they omit the very ingredients that would, or at least could, ensure the avoidance or lessening of harm by their members and to their members. They preach that you reap what you sow, but seem to not bother checking the quality of the seed in the first place. If the seed is belief, then guess what you get? Crop failure. Look at all the failed and failing crops throughout history and in the world today. The truth is there for all and any to see, but as long as people believe that it's not really happening, then in their limited ego-verse it's imagined and airbrushed out of their false reality, cracks and all. The problem is, though, reality doesn't reciprocate by paying a blind bit of notice, and will eventually do more than airbrush them out of any existence worth living in.
I know for a fact that what goes into, or what I allow to enter, my mind, will determine the outcome of my attitudes, which will invariably direct my actions, which have consequences for both myself and others. What also does not enter my mind also has an effect. I don't consider this to be a belief, an opinion based on lack of evidence, as I see that it works, or doesn't, according to real outcomes, positive or negative, depending on how I think, which varies in how my mind operates from time to time. I am responsible for my actions, even the seemingly involuntary ones, period.
Even then, knowing all of that, I have to be aware that a large proportion of my thinking process is not directly seen by myself, as it is unconscious, unreasoned and driven by drives such as self-preservation and the need to reproduce, the two primary driving elements of life itself, as it simply can't continue on without doing so. To pervert either of these will end in harm, suffering, and possibly premature death. To ignore these facts would be stupid, but that is a choice to so do, so I can't say I don't have a choice.
I also know that no matter how objective I might wish to be about my inner workings, that there will always and ever be a part that is fundamentally unknown or unseen to me, as it does not operate on a methodology that can be correctly interpreted by the conscious or reasoning element of my mind, as it doesn't operate on such a system. It's basically my base animal nature, and more or less automatic system of perception and response-reaction that ensures that my being continues to function as a living being that I loosely identify as 'me'. I can, however, observe others, both similar to and apparently very different from me, and watch and learn from them as to what is good and bad practice, which I can then use in advancing my understanding of what is as yet hidden from my sight.
So, how well can I understand someone else if I don't actually know my own mind to any great degree? I know that I simply can't, but I also know that I can to some degree be sympathetically aware, to understand, of the thinking of minds that are within a certain range of my own method of thinking, but to go beyond that would be futile.
I could of course believe (trick or convince myself) into foolishly thinking I can to any great degree sympathise with a mindset that is so opposed and different to my way of thinking, such as a child rapist, but I know that I can't, because of my own nature. I know that I don't wish to stand in his shoes and empathise with his views, as his intent is to infect others with his thinking, which is part of the root cause of psychopathic behaviour in the first place, to model the world according to their outlook, as they simply don't or won't consider that there is any other way of doing things. They only look at what suits their perverted nature, and, not wanting to be otherwise aware, I don't think this is a good way to think, so therefore I look at it as it presents itself, with all its false promise, and reject it, as I know it is not to my actual benefit, and, consequently not to the benefit of others who may depend on me.
I guess what I'm longwindedly trying to say is that understanding is a goal of reason, not a trap.
Well, I think you might possibly fade into obscuituy if you were to thinking of yourself as being 'longwinded', and I know that there things need to be teased out, as that's the only true way to discern the causes that give rise to the effect. In my view, it's better to assist ourselves by learning and thinking than by merely making vague comment and pouring our condemnation. All experiences can be learned from, even the hardest of them.
Sure, the aim of any analysis of any behaviour or thing is to further gain insight so that knowledge of the root cause might be determined and for the prevention of future incidences of harm. However, to enter into that hole that is devoid of anything resembling humane thinking and try to appreciate that mindset from what we might consider to be a rational perspective, according to the proper use of reason, may well end in us losing our own reason, and thereby become inhumane.
Life is about balance, not imbalance, and perversion is perfected imbalance. It's like a grossly overweight man sitting on one end of a see-saw and expecting the other end to raise itself up of its own accord, thereby balancing his excess weight. Can't happen; won't happen.
People often go looking for something, some cause that might somehow justify the perversion effect in the first place, but they don't appear to recognise that what they are looking for is a non-existent thing, as it is an absence of what would or could have served to avoid the the perversion in the first place.
