Pedophile teacher busted


karrie
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I didn't say it erased what he had done. It should have an impact on how each is treated after the fact and more attention needs to paid before the fact. It's about people's attitudes. Locking people up after they have committed an offense is akin to closing the barn door after the horse escapes. In this case, it may make people feel better but it does nothing to help the kids that were molested. Demonizing people with mental issues is not conducive to getting people to come forward when the start having problems.

I never demonized him. I said a pedophile was caught. Plain and simple. Child molestor, pedophile, kiddy diddler... makes no diff.
 
Cannuck
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I never demonized him.

I have no doubt you don't believe you have.
 
karrie
#63
I have no control over the imagined weight you decide to place on words. If you feel it's demonizing someone to state what they did, so be it.
 
DaSleeper
+6
#64  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I have no doubt you don't believe you have.

Way to obfuscate a thread with silly nit picking bullshyte arguments...
 
lone wolf
+2
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Way to obfuscate a thread with silly nit picking bullshyte arguments...

He's never wrong. Ask him. He'll tell you...

over and over and over again....
 
Cannuck
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I have no control over the imagined weight you decide to place on words.

You have complete control over what you say.
 
karrie
+2
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You have complete control over what you say.

Yep. A pedophile was caught. Thank goodness someone figured out what he was doing and put a stop to it.

I have reason, given the definitions of pedophilia, to use the word pedophile. You however, have only an apologetic reflex to try to avoid it despite the fact that it fits.
 
SLM
+3
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Way to obfuscate a thread with silly nit picking bullshyte arguments...

That's the typical M.O.
 
earth_as_one
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

That's a whole other debate.... is pedophilia a mental illness, or a sexual preference? Even in the psychology community there's still debate on it.

Regardless, once acted upon, it's a matter for prison psychiatrists. If he'd sought treatment beforehand I'd argue for his right to said treatment. he didn't. Instead he repeatedly, thoughtfully, systematically, abused child after child.

Why can't it be both? It is a sexual preference, but its also an unhealthy sexual preference and therefore a mental illness.

I doubt true pedophiles can change their stripes, but they might be able to be treated before they commit a crime. I'm with Cannuck on this one. Prevention (if possible) of sexual molestation is preferable to cutting the balls off pedophiles after they sexually assault a child. People with these tendencies should be able to get help before they commit a crime and be commended for doing that. I support toning down the rhetoric and only punishing people who commit this heinous crime. I am against punishing people who are only at the point where sexually molesting a child is still just a thought in their head. In fact, I'd prefer these people seek help and get it in a timely manner.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

The reason there is a debate about it is that, if it becomes accepted that pedophilia is a sexual preference, it could be protected under the charter.

A right to health is also in the charter. No where in the charter does it give an adult the right to satisfy their sexual appetites at the expense of a child's right to health. The charter protects homosexuals because both are consenting adults and they have a right to pursue happiness. A child does not have the legal right to consent to sex. No they don't have the same rights as adults, nor should they. Its also why juveniles aren't punished as adults, nor should they.
 
karrie
+4
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Why can't it be both? It is a sexual preference, but its also an unhealthy sexual preference and therefore a mental illness.

I doubt true pedophiles can change their stripes, but they might be able to be treated before they commit a crime. I'm with Cannuck on this one. Prevention (if possible) of sexual molestation is preferable to cutting the balls off pedophiles after they sexually assault a child. People with these tendencies should be able to get help before they commit a crime and be commended for doing that. I support toning down the rhetoric and only punishing people who commit this heinous crime. I am against punishing people who are only at the point where sexually molesting a child is still just a thought in their head. In fact, I'd prefer these people seek help and get it in a timely manner.

The rhetoric he's referring to and protesting against is the use of the term pedophile. I'm sorry for such heavy handed rhetoric (no, I'm not really), but when one sexually molests children, one can expect the label. Sorry for any hurt feelings, but, if the shoe fits, wear it.

If you can explain better than him why a pedophile should be called anything else, feel free to try, but I doubt you'll make a case better than his, and you don't see me asking the mods to change my wording.

He sexually molested children. End of story.
 
TenPenny
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Why can't it be both? It is a sexual preference, but its also an unhealthy sexual preference and therefore a mental illness.


The whole concept of calling it a sexual preference is to make it a legitimate choice, and to make it socially acceptable.
 
earth_as_one
#72
I have no problem with the term pedophile. It accurately describes their "condition". The rhetoric I was referring to was the demands to hang pedophiles, cut off their balls, cut off their penis and other ways that people describe what they'd do to a pedophile. If they've committed a crime, I prefer to let the criminal justice system deal with it, rather than vigilante justice. If they haven't committed a crime yet, then I'd want them in a treatment program and closely monitored.

