Pedophile teacher busted
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
Your defense of pedophiles in this thread lends defense to this teacher for his actions. You and canuckleheads continued excuses lends defense to what this teacher has done. Your and his denial of this fact changes nothing.
As for Catholic Priests, yes, the weak have definitely had a problem. The strong willed not so much. Your point in bringing up the Catholic Church would be what? Your position in this thread is tenuous and you need to deflect?
I personally find it funny that anybody trying to defend pedophilia would want the Catholic Church involved in their argument.
I suppose it could be, if you chose to make it a defense. But I haven't seen anyone say that. I have seen people discussing whether or not it is a mental illness, which is not the same as saying it is a valid defense for committing certain acts.
As much as I hate the (practicing) bastards, I will concede that they are born this way and can't really be blamed for the "condition". The problems lies where they cross a line to deliberately harm innocent victims....................for that there is NO excuse. I guess we are all attracted to things that aren't good, but most of us exercise restraint and self control. Because of people like me hundreds of buxom blondes age 18-25 are safe. :smile:
Agreed, it's mostly just pedo apologist.
But the position has been put forth that this form of sexuality is a mental illness as apposed to a sexual orientation. Indirectly offering the defence of innocent by reason of mental disorder. If pedophilia is a mental disorder, then we'd have to revisit homosexuality and BDSM as possible mental illnesses as well.
I bet it does for most RCC priests, even if they don't have a wife.
That's reasonable.
No-one I've read so far. There's sure a lot of vilification going on, though.
Perhaps there should also be one for guilty but having a mental disorder as an extenuating circumstance. Maybe there is one already, but I haven't looked for one.
I think it'd depend upon whether the pedo knows the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. If they don't know the diff, then I'd saying it's a mental disorder. If they do know the diff, it's a sociological unacceptable orientation.
CCoC...
16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
Most pedophiles, see nothing wrong with it, NAMBLA as an example.
Yeah, I added a bit at the end after you posted your reply. To wit: "I think it'd depend upon whether the pedo knows the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. If they don't know the diff, then I'd saying it's a mental disorder. If they do know the diff, it's a sociological unacceptable orientation."
Same answer applies.
I'm sure I don't have to explain what NAMBLA is. They believe the laws are simply puritanical. They do not believe that pedophilia, with consent, is wrong.
Seems to.
Actually I'd never heard of it till recently. Their view seems to have been a lot more prevalent in the past. That indicates that fewer societies are willing to put up with the crap. I think this is a good tendency.
Well NAMBLA are entitled to their opinion and they have a charter right to freedom of expression. I think anyone who advocates sexual contact between adults and children and claims it isn't harmful to the child is full of BS. If any of them try to put their thoughts into action and molest a child, then I support applying the full force of the law.
My defense of pedophiles? Yes I expected that kind of an unfounded accusation from you GH. I noticed that most forum regulars here were able to see right through your BS.
For the record, I don't defend child molesters or the perv who molested these children. I support giving sick people access to medical treatment. If a pedophile doesn't seek treatment and molests a child, then I support holding them accountable for their actions/crimes. Laws which protect children from being sexually abused have priority over a pedophile's desire to molest children. Only adults can legally consent to sex. Sexual contact between adults and children is abuse and allowing this would completely screw up our society for generations.
The reason why I raised the issue of Catholic priests has to do with their vow of celibacy and abstinence. Someone here suggested this as a cure for pedophiles. I doubt abstinence would work for most people and our well known problems with a minority of Catholic priests and pedophilia proves that abstinence doesn't work in all cases.
Last edited:
That NAMBLA thinks sexual contact between adults and children is normal and healthy? I disagree with their opinion. How about you?
I think pedophilia is a screwed up type of sexual orientation. Its a mental health issue because of the destructive consequences. Some people have a fixation with fire. But if a pyromaniac sets a house on fire for kicks and kills the people inside, then they are guilty of murder.
If someone is so mentally ill that they can't tell the difference between right and wrong or legal and illegal, then they would have a case for not guilty by reason of insanity. I suppose that's possible in an exceptional case of pedophilia. I'm going to assume most pedophiles know the law and know that sexual contact with a child would be harmful to the child. That makes them guilty of a crime, not insane to the point of not being legally responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I think pedophilia is a screwed up type of sexual orientation. Its a mental health issue because of the destructive consequences. Some people have a fixation with fire. But if a pyromaniac sets a house on fire for kicks and kills the people inside, then they are guilty of murder.
If someone is so mentally ill that they can't tell the difference between right and wrong or legal and illegal, then they would have a case for not guilty by reason of insanity. I suppose that's possible in an exceptional case of pedophilia. I'm going to assume most pedophiles know the law and know that sexual contact with a child would be harmful to the child. That makes them guilty of a crime, not insane to the point of not being legally responsible for the consequences of their actions.
With regards to Vince Li, didn't he take himself off the medication that he was prescribed? If that is the case, then it would be his fault. This isn't directed at you Karrie, I just quoted you as I agree with your point about the fact that he cut off someone's head and that he shouldn't be let out scott-free for that.
Of course, it's been a while since I've read about this incident, so I could be thinking about someone else that stopped taking their medication.
No, I blame them for the actions that they do. I don't care if a person is mentally ill or "legally" sane. If they do something that is morally reprehensible than they do need to face the consequences. Mental illness shouldn't be able to be used as a "get out of jail free" card. There needs to be some culpability or there won't be any justice for the victims(in the case of the OT, the children who were fed semen!).
I personally believe the not guilty by reason of insanity plea should be removed from our system. Not sent to prison by reason of insanity should replace it. You kill somebody and are insane, you spend 25 years to life in a mental institution rather than a prison.