Imagine if I'm driving my car and it stops working and I pull up he hood to see why. The fan-belt has broken and there is no sight of it, as it broke and fell off, so that's why the car is not working properly.
How foolish would I be to stand there gazing hopefully that the fan-belt that is no longer there might mysteriously appear and make the car function properly? All I need to recognise is that the fan-belt is absent, and that I need to get a new one. I know that this is a mechanical solution to a mechanical problem, and is simply an example, but the human mind is not a machine that can have bits and pieces later plugged into it, as it is a process, and one that grows according to its own individual and specialised needs and drives, its experiences and knowledge gained, and the lack thereof, which causes it to become what it has formed into at a given point.
We are our genetics and our thoughts, and we become what we think. What you are looking at in the perverted mind is a dysfunctional process that cannot be corrected by reason, as all it knows is its sense of self only, and is unaware and inconsiderate of the fact that it is not only likely to harm others, but ultimately end up in trouble itself. So, even from a selfish point of view, it is an unreasoned and wilfully stupid way to think and act, thought they don't think so. We do know that for fact.
I'm interested in knowing why you consider them, despite their evil acts, as being human. Surely if it doesn't think like a human, act like a human, then ….?
I'm also curious as to know where you consider detached inquiry into something as contaminating as perversion ends, and taking up an sympathetic appreciation of the outlook of the pervert i.e. truly understanding their outlook.0 -
I'm interested in knowing why you consider them, despite their evil acts, as being human. Surely if it doesn't think like a human, act like a human, then ….?
I'm also curious as to know where you consider detached inquiry into something as contaminating as perversion ends, and taking up an sympathetic appreciation of the outlook of the pervert i.e. truly understanding their outlook.
I think perhaps we have different definitions of 'human' and 'understanding' .
To take an extreme example; a serial killer who only targets prostitutes is still a human, still thinks and acts like a human. It doesn't make him a humane human. It makes him a psychotic, violent, dangerous human. However if there weren't reasons for his behaviour it would be difficult to catch him.
Understanding his behaviour doesn't mean that I condone or sympathize with his decisions. It simply means that I have investigated his actions and the various reasons for taking those actions to such a degree that I can say that I 'understand' why he murdered. There is no sympathy or empathy on the side of the FBI forensic psychologist when they are investigating a serial killer.
Pop psychology books and tv shows use the phrase 'I understand you' when they mean 'I feel sympathy for your plight'. But a real forensic psychologist does not have to pretend to show sympathy for a criminal in their investigation.
I can understand why Hitler gave a direct order to blow up Paris towards the end of the war and I can understand why General Von Choltitz disobeyed a direct order. Understanding both humans doesn't mean I sympathize with both. One is acting more humane than the other but both are still human.
Finally if one suspects that one is 'contaminated by detached enquiry into perverted behaviour' then that is a failure of professional training and education and should be addressed. Clearly, for a professsional investigator, empathizing with, rather than understanding the behaviour of, a child rapist or murderer, would be a disturbing indication that intensive counseling should be immediately sought.
Feel free to respond if you like but I'm not sure if I can promise to do likewise (as I'm on my way out)
Again, to be human doesn't mean to act humanely. I wish that it did. And the definition of understanding in science, even in psychology, does not mean taking a moral or emotional position on the subject under investigation.0 -
I agree with you completely on the punishment thing, all the more so because they were given/took up/inherited their position of supposed righteousness and were suppose to be an example to others. I often find myself wondering why judges seem to grant leniency to people who commit crimes and proffer an excuse that they were under the alleged influence of alcohol or drugs at the time. The same goes for people who blame their evil actions on 'Satan' or 'weakness' or 'sin', as though these things came from outside their own minds, which they simply do not. Evil can only come from an evil mind, one that is only concerned with their own selfish aims and drives and completely feels no empathy with the ones who might suffer from what they choose to inflict on them. The only thing that concerns them is getting caught, as they feel powerful when they can also dupe the victims.