Also I seriously doubt that pedophilia would ever become "socially acceptable" regardless of the terminology.
 
lone wolf
+2
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Why can't it be both? It is a sexual preference, but its also an unhealthy sexual preference and therefore a mental illness.

I doubt true pedophiles can change their stripes, but they might be able to be treated before they commit a crime. I'm with Cannuck on this one. Prevention (if possible) of sexual molestation is preferable to cutting the balls off pedophiles after they sexually assault a child. People with these tendencies should be able to get help before they commit a crime and be commended for doing that. I support toning down the rhetoric and only punishing people who commit this heinous crime. I am against punishing people who are only at the point where sexually molesting a child is still just a thought in their head. In fact, I'd prefer these people seek help and get it in a timely manner.

There are many places a person can go and with complete anonymity be treated before actually going through with the urge. At any given time, you'll find people in addiction counselling just deal to with the urge. In fact, during my time in treatment for a painkiller problem, there were two in the same centre. I applaud and completely respect both the effort and their anonymity.
 
SLM
+4
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

The rhetoric he's referring to and protesting against is the use of the term pedophile. I'm sorry for such heavy handed rhetoric (no, I'm not really), but when one sexually molests children, one can expect the label. Sorry for any hurt feelings, but, if the shoe fits, wear it.

If you can explain better than him why a pedophile should be called anything else, feel free to try, but I doubt you'll make a case better than his, and you don't see me asking the mods to change my wording.

He sexually molested children. End of story.

Of course he's a pedophile. Only individuals who've stepped in it and now can't back out because their ego won't allow them to capitulate would argue otherwise.
 
karrie
+3
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I have no problem with the term pedophile. It accurately describes their "condition". The rhetoric I was referring to was the demands to hang pedophiles, cut off their balls, cut off their penis and other ways that people describe what they'd do to a pedophile. If they've committed a crime, I prefer to let the criminal justice system deal with it, rather than vigilante justice. If they haven't committed a crime yet, then I'd want them in a treatment program and closely monitored.

No, I'm sorry, but you jumped in and said you agreed with Cannuck. Do you or don't you? You might want to go re-read. He wasn't talking about vigilante justice. He was referring to the term pedophile being used.

Okay okay... I'll admit I'm being a dog with a bone... you said your stance. But let me just state... not once have I advocated vigilante justice or making this guy skip any portion of the legal system that will give him his chance to get help if needed.
Last edited by karrie; Feb 2nd, 2012 at 05:36 PM..
 
earth_as_one
#76
I'm with Cannuck in that I prefer prevention of a crime over punishing a person for a crime.

I also said that Cannck had a point that this person may not have been motivated by sex. Maybe he is a sick bastard who has taken spitting on someone's food to a whole new level and the children were victims of opportunity. If they find child porn on his computer, case closed. But if its images of children in bondage, then he might be something else.... I'm not saying this person is normal or healthy... just that his motivation may not have been sexual. Technically he might not be a pedophile but some sort of sadist.

Also, I support Cannuck in that debating an idea isn't the same as saying you approve or embrace an idea. I see no reason to attack Cannuck. At no point did he or I claim that pedophilia is rational, normal, shouldn't be a crime or defend the asshole who abused children.

I think pedophile is an accurate term to describe someone who is sexually attracted to children.
 
karrie
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post


Also, I support Cannuck in that debating an idea isn't the same as saying you approve or embrace an idea. I see no reason to attack Cannuck. At no point did he or I claim that pedophilia is rational, normal, shouldn't be a crime or defend the asshole who abused children.

I don't believe anyone has attacked him, have they?
 
gerryh
+4
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post


ETA: Bringing up someone else's health (as if it's relevant to the topic) is a cheap shot unworthy of even you....


unworthy of him? Fully expected actually.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You have complete control over what you say.

but no control over what persons with diminished brain capacities read into what she says.
 
Cannuck
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

despite the fact that it fits.

It does not fit. As I've said, just because you or the cops want to twist the definition of "pedophilia", does not mean that the definition has changed.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

but when one sexually molests children, one can expect the label.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that some people throw labels around because they don't know the meaning

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I don't believe anyone has attacked him, have they?

LOL...now you're just embarrassing yourself.
 
lone wolf
+2
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post


LOL...now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Not from where I sit.... PORTER
 
Cannuck
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Not from where I sit.... PORTER

I'm not surprised.

Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Quote:

Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder,[6] (external - login to view)[12] (external - login to view)[13] (external - login to view) some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents.[10] (external - login to view)[14] (external - login to view)[15] (external - login to view) Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.[15] (external - login to view)[16] (external - login to view)

Nuff said.
 
lone wolf
+2
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm not surprised.

Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Nuff said.

Kind sir...

