When has religion irked you personally and why?

Craven

We throw abused kids into prison now. We just wait until they abuse someone else. Psychological profiles of paedophiles reveal that they are sexually and emotionally immature. I wonder how much that is the result of the abuse they endured. They are not truly adult in my opinion. I have nothing but sympathy for those who suffer and continue the circle. This does not blind me to the reality of the harm they do and the need to put them away. Unfortunately they are indirectly punished for being harmed. Sad but necessary.

Sorry but my problem with you in this thread is that you appear to want to demolish all thought that you do not agree with. I think you are being irrational and unfair not only to Mech but others here.

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

We throw abused kids into prison now. We just wait until they abuse someone else. Psychological profiles of paedophiles reveal that they are sexually and emotionally immature. I wonder how much that is the result of the abuse they endured. They are not truly adult in my opinion. I have nothing but sympathy for those who suffer and continue the circle. This does not blind me to the reality of the harm they do and the need to put them away. Unfortunately they are indirectly punished for being harmed. Sad but necessary.

See dlowans post. It's simply not true that most abused children grow up to abuse.

Quote:

Sorry but my problem with you in this thread is that you appear to want to demolish all thought that you do not agree with. I think you are being irrational and unfair not only to Mech but others here.

I have no desire to "demolish" thought. Laughing

I just disagree with some, as have you here.

0 Replies

aka,

I looked up your email problem:

Quote:

5 [email protected] R=fail_remote_domains:
unrouteable mail domain "hardynet.com"

As I said, it was DNS errors.

0 Replies

Interesting Survey

0 Replies

Posts crossed. I'm a slow talker.

As dlowan pointed out some of the guilt that some abused sufferers feel is caused by societies implication that regardless of the kids level of participation they will be made to feel guilty at some later time. As one of my Christian raised friends said "Guilt, the gift to your children that keeps on giving".
This is caused partly by the view that a violated child is a damaged child. A virgin is worth more in the marrige market.Kids pick up on that very quickly. Therefore a child that is not virgin, even blamelessly, has a lowered sense of self worth.
This is excerbated when a woman is regarded as property which they are in several contemporous religions.

This is one example of society making a bad thing worse.

Another is the failure of society in general to acertain that actual harm happened, and if it did to hold responsible all those involved. This is a failing of modern society whether we like it or not.

We who are sitting here have no way of knowing whether or not the boys in the first case were harmed. It's possible that they weren't. We have no way of knowing whether the priest is mentally ill or not. I have shown that he probably was but we don't KNOW this. What we do KNOW is that this priest was moved around from parish to parish every time the accusations of abuse happened to arise. He was not removed from society, He received no counselling, or any supervision which may have resulted in his being returned to society (I know that there isn't much hope). His bishop just flipped this disturbed individual around until his behavior became criminal.
This is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the bishop. IMO it's actionable but he's home free.

This is another instance of making a bad thing worse. The Church needs to be called to account. IMO fines are not sufficient. The bishop will not pay the fine. He needs to go to jail. He has no possible insanity defense. He was aware of the probability that a crime would be committed and actually and wilfully aided and abetted the priest by transferring him. The priest may be sick but it's damn sure the bishop isn't, at least in that respect.

Parental Culpability. Your children are your primary responsibility. When you entrust your children to people who feel that any crime they may commit will be forgiven and that they will dwell in Paradise forever if they simply ask forgiveness of an all knowing, all forgiving god you have to know that you are entrusting them to an organization that has absolutely no hold on reality. Common sense should show you that people who walk around talking to burning bushes, calling dreams revelations, and wishing for an infinite existence, aren't wrapped to tight. Yet you let them fill your childs minds with imaginary figures, emotions, fears and guilts. Then you act surprised when "the dogs eat the sheep". That is just plain stupid!!!

I think that I answered most of the questions raised in the last few posts.

Although I've taken some heat I am glad that the thread took this turn.
The lack of responsibility that is evidenced by those that are in positions of responsibility is a blight on modern society that needs to be seriously addressed. IMO it's time we addressed it.

0 Replies

Sorry Craven,

I was trying to point out that a "LEGAL" definition of rape does not necessarily imply penetration and without an actual penetration involved there is a good chance that the boys will feel no guilt about that particular encounter and without violence or force the boys would not have been physically damaged. Society, as it is presently constituted, with it's knee jerk reaction to anything involving the "private parts" is very likely to make the boys suffer much more than their own inclinations would warrant. Double that for females as I just attempted to explain. This would seem to be in accord with your personal experiences.

Thanks for fixing the E-Mail notifications. I didn't really think that you messed it up on purpose but I didn't KNOW that. Understand Question

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

We who are sitting here have no way of knowing whether or not the boys in the first case were harmed. It's possible that they weren't.

You advocate the existence of "harmless" molestation, saying football is a greater abuse. What constitutes harm to you? The football comparison suggests physical harm but you yourself mentioned psychological harm so I don't think you excluse that.