To my mind they should be treated all the more harshly, as they chose to be out of control, and not in say the case of someone who was suffering from some genuine illness or mental breakdown, or a physical thing like a brain tumour. When you think about it, doesn't it seem ironic that we kill rats for entering our houses for food and shelter, but we are supposed to look with clemency on men who rape children? We are one messed up species.
So you seem to have a problem with not understanding them? Do you think that there is something wrong with you for that?
You see, my friend, that's where you are making the classic human mistake, like so many of us do, until the pain finally hits the brain and the light comes on – maybe. You partly answered your own self-question-statement - “ I don’t understand what was going through their minds”. Maybe we can just think about this for a second?
So you seem to have a problem with 'not understanding' them?
How could you understand? Why should you understand? Why would you want to understand?
To 'understand' a pervert, as in the sense of getting into the mindset of a pervert and appreciate their perverted point of view, you would firstly have to think like a pervert. That's why you don't understand, as you are trying to do the impossible. It's just the same as to understand what a rat thinks you would have to have the mind of a rat. Sure, you can observe it and its actions, but know what it thinks, I think not.
If you simply are not perverted, you can't even possibly even begin to imagine the twisted thought processes that inhabit their apologies for minds. They simply don't think like you, and have not even the slightest idea of how you actually think, and they most certainly do not care in any positive sense, as they simply see you as a thing, a non-being, to be used for their own base and perverted purposes. They are not actually human.
Does that seem too shocking? If it does, why does it? What else can it possibly be? If you can't find the source of the problem, look at the results and draw fair judgement from that. There is no effect without a cause, is there? Is it right or is it wrong? Does it do harm, or does it do good? Simple.
I've got plenty more on this, as it's a wide subject, but for now take care, and don't try to 'understand' perversion, but just look at the effects of it. That's enough.
F12
Interesting post F12 , but where does it leave us ? If we don't try to ''understand'' how can we hope to prevent ? We can't just wait until the outrage happens and then inflict the death penalty ( that is if the perpetrator is caught). Surely that is just vengence and teaches us nothing .
Trying to understand the pathology of an action in no way implies approval of that action.0 -
I do know of one member of this forum who works with sex offenders. Hopefully if they are reading they might chime in.0
-
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Doc Farrell wrote: »I think perhaps we have different definitions of 'human' and 'understanding' .
To take an extreme example; a serial killer who only targets prostitutes is still a human, still thinks and acts like a human. It doesn't make him a humane human. It makes him a psychotic, violent, dangerous human. However if there weren't reasons for his behaviour it would be difficult to catch him.
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Apologies for delay in replying Doc. I've been away for a few days.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Yes, to some degree we might not be matching like with like, thought I also think we are not really that far removed in reality, as both the terms 'human' and 'understanding' are things that vary along a scale. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I suppose what I'm saying on the 'human' side is more about their mindset, outlook, attitude of pathology of mind than simply saying that they generally look and appear to be human. Sure they are human in physical form, but that is where their similarity with the vast majority of balanced or even near-balanced individuals ends. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]They are unbalanced humans in the sense that the normal checks and controls that permit or enable most people to live within something approaching a reasoned existence, are absent. What confuses most people when they try to understand these types, is that they can see that that they are looking for something that is absent, not present, so they may well confuse themselves when they don't find something that they somehow expect to find.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Some humans/people have very little humanity within them, little appreciation for the sensitivities or needs of others, but they know that they can adapt and survive within such communities by acting as though they are humane, but they actually don't 'get' the picture of how others who are not like them think. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]They are only aware of themselves and how others can be of use to them and their drives, which are always self-directed. They, like all of us to some degree, tend to judge the world and its inhabitants as thinking like themselves, but they see it from a from a completely subjective point of view, with no real capacity to understand the principles of give and take that passes for the day to day currency in a normal social settings. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]They are only capable of taking, not giving, unless the 'giving' is the giving of pain and suffering that can be preferably done stealthily and without it drawing negative attention to themselves, as their image is their cloak, their insurance policy for survival amongst those that they know they don't really understand. Even that 'giving' is a perverse and inflicting thing, as its aim is the gratification of the self above all other considerations. They do 'feel' things, but those feelings are only for the purposes of self-gratification, as the mental wiring to be otherwise is simply not there. If it were, then their negative actions would be limited by it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]There are some humans who have what would appear to be an excess of the typical traits of humane thinking, like conscience, compassion, lack of cunning, and they suffer greatly at the hands of people who are unlike them, such as perverts and psychopaths, as they have no real understanding that such a mindset exists, at least until they come face to face with it. They, like the psychopaths, also see the world from an extreme position, though they are not naturally directed to doing harm, and may well suffer from an excess of conscience that may even be to their detriment, or even their deaths, as they literally have no real defence against what they either don't or can't understand.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]All balanced human beings have elements of psychopathy within them, along with other psychological aspects that moderate and check their more potentially negative traits. I've seen many people get upset at that suggestion, as they appear to think that people must be either all 'good' or all 'bad', but in reality these are notions that have little to do with the wirings of reality of how the human mind does not work. If we had no element of psychopathy within us, we would collapse into paroxysm of guilt if we even accidental stepped on an insect or broke the branch of a tree. That would be imbalance, as it is an extreme reaction to a unintentional harm to something. Reason balances the effect of the result by weighing it against the intent or lack of it. We might regret that it happened, but to turn into a gibbering wreck over it is not balanced, just as in the opposite but equally imbalanced case of the psychopathic mind, who feels no compassion or empathy with the injured party at all. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Doc Farrell wrote: »Understanding his behaviour doesn't mean that I condone or sympathize with his decisions. It simply means that I have investigated his actions and the various reasons for taking those actions to such a degree that I can say that I 'understand' why he murdered. There is no sympathy or empathy on the side of the FBI forensic psychologist when they are investigating a serial killer.
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I agree with you completely. Again, to 'understand' is one of those words that has something of a sliding scale built within it, from a minimum appreciation of something, to what appears to be a completely sympathetic perspective, literally 'getting' the mindset of the thing or situation. However, as each individual is different from all others, then the idea that we have a complete understanding may well be inaccurate, as we are not that other person. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]In cases where Joe or Josephine Public are struggling to grasp why say sexual abuser of children could possibly do what they do, having no actual appreciation of the concept of how anyone could even consider such a perverted act, they may try to apply some form of self-limited rule of reasoning to try to appreciate the mindset of the pervert. They can't, and may even feel bad about the fact that they can't, because they feel that they should, but if you think about it, how could they or even should they, as what they are trying to imagine is not even remotely part of their mindset? We simply don't really know for sure anything that is outside of our experience or knowledgeable consideration, as we are most likely unaware of it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Doc Farrell wrote: »Pop psychology books and tv shows use the phrase 'I understand you' when they mean 'I feel sympathy for your plight'. But a real forensic psychologist does not have to pretend to show sympathy for a criminal in their investigation.
I can understand why Hitler gave a direct order to blow up Paris towards the end of the war and I can understand why General Von Choltitz disobeyed a direct order. Understanding both humans doesn't mean I sympathize with both. One is acting more humane than the other but both are still human.
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Again, I agree, and there is a tendency to conflate and confuse terms of reference used in everyday life with the more specialised areas of expertise, such as in matters of the mind. Much of the TV variety is fluffy-bunny, makey-uppy, emotional fodder for the masses who want to feel that they know something they don't even have the basic understanding of, but it sells books and all sorts of self-help products, so it's a profiable market to be in. It feeds the neurotic mindset and gives it a sense of importance by supposedly making them an expert on their own imagined 'illnesses'. It's pretty sick stuff really, but it's all seen as 'business'.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Doc Farrell wrote: »Finally if one suspects that one is 'contaminated by detached enquiry into perverted behaviour' then that is a failure of professional training and education and should be addressed. Clearly, for a professsional investigator, empathizing with, rather than understanding the behaviour of, a child rapist or murderer, would be a disturbing indication that intensive counseling should be immediately sought.
