Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 19:43:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by faffer on Feb 2, 2018 19:47:45 GMT
It would be fecking hard not to and i give all my respect to him for doing so. I would make the scums life hell no matter what the court gives him.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 2, 2018 19:48:01 GMT
You would like to think that his time in some of the more serious prisons in the states is not going to be a good time.
I imagine the victims and families are hoping his sentence is not fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Feb 2, 2018 20:03:48 GMT
Let's hope the guards are permanently looking the other way
Phil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 20:18:53 GMT
Respect to the judge who apparently said that due to the nature of the crimes she didn't intend to pursue any punishment against him.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 20:40:46 GMT
No. We don’t do retribution / vigilante / lynching. We allow the rule of law to take its course. Especially when the guy has already been found guilty and sentenced to the rest of his life in a US jail. Anyway, to be honest I find the hysteria surrounding the abuse of children rather irritating. (Pause for shocked gasp,) In that it seems to be worse to sexually abuse children than it is to kill them. Some muppet drunk / on his phone /speeding who mows a kid down is less of a pariah than a kiddy-fiddler. Seems wrong to me. The whole age of consent thing is a human imagining - in nature, animals tend to have sex when they become sexually mature. Ditto in some human cultures. In the West we introduce a ~ 5 year hiatus when children are sexually mature but no allowed to have sex. Of course this is part of my culture too, and I think it is right to have an age of consent, but I can also see that it stigmatises underage sexual activity, and -most importantly - that makes sexual abuse all the worse for the victim. In other words, all the fuss and hysteria and such courtroom shenanigans as we saw, only serve to make victims feel worse because they have it demonstrated to them just how awful what happened to them was, over and over and over again. And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. In my case, it was at one point (quite recently in Scotland) an offence to have gay sex at all. Then it was OK at 21 whilst the breeders could make like rabbits at 18, then finally it all came down to 16. Why 16? Well why not, I suppose. But no science to it. So in summary, the hysteria surrounding child abuse including this OP, just makes things worse for the victims because it tells them just how awful what happened to them was, and I therefore dislike and reject it.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 2, 2018 20:45:27 GMT
They all moved pretty quickly for fat people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 20:49:18 GMT
No. We don’t do retribution / vigilante / lynching. We allow the rule of law to take its course. Especially when the guy has already been found guilty and sentenced to the rest of his life in a US jail. Anyway, to be honest I find the hysteria surrounding the abuse of children rather irritating. (Pause for shocked gasp,) In that it seems to be worse to sexually abuse children than it is to kill them. Some muppet drunk / on his phone /speeding who mows a kid down is less of a pariah than a kiddy-fiddler. Seems wrong to me. The whole age of consent thing is a human imagining - in nature, animals tend to have sex when they become sexually mature. Ditto in some human cultures. In the West we introduce a ~ 5 year hiatus when children are sexually mature but no allowed to have sex. Of course this is part of my culture too, and I think it is right to have an age of consent, but I can also see that it stigmatises underage sexual activity, and -most importantly - that makes sexual abuse all the worse for the victim. In other words, all the fuss and hysteria and such courtroom shenanigans as we saw, only serve to make victims feel worse because they have it demonstrated to them just how awful what happened to them was, over and over and over again. And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. In my case, it was at one point (quite recently in Scotland) an offence to have gay sex at all. Then it was OK at 21 whilst the breeders could make like rabbits at 18, then finally it all came down to 16. Why 16? Well why not, I suppose. But no science to it. So in summary, the hysteria surrounding child abuse including this OP, just makes things worse for the victims because it tells them just how awful what happened to them was, and I therefore dislike and reject it. There is no actual hysteria in the original post. Just a simple question followed by a statement of fact, he was lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 20:50:45 GMT