Even given your ramblings of how society's prohibitions are what makes for the harm do you not concede that even if this were the case the child was still harmed?

Your position is somewhat like arguing that a murderer doesn't kill but that the victim's biological reaction (e.g. bleeding to death) is to blame.

You indict the status quo to portray the act of sexual abuse as harmless, but given that the act occured within the status quo the perpetrator's act subsequently has harmful consequence that the perpetrator should be aware of as a consequence of his act.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

I was trying to point out that a "LEGAL" definition of rape does not necessarily imply penetration and without an actual penetration involved there is a good chance that the boys will feel no guilt about that particular encounter and without violence or force the boys would not have been physically damaged.

Firstly we were not talking about a legal definition that does not involve penetration.

I deleted most of the PMs Wilso sent me but the conversation went something like this:

aka "You do not know if they were harmed."

Wilso "They were anally raped!"

aka "You still haven't shown that they were harmed"

Secondly the superficial physical harm of rape is minor in comparison to the psychological harm. You would be correct to say that foorball is often more physically harmful than rape, but that completely ignores the significant harm that rape causes, which is largely not physical.

Quote:

Society, as it is presently constituted, with it's knee jerk reaction to anything involving the "private parts" is very likely to make the boys suffer much more than their own inclinations would warrant.

The boys are part of society. The status quo you criticize is one in which they are a part and will help perpetuate. I posit that this status quo you criticize is largely sourced in human nature.

Your contention that society is the one that harms (and not the act of rape) ignores two points (among others).

First of all it's a false assumption that the society is more likely to cause the boy to suffer than the boy would have suffered anyway. I grew up in a society free of said inhibitions you malign and witnessed children who were completely devoid of said sensibilities become harmed through sexual abuse.

Secondly given that we are inexorable from this status quo the perpetrators act is still responsible for its consequences.

Quote:

Double that for females as I just attempted to explain. This would seem to be in accord with your personal experiences.

Nah, my personal experience involved more females being raped because the cult leader was homophobic and advocated heterosexual relationships.

Quote:

Thanks for fixing the E-Mail notifications. I didn't really think that you messed it up on purpose but I didn't KNOW that. Understand

First of all I didn't fix them, as they are not broken and your email server is simply rejecting them.

Secondly if you did not think I had intentionally broken them you were mallicious to repeatedly accuse me of doing so to interfere with your ability to follow this conversation and you were doubly mallicious for trying to construe me as a criminal just because your email updates aren't arriving.

0 Replies

X'd posts again.

I asserted that there MAY be perfectly innocous actions that in some societies would qualify as abuse. I gave some examples then but I won't bother now.

High school and college football is also the use of minor children for societies pleasure (as opposed to private pleasures) that often results in broken bones, internal damages and the manifestation of aggressive tendencies.

This is where I become bemused. We (society) castigate the priest that may damage our children for his entertainment but we laud the coach that may damage our children for our entertainment. Somehow I don't think that there is quite as much difference betwixt the renegade priest and the coach as either party would wish.

0 Replies

Its sort of hard to get gonnorhea, AIDS, syphyllis, or chlamydia by playing football, y'know? Its also hard to have gender identity confudion from football. I find it hard to believe that pre-adolescent children get any satisfaction from performing fellatio, or being penetrated.

0 Replies

I'm gunna need to change my name!

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

This is where I become bemused. We (society) castigate the priest that may damage our children for his entertainment but we laud the coach that may damage our children for our entertainment. Somehow I don't think that there is quite as much difference betwixt the renegade priest and the coach as either party would wish.

Sigh..

Mech, there are qualitative differences between the damages from football injury and rape.

I would rather break a bone than be raped. Sure, it's due to my "sensibilities" and "inhibitions" about not wishing to be raped but such is my prerogative.

0 Replies

Craven,
You still don't see it.

I was trying to get wilso's definition of rape in that context. Given wilso's penchant for absolutism I think that it was fair to ask. About that time I was described as a sick pederast and what with the notifications messing up I had thought that the thread died. Imagine my surprise when I noticed no notifications and went back to the thread to find myself vilified for several days without my responding.

Re Societies attitudes. We will never get any improvement without some discussion. And IMO the attitude of society could stand some improvement vis-a-vis innocent victims.

Sorry, I said thread when I meant post.

Re E-Mails, Lighten up, you are working too hard.

hobbitbob, At least do me the curtesy of reading back a couple of posts before you attempt to jump me. It's getting late here.

0 Replies

Sigh, Either one is damaging. Neither is necessary.

0 Replies

Craven

There are also qualitive (subjective) differences in abuses but you denied that a bit earlier.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Craven,
You still don't see it.

I see it. I just don't agree with it.

Quote:

I was trying to get wilso's definition of rape in that context. Given wilso's penchant for absolutism I think that it was fair to ask.