Feel free to respond if you like but I'm not sure if I can promise to do likewise (as I'm on my way out)
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I agree. That's indeed another big area, as to how suited certain people, who may enter these fields to somehow gain some understanding of their own inadequacies, may be doing more harm than good, as you need to be a very balanced individual to not become sucked into the whole psych culture, with all its rub-off and knock-on implications. Neurosis and psychosis are contaminating things, and constant exposure to them will invariably have an effect on the therapist or doctor. There needs to be oversight.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]A person entering into these areas who has an inclination towards belief rather that knowledge and objective awareness, will invariably do harm to to others or/and to themselves, as they lack insight into their own latent biases and weaknesses. The psychopathic type 'patients' are masters at identifying what they consider to be weaknesses in others, and take great pleasure in atttempting to pull the strings of the very people who may well foolishly think they are there to 'help' them. It's a challenge to their sense of superiority and they get off on the sense of power it gives them over others, even if they have little actual control over themselves, though they will believe that they do. Conceit does the rest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Doc Farrell wrote: »Again, to be human doesn't mean to act humanely. I wish that it did. And the definition of understanding in science, even in psychology, does not mean taking a moral or emotional position on the subject under investigation.
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]I agree, in the common understanding of the word 'human'. I tend to look at the aspects of a being's nature to get something of a fair evaluation of what they are most likely to do in a given situation, though I know that in reality, no matter how much I know, it will be at best an educated guess. In most everyday interactions with people we don't have to get into such a situation, but it's a useful tool if and when you come into contact with the more base thinking forms that may appear to pass for 'humans'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]In the case previously, where I was replying to HametOrHecuba, who was attempting to somehow 'understand' the hows and whys of the mindset of these perverted seeming-humane ones, I suppose what I was simply telling him is that he shouldn't wreck his head trying to 'get' why they do it, but just recognise that they simply do it because they can. It's all down to how they don't think, really.[/FONT]0 -
Advertisement
-
Interesting post F12 , but where does it leave us ? If we don't try to ''understand'' how can we hope to prevent ?
Hi Marienbad. I hope my reply to Doc will explain my previous thinking a little bit better. I wrote the previous post in a bit of a hurry, so I probably didn't qualify some of the variable terms on humanity and understanding. Perversion is another of those terms that can be misunderstood, but I think that for the purposes of this thread we know what we are talking about, as the results have been made glaringly well known.
As to how we might 'prevent' these things, as in the extremes like child sexual abuse, I think we might be able to limit, though possibly never eradicate it, as perverts operate on a level most of us just are not in tune with. It's a permanent reminder of our rather base origins that we never properly dealt with at a societal level, unfortunately, and our collective belief systems don't actually encourage us to do so. They make great show of it, but their lack of actual insight actually feeds the illness itself. By ignoring or not treating the cause we end up with an untreatable effect. Perversion is absolute imbalance of thought process that predisposes towards the doing of harm to others, and you can no more be a bit perverted in your mind than you can be a bit non-existent.
To know what perversion and the evil it causes is, we have to study it, get right up close to it, face it eyeball to eyeball, and learn about what it does and how it does it, and work from there. To know is good, but to realise is essential, and realisation is the key to it all. Sadly, realisation usually comes late in the process, due to lack of foresight, which, in my opinion, is why our society as a whole failed miserably in detecting the perversion that was always there. The wider social culture we inhabit today derives from a historical one broadly based on a system of indoctrinated, rote-learned ignorance, which is avoidance of reality, thus inevitably cultivating a ready seed-bed for the propagation of the perversion in the first place. This subliminally cultivated attitude was, and still is, to quite a large degree, continually and progressively instilled into the populace as a whole by way of ritual fear of loss of security and the acceptance of what was implied as being profitable by not-seeing, not-knowing, not-reporting, until that which was perverted practice becomes normalised. People simply see no wrong in it. The human mind can be quite easily trained to not see what it is trained not to see. Much of it is done subliminally, so we are mostly unaware that it's being done, never mind as to how it's done. If you could see behind the machinery of it, you could get some appreciation of the trickery involved, but most people are taught to be be oblivious to it anyway, as we don't like our dreams to be upset by unpleasant realities, but that's another very large subject in its own right.