I beg your attention. I know of the nonsense you speak. I, sir have called for the porter that I, sir, may exchange this seat. I know I could tear out this ripcord and stop, really fast, this here train....

...but you might spill some of your drink....
 
L Gilbert
+2
#83
Pedophilia def.: "A paraphilia involving heterosexual or homosexual activity or intercourse between adults with children, especially prepubertal." - McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine
I'd say sperm has something to do with sexual activity.
"A paraphilia involving hetero- or homosexuoerotic fantasy, activity or intercourse initiated by a postpubertal adolescent or adult male or female with prepubescent children" - Segen's Medical Dictionary
That's pretty clear, too, IMO.
"Sex or sexual activity with children who have not reached puberty." - Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm not surprised.

Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Nuff said.

"primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children" Spreading your sperm around kids' mouths isn't displaying any sexual interest?

What're you smoking?
 
Cannuck
+1
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

"primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children" Spreading your sperm around kids' mouths isn't displaying any sexual interest?

What're you smoking?

I know it's difficult for some people to keep up with the conversation but, as has been explained already in this thread, there is nothing in the story that says this guys "primary or exclusive" sexual interest is in kids. If he worked in an old folks home he may very well have been caught doing this with seniors.

Also already covered is the fact that just because laymen like you, Karrie, cops and a few other forum know-it-alls incorrectly define pedophilia, does not change the definition. The guy is a child molester. The jury is still out on whether he is a pedophile. What I am or am not smoking doesn't change that fact.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#85
It seems to one poster that it takes more than one time of abusing kids to be called a pedophile

OK ...you blow me once and I won't call you a cork soaker....(I know....an old one....but it still applies)
 
TenPenny
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I know it's difficult for some people to keep up with the conversation but, as has been explained already in this thread, there is nothing in the story that says this guys "primary or exclusive" sexual interest is in kids. If he worked in an old folks home he may very well have been caught doing this with seniors.

Also already covered is the fact that just because laymen like you, Karrie, cops and a few other forum know-it-alls incorrectly define pedophilia, does not change the definition. The guy is a child molester. The jury is still out on whether he is a pedophile. What I am or am not smoking doesn't change that fact.



Once you enter the world of the courts, it does not matter what the dictionary or medical definition of pedophile is, what matters is the legal meaning.
 
karrie
+1
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It does not fit. As I've said, just because you or the cops want to twist the definition of "pedophilia", does not mean that the definition has changed.



I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that some people throw labels around because they don't know the meaning



LOL...now you're just embarrassing yourself.


No, you're trying to dictate the meaning. In the legal process, the legal definitions matter. He's currently outside the realm of getting psychiatric help. That's on the other side of the legal process, They can worry about and label him all they want once they get him. Until then, he's been sexually mulesting elementary school kids, he's a pedophile.
 
spaminator
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

The same amount he had on his computer.

Lets see how easy it is to pick up wild granny pics...

Caution, NSFW, or the faint of heart.

wild grannies - Google Search (external - login to view)

Since his cahe was full of kid picks. I'd say pedophile is a safe assumption. But you go right ahead and be a pedo-apologist. Looks good on a Police State special interest shill like you.

vomit just ejaculated from our mouths.

geezers should be banned from such activities.

better to die young.
 
earth_as_one
#89
I think everyone here agrees that what this person did is hideous. But if you think this person is a pedophile then you must know that his motivation was sexual. I don't see how what he did would be sexually gratifying, but people get turned on by weird stuff, so its possible. I think its also possible that this person is some form of a sadist who gets some sort of pleasure from this act in the same way that other people get pleasure from spitting on people's food.

Either way, the person should be locked up for a long time.
 
karrie
+2
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I think everyone here agrees that what this person did is hideous. But if you think this person is a pedophile then you must know that his motivation was sexual. I don't see how what he did would be sexually gratifying, but people get turned on by weird stuff, so its possible. I think its also possible that this person is some form of a sadist who gets some sort of pleasure from this act in the same way that other people get pleasure from spitting on people's food.

Either way, the person should be locked up for a long time.

You think he fed kids cum for reasons other than to jerk off to the pics?

Now, I'm gonna try not to sound overly simplistic here, but, anytime there's a male, pictures, and cum involved, how could you not think that what he's doing is for his sexual gratification?
 

Similar Threads

0
Dozens Busted For Child Porn At Pentagon
by Stretch | Jul 25th, 2010
4
Big Bang Busted
by darkbeaver | Feb 23rd, 2008
1
Busted
by Jo Canadian | Apr 30th, 2005
26
BUSTER BUSTED
by galianomama | Mar 30th, 2005
5
Santa's helpers busted
by Col Man | Jan 6th, 2005
no new posts