And Wilso answered repeatedly and with sourced cases, after which you merely repeated your assertion that the raped children were not harmed and that society's prohibitions were to blame.

Quote:

About that time I was described as a sick pederast and what with the notifications messing up I had thought that the thread died.

I don't recall anyone describing you as a pederast. I certainly haven't and when this was suggested to me in a PM I argued as forcefully against that, saying that it's a grave accusation of which there is no evidence. I went on to say that were it a valid accusation the appropriate audience for it would be the police, and not an internet forum.

This is an important distinction for me. I would argue just as stridently against anyone I saw calling you a pederast.

Quote:

Imagine my surprise when I noticed no notifications and went back to the thread to find myself vilified for several days without my responding.

Now please imagine the tedium of constantly being accused of malicious intent each time something doesn't work well and note your admittedly feckless participation in one such accusation.

Quote:

Re Societies attitudes. We will never get any improvement without some discussion. And IMO the attitude of society could stand some improvement vis-a-vis innocent victims.

I agree, but denying culpability and harm in a rape is not a useful start.

Quote:

Sorry, I said thread when I meant post.

I know, as I said you were confused.

Quote:

Re E-Mails, Lighten up, you are working too hard.

It is very knavish of you to accuse me of interfering with your freedom of speech and of a crime and to then say it was a feckless accusation and that I should lighten up. But in any case I'm sure I took it less seriously than you seem to think I did.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Craven

There are also qualitive (subjective) differences in abuses but you denied that a bit earlier.

This is demonstratably false. See below.

Craven de Kere, in post 477288, wrote:

akaMechsmith wrote:

Your unwillingness to differentiate between the differing degrees of pediophelia is also fair.

I have no "unwillingness" in this regard. I have no problem with differentiating.

0 Replies

aka,

I think we have to assume harm even though it may not occur in all cases. I cannot conceive circumstances in which rape of children, penile or otherwise, can be justified as necessary, desirable or even tolerable. To me this is true of any sexual activity with children. Look at Wilso's avatar and tell me you can imagine a circumstance in which he could justify gratifying himself by abusing the child he is holding. That is what we are discussing. The image is horrible because the act is worse. That avatar says it all. Human children are born with little more than a capacity to learn. I think you ought look at this from the viewpoint of what good can it do not what harm it might not do to a child.

0 Replies

gozmo wrote:

dlowan,

You are one who has been constructive here. I am very much in agreement with most things you have said. Clearly you have wide experience of abuse and I have assumed you are a professional working in that area. I am disturbed by this thread because I see a refusal by many to even consider their views. Their is also a horrible trend to vilify those who step from the orthodox line. I too could feign holier than thou outrage as some have but I am past that. I think that Craven is craven in his role on this thread but rather than be specific about "who" I expressed myself in a more general terms. That has led to misunderstanding so let me say that the chief offender here is cdk. Your contribution here is far removed from Craven's mischief.

BTW I have turned on emails many times but am not receiving updates.

Er, thanks Gozmo - but I am puzzled. My position is actually more hardline than Craven's, I think, in that I am less inclined to attend to supposed differences in "seriousness" between rape and other forms of sexual abuse.

Craven, as is his wont, has been less circumspect in his wording, but has expressed similar, though in fact less hard-line, ideas.

I am completely unable to comprehend how expressing similar ideas more forcefully is "craven" - it would strike me as less so. How Craven's firm expression of sincerely, and rationally held, ideas is mischievous I cannot fathom.

I acknowledge that I am more tactical! However, despite having, oft-times, railed at Craven for his stubborn and unrelenting approach, I say freely and happily, that of all the people I argue with, he is the one whose integrity and intelligence I most respect and admire.

Yes, I am a professional in the field.

0 Replies

Craven,

Please do not imagine I could be so craven as to imagine you deliberately interferred with the email. I mentioned it as a fact and thanks for the explanation. OK I think you are heavy handed here and a little imperious but I only play cards at the Bridge Club. I don't think this is a game at all.

dlowan,

You know I was using the reference to children and prison for effect. Your vague suggestion that it was otherwise is unkind. Please stop it . I admire you and do not want to be disillusioned.

0 Replies

Mech - I find that attempting to engage you in rational debate is like trying to catch a will-o'-the-wisp.

Craven is far more able than I to keep abreast of your twists and turns and evasions and duckings and weavings.

For now, I weary of it. I have demonstrated that you have been an apologist for rape of small children - no amount of obfuscation and reinvention of this debate will hide this.

I have no idea why you argue as you do. I do not habitually condemn people. I take no holier-than-thou attitude to you. I do, however, assert that you are deeply, truly, madly wrong.

I wish you growth and enlightenment.

I say farewell to this thread until the weekend, my time, when I shall again struggle with the smoke and mirrors.

0 Replies

When has religion irked you personally and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know