Essentially, a culture of perversion has its origins in the simple principle that when there is nothing to compare something against, as in say a way of life or culture where people either know no better or are denied access to knowledge of something that could be considered a better way of doing things, then that's all they can aspire to live by, as it's all they know of. When the horizon of the individual is artificially lowered by his or her being trained to see the world from a position of prostration before the altars of power, that's the limit of what they can perceive, and so he or she thinks how things are for everyone else.
We all operate on what we think we know, but, not knowing of better, we cannot aspire to anything above what we are allowed to know, as such knowledge only exists outside of the domain of our perception. Truth may allow us to know better, but if the truth of the matter is absent, or perhaps 'removed' by those who profit from such removal, then such keys to advancement of perception are absent, thus keeping us controlled by the key-masters.
Now this is where belief systems come in, as belief limits or halts correct perception of something, thus allowing the belief-mongers, be they of the religious or political flavour, to direct the flow of power by way of limiting what the public knows or is fed, and according to the will of the few over the many. Only the upper levels of the various 'priesthoods' are privy to how the machinery of power operates, and they must buy their way in by demonstrating loyalty to that power system and the ability to accept that what they are being taught to do is justifiable, which involves beliefs. Therefore, a big ego and a lack of conscience are a good starting point, as anything less will ensure that the candidates are not allowed to enter. Once allowed entry, the process involves the teaching of ritual modes of behaviour, obedience to rules, and the use of fear of imagined losses, regardless of how unreal those virtual losses might be to the unwitting public.
Belief is promoted as essential for survival. Why? Belief is non-fact, so why teach and convince people that it is superior to knowledge? To understand something properly, we need evidence, which, by a process of reason may lead to the finding and refining of truths and the removal of doubt, which can then lead to arriving at correct conclusions and the establishment of reliable fact i.e. known truths. So, again, why teach what is the opposite, non-fact, un-evidenced, unreliable systems of judgement? Power, that's what, and what gives the best bang per buck than belief? If you turn on the TV you will hear the subtle mantras of propagation of belief, as in “Believe in better”, when in fact you can only know of better, as belief is the absence of knowledge upon which reliable evaluation and judgement can be made. It's the drip-drip effect of subtle implantation of ideas that are contradictions in terms, and they all have their effect, as they appeal to our fantasies of how we would like the world to be.
Perversion of meaning of words is the way to access the un-reasoning, un-conscious mind, and once the process is perpetuated for long enough and the emotional gratification of the promised reward for acceptance is accepted by the mind, then the opportunitiy for conscious and reasoned evaluation is lessened, if not completely neutered and removed. After a while, you become a believer, not a knower, and buy into the idea that belief is in fact better than knowing.
This is not an accidental process that somehow 'happens', as we can see the same tried and tested methodologies used time and time throughout the histories of mankind, where god-mongers and their attendant kings, or vice versa, focus the controlling influences as to how the wider society should and must behave in accordance with various dogmas and rules that are generally founded on acceptance of non-fact, emotional fear of loss of privilege or security, even the fear of looking foolish, the possibility of being treated as an outcast or enemy of the state, or even death by the most horrible of means. I've had this discussion many times, and have heard it said that things are not like that now, that things are different. Really? Take a look at the news. Perversion is about abuse (unfair use), and there is plenty of it around, and in multiple configurations.We can't just wait until the outrage happens and then inflict the death penalty ( that is if the perpetrator is caught). Surely that is just vengence and teaches us nothing. Trying to understand the pathology of an action in no way implies approval of that action.
I don't think the aim is or should be vengeance, but the giving of justice to the abused and the limiting of potential for future offence. Emotion is not the cure, as emotions only cloud judgement in the first place, thus leaving the door open for the perversion of justice, which is like trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.
I also agree that we shouldn't wait for the outrage to happen, but in the main we do just that, as our societies operate on the principle of freedom of thought, which leads to the freedom to commit acts. Freedom has both a price and a cost. Law alone is no cure for perverted thinking, as perversion operates on its own level of skilful avoidance of whatever might prove a challenge to it. That's why we see so much perversion in high office, as the perverts know where the opportunities for manipulation are. Perverted minds in power positions will invariably attempt to make perverted laws, to suit their creators' ultimate goal of power over others, with no responsibility for their own actions. That's at the very core of psychopathy, the “It wasn't me” syndrome, when caught.