No. We don’t do retribution / vigilante / lynching. We allow the rule of law to take its course. Especially when the guy has already been found guilty and sentenced to the rest of his life in a US jail. Anyway, to be honest I find the hysteria surrounding the abuse of children rather irritating. (Pause for shocked gasp,) In that it seems to be worse to sexually abuse children than it is to kill them. Some muppet drunk / on his phone /speeding who mows a kid down is less of a pariah than a kiddy-fiddler. Seems wrong to me. The whole age of consent thing is a human imagining - in nature, animals tend to have sex when they become sexually mature. Ditto in some human cultures. In the West we introduce a ~ 5 year hiatus when children are sexually mature but no allowed to have sex. Of course this is part of my culture too, and I think it is right to have an age of consent, but I can also see that it stigmatises underage sexual activity, and -most importantly - that makes sexual abuse all the worse for the victim. In other words, all the fuss and hysteria and such courtroom shenanigans as we saw, only serve to make victims feel worse because they have it demonstrated to them just how awful what happened to them was, over and over and over again. And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. In my case, it was at one point (quite recently in Scotland) an offence to have gay sex at all. Then it was OK at 21 whilst the breeders could make like rabbits at 18, then finally it all came down to 16. Why 16? Well why not, I suppose. But no science to it. So in summary, the hysteria surrounding child abuse including this OP, just makes things worse for the victims because it tells them just how awful what happened to them was, and I therefore dislike and reject it. There is no actual hysteria in the original post. Just a simple question followed by a statement of fact, he was lucky. Ok fair enough there wasn’t hysteria in the OP, but the OP was about hysteria. Subtle difference! Anyway it was the father who was lucky - he didn’t actually assualt or murder the defendant, if he had been allowed to, he would have gone to jail. And the defendant might have preferred a quick death to 175 years in jail. I think I would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 21:02:22 GMT
Most people without children I believe, would have considered the post, the subject matter, and simple etiquette, and held their own counsel. Welcome to the world of Telemachus Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 21:05:40 GMT
Most people without children I believe, would have considered the post, the subject matter, and simple etiquette, and held their own counsel. Welcome to the world of Telemachus Rog Absolutely no. Unless you think the parents interests are more important than the children’s. If you don’t want to read my opinion, I suggest you join a closed Facebook group where you won’t have to read any opinion other than a mirror of your own. Then you can perpetuate your unintelligent hysteria to your hearts content.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 2, 2018 21:07:14 GMT
However illogical the action, I can understand why he felt the way he did. At the Andrei Chikatilo murder trial, the brother of one of the victims smuggled a heavy steel ball into the courtroom and hurled it at the victim's head. It missed and he was overpowered by guards, though he wasn't charged with any offence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 21:07:15 GMT
No. We don’t do retribution / vigilante / lynching. We allow the rule of law to take its course. Especially when the guy has already been found guilty and sentenced to the rest of his life in a US jail. Anyway, to be honest I find the hysteria surrounding the abuse of children rather irritating. (Pause for shocked gasp,) In that it seems to be worse to sexually abuse children than it is to kill them. Some muppet drunk / on his phone /speeding who mows a kid down is less of a pariah than a kiddy-fiddler. Seems wrong to me. The whole age of consent thing is a human imagining - in nature, animals tend to have sex when they become sexually mature. Ditto in some human cultures. In the West we introduce a ~ 5 year hiatus when children are sexually mature but no allowed to have sex. Of course this is part of my culture too, and I think it is right to have an age of consent, but I can also see that it stigmatises underage sexual activity, and -most importantly - that makes sexual abuse all the worse for the victim. In other words, all the fuss and hysteria and such courtroom shenanigans as we saw, only serve to make victims feel worse because they have it demonstrated to them just how awful what happened to them was, over and over and over again. And it is just an age threshold that varies according to how we are feeling at the time and thus has no basis in logic. In my case, it was at one point (quite recently in Scotland) an offence to have gay sex at all. Then it was OK at 21 whilst the breeders could make like rabbits at 18, then finally it all came down to 16. Why 16? Well why not, I suppose. But no science to it. So in summary, the hysteria surrounding child abuse including this OP, just makes things worse for the victims because it tells them just how awful what happened to them was, and I therefore dislike and reject it. Whilst that is a calm and rational analysis it doesn't take account of how somebody might feel if it was their actual daughter's who had been abused. I think it's laudable to say 'no I wouldn't do that, I would just sit calmly opposite him content he is going to do his time', but until we have been in that position I don't think I could say with 100% certainty I could.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 21:09:33 GMT
You and I being childless, are the last people to be heard on such a subject.
I suspect the pain needs an outlet.
That's just an opinion, which is a bit like you expressing yours, but just different.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 21:09:34 GMT
Most people without children I believe, would have considered the post, the subject matter, and simple etiquette, and held their own counsel. Welcome to the world of Telemachus Rog Absolutely no. Unless you think the parents interests are more important than the children’s. If you don’t want to read my opinion, I suggest you join a closed Facebook group where you won’t have to read any opinion other than a mirror of your own. Then you can perpetuate your unintelligent hysteria to your hearts content. Why is an opinion that is different to yours 'unintelligent'?
|
|