Think of the planning abuses. Think of the child sex abuse topic we are discussing here. Think of the banking 'collapse'. What is the common factor in them all? Harm done to others, that's what. Some might mutter that they were 'accidents', or 'part of a wider problem'. Accidents involve lack of intent, and if the people in power who permitted them to happen allowed them to do so by accident, then they must be at least be psychologically incompetent, if not downright insane. They must have perceived some profit for them to take up such a position.
Perverts simply do not operate on thought processes that most ordinary decent humans do, and that's what makes them perverts, and, at even at a most basic level, perversion is the turning away from what is true and reasoned, so beliefs are required in order to justify the actions that derive from perverted thoughts. It's about justification by unreason, untruth, deceit, lack of responsibility and the assertion of the ego over reality, with no care for the harm done in the process. This is where belief has got us, and it's a situation where it will invariably continue to direct us to, unless we wake up. But who wants to wake up from dreams and cosy beliefs that all is really well? After all, God will take care of it, or the IMF, or the EU, or the Government, or some other escapist mirage.
The pathology of perversion has been already well enough studied, catalogued, analysed, discussed and argued for multiple decades, and although it may be treated to some degree, to perhaps limit its recurrence, the mind that operates on perverted principles as a valid thought process has not been shown to be curable. It's the perverts who don't learn, not the ones who have to deal with them, as one of the key indicators of psychopathy is that they fail to learn from experience.
Once we permit our minds to slip over that threshold from good judgement according to reasoned principles, and into the make-believe schizoid world of what suits for the moment, into the cosy blanket of belief in the unbelievable, then the outcome must, by consequence, be negative.0 -
F12, it's clear that you put a great deal of thought into your posts. You write clearly and I have certainly no particular issue with any of your points.
Except perhaps one little one. Belief is not the opposite of knowledge. I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that or whether I simply inferred it.
Can I go off the point of the thread here and suggest that you consider a post graduate degree? You clearly enjoy writing and sharing your views and I don't think an MA would be much trouble for you.
I recently read a short paperback that I think you would like by Ronald Rolheiser called 'the holy longing', it's also called in Europe 'seeking spirituality'. He is a professor of theology but intentionally wrote as simply as possible about a subject which can be quite complex.
I think you would like the book.
It's important when you have a good mind that you dont waste it on the terrible teachings that can be found on the Internet, all the illuminati and extremist nonsense. I'm not saying that you would but it's clear to me that you have a searching intellect. Please consider googling the authors listed in my signature and feel free to pm me.
If there are any titles that you have enjoyed please feel free to share in the thread at the top of the page or, again, feel free to pm me.0 -
Thanks Doc. I'll keep all of that in mind. Even though the subject being discussed here is one that doesn't give me any particular pleasure in having to face its perverse and base realities, I do think it needs to be demystified and brought down to a more fundamental 'everyday' level, as it tends to trigger emotional reaction, which is also quite understandable because of it's awful nature, but failing to learn what the evils of ignoring reality brings about, doesn't resolve anything, does it?
I do appreciate that knowledge needs to be refined and de-emotionalised to see it as it is, so my aim is to be as detached as possible whilst knowing that we all have our latent biases, so for me at least it's a process of constantly tweaking and tuning, without trying to 'prove' anything in advance, as the proof, if it does in fact exist, will or can be found if we persist along a logical and reasoned path of inquiry.
I am also well aware that there is a lot of conspiracy theory stuff flying around, yet again being emotion-based (plus the added bonus of selling lots of books and movies). At the same time I've also seen many instances of how the quick-fire accusation of someone being a conspiracy theorist can be also used as a deflection technique when something conspiratorial is actually happening. Conspiracies do of course happen, so if they are real then they are more than theories, but even still they need to be picked through to see the motives behind them. Some of them may be based on fact, but the question is, which bits? Like all things that originate in the minds of mankind, it all depends on the intent behind their construction. Are they there to advance collective well-being and dispense information, or to do harm, to pervert the perception of the underlying reality, without thought of consequence? The outcome always shows the reality, eventually, as the truth is what it is and nothing can or will change it, regardless of what I or anyone else might wish to imagine. The truth does set us free, but we have to work for it, don't we?
Regards,
F0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I do know of one member of this forum who works with sex offenders. Hopefully if they are reading they might chime in.
That would be very interesting.0 -
Does anyone else think its strange that the Catholic Church in Ireland was crying the poor mouth when it came to funding child abuse compensation schemes, yet has 12 million euro to splash out on the Eucharistic Congress.
Is there even one politician in Ireland going to challenge this spend, when they forced the Irish state to pick up the vast majority of the tab for compensation to abuse victims.
To me, it stinks.0 -
Tonight on the RTE main news there was an interview with two relatively elderly men who each represented a different organisation that spoke for victims of abuse in Catholic institutions. What did they want? Simply to talk to the people in charge in the church. Over the next couple of days I will be putting this simple question to people involved in the Congress: why did these two men have to stand outside the Dail and basically beg the Church to listen to them. Today. On the national news.
All other theological and ecumenical questions don't matter a damn next to this one. Why, after all that has been said over the last few days, are old men on the national news still waiting to talk to the hierarchy. A simple clear answer to that question will make the Congress worthwhile.0 -
Doc Farrell wrote: »Tonight on the RTE main news there was an interview with two relatively elderly men who each represented a different organisation that spoke for victims of abuse in Catholic institutions. What did they want? Simply to talk to the people in charge in the church. Over the next couple of days I will be putting this simple question to people involved in the Congress: why did these two men have to stand outside the Dail and basically beg the Church to listen to them. Today. On the national news.
All other theological and ecumenical questions don't matter a damn next to this one. Why, after all that has been said over the last few days, are old men on the national news still waiting to talk to the hierarchy. A simple clear answer to that question will make the Congress worthwhile.
There's always more to the story. You don't know what's going on behind the scenes. Don't believe everything RTE tells you.0 -
Doc Farrell wrote: »Tonight on the RTE main news there was an interview with two relatively elderly men who each represented a different organisation that spoke for victims of abuse in Catholic institutions. What did they want? Simply to talk to the people in charge in the church. Over the next couple of days I will be putting this simple question to people involved in the Congress: why did these two men have to stand outside the Dail and basically beg the Church to listen to them. Today. On the national news.
All other theological and ecumenical questions don't matter a damn next to this one. Why, after all that has been said over the last few days, are old men on the national news still waiting to talk to the hierarchy. A simple clear answer to that question will make the Congress worthwhile.The Papal Legate to an international Catholic festival in Ireland has met victims of child sex abuse by priests and apologised for the "grave sin", the Church said Wednesday.Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who is Pope Benedict XVI's personal representative at the 50th International Eucharistic Congress, met the victims for two hours to hear about the abuse they suffered and the impact it had on them.
"The tragedy of the sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by Christians, especially when done so by members of the clergy, is a source of great shame and enormous scandal," Ouellet said, according to a statement.The meeting took place during a visit by the cardinal to one of the most arduous locations for religious pilgrimage and penance in the country, St Patrick's Purgatory on an island in Lough Derg in the northwest.
Ouellet said the pope had asked him to go to Lough Derg "and ask God's forgiveness for the times clerics have sexually abused children not only in Ireland but anywhere in the Church.
"I come here with the specific intention of seeking forgiveness, from God and from the Victims, for the grave sin of sexual abuse of children by clerics," he said.0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »RTE must have 'overlooked' the following:
They didn't, they mentioned it in the report.
However Benny's guy seemed to pick and choose who he'd meet. That's the propblem.0 -
Advertisement
-
Doctor DooM wrote: »They didn't, they mentioned it in the report.
However Benny's guy seemed to pick and choose who he'd meet. That's the propblem.
I don't hardly watch RTE much at all so I don't know whether they mentioned it or not.
Couldn't it be possible that the survivors had their own reps, who acted on their behalf, and through correspondence set up a meeting with the Pope's rep? It's understandable that he can't meet with everyone!0
Advertisement