It would be better to ban oxygen since 100% of pedophiles require oxygen to survive.
Systemic abuse of children
- Thread starter Hoid
- Start date
Well that certainly explains why you have such goody ideas about laws re sex. But you are on the wrong track.
Actually, Singapore's self-exclusion policy has proved reasonably effective in helping gambling addicts. Now I know some will view gambling addicts and others with similar mental-health problems as cash cows to be milked. It's interesting to note how these same people think we should shoot pedophiles dead because they're so evil even though many of their victims do end up in casinos. Victims equal cash cows for government coffers. You see, everyone has a purpose in the government's grand scheme.
Question: knowing how an effective self-exclusion policy could potentially greatly help victims of abuse or other trauma, would you think needing to scan an ID card and your fingerprints to enter a casino (something that happens in many jurisdictions already by the way) just too much of a hassle to help your adult compatriots who may have suffered tauma and who may have turned to compulsive gambling to distract themselves from it? Or do you think just shooting the abuser dead (assuming we ever know about him or her) and then milking adult victims for all they have a far preferable policy?
Now of course not all victims turn to compulsive gambling. Some turn to alcohol too. That's good for the wine industry. Many sex workers are victims of childhood abuse too. Heck, without childhood abuse, we wouldn't have as many sex workers either. What a boon, eh.
Last edited:
There is no effective treatment program available today (on purpose) and because the victims end up being the next attackers you might as well shoot both people. If you can create them you can reverse it. That flaw seems to serve the purposes of the ultra rich so it will it worse rather than better.
If it is self exclusion why would anyone else need to show ID? Seems excessive to look after a few people that can't control themselves.People have to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.
Sorry, but your 'on purpose' statement is just pure conspiracy theory garbage.
That said, you are correct that statistically, most abusers were abused themselves. Some turn to alcohol, others to gambling, others to smoking, others to narcotics, some to compulsive sexual behaviours with other consenting adults, whether BDSM or whatever, some might face a higher risk of raping someone, some turn to prostitution, and yes, some even turn to abusing children in their turn.
So while not all victims will turn to abusing children in their turn, most who do abuse children have often been abused themselves, whether emotionally, physically, or sexually or any combination of these; so in many respects, it can form a part of a vicious circle of transgenerational violence.
I totally agree with you that people who abuse children sexually don't really cause that much damage, so why do we get so angry towards molesters then? The kids will just need to learn to pull themselves together, damn it! As far as I'm concerned, therapy is a waste of taxpayer money too. Logically, if molestation causes minimal damage, then I think just imposing a mild fine of a few hundred dollars and community service for molesters should suffice? Why punish them so severely if they don't cause that much damage to start with? Didn't you know that whatever damage the molester causes totally disappears as soon as the kid reaches the age of eighteen? Pook! Just like that! So really, molestation really isn't that big a deal.
I'm just trying to understand your logic regarding how we should punish molesters and why?
Does the general public really care about helping adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse or does it just like to talk tought against unknown abusers as a feel-good tactic?
Last edited:
I thought I was quite clear on how to deal with molesters. Wow execute them so there is no chance of reoffending. What does this have to do with forcing everyone to have a retina scan just to have a drink and a bit of fun?
A retina scan at the bar? Don't you think that goes too far? As for ID and fingerprint scans at casinos, that's actually a common practice in many parts of the world. North America is the odd man out on that one, same as with marijuana legalization.
As for offenders, do you have any idea how many are never reported for a wide range of reasons?
Are we supposed to execute them if we don't even know who they are? By the time the child might be ready to talk years later, any potential forensic evidence is gone.
You know the next wave will be the ones that were abused. Are you going to wait until they offend and then kill them after they have created part of the next generation?
How about we not let the ones who think it is a non-issue determine how the whole issue is 'covered'. Children who hold back because their parents would kill the abuser and then go to jail so they are lost anyway is different than the one told the patents would be killed if they told.
If you want to push your solution you need to have it apply to people who have paid money so the 'crime' would never be prosecuted like the incest crimes that happened when no exchange of money was involved. It would mean the 'babysitter' was paying the patents to be left alone with a child that will be seduced rather than raped. Rape is a one time deal, seductions last for years and love rather than fear is the binding agent.
A happy nymph comes from one group, the rest face a lifetime of stress of they don't kill themselves, both will seduce children, who do you shoot and when?
Rather than an ankle bracelet make one for their cock that flashed a light on their shirt collar so the person they are talking too know the erection fits in with their conversation
Check out the Westerners who visit brothels in places like Taiwan and South Korea. When they started cross referencing who was visiting the ones that supplied children they found they were rich westerners rather than horny dads and moms.
Tax slave is a funny one. An effective self-exclusion policy could save many victims of abuse from the heartache of gambling addiction and probably prevent many female gamblers from ending op in brothels selling sex and spreading HIV (which imposes high health care costs) among many other social problems linked to compulsive gambling. In other words, it would be a cost-effective policy that could also save the taxpayer much money in health costs.
Instead, he'd rather spend millions of dollars a year (conservative estimate) to provide professional therapy for them all when an effective self-exclusion policy would cost a fraction of that and prove at least almost as effective. No wonder he's a tax slave.
Instead, he'd rather spend millions of dollars a year (conservative estimate) to provide professional therapy for them all when an effective self-exclusion policy would cost a fraction of that and prove at least almost as effective. No wonder he's a tax slave.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in this world money is the king. If it makes money for the elite it is good, if it takes money away from them it is bad. There are no other important parameters.
The creation of abused people (like Gaza living in fear 24/7 for the last 70 years straight and especially sexually) will create adults who have certain traits that somebody in a calm and loving atmosphere. If your incident was horrific for you how about when you are kidnapped and over the next bit of time your natural attitude of 'being able to handle it' it 'complete hysterics' was the deciding factor on you living and being sold into prostitution as a 'Madame' or being sold as 'property that needs to be disposed of while still making the kidnappers some money'. Seeing that unfold as your first experience in the 'abuse' that will follow, would that contribute that nit last a lifetime and you pay for the cure the rest of your life, if you are lucky enough to ever find a crutch like that. Suicide in that group shows many do nit find a solution. Murdered by an unknown assailant would be a better term than suicide where they could not adapt to a civilized world rather than becoming an abuser they end it by opting out of an uncivilized world.
If they will not find a cure for cancer because treating it forever makes them a lot more money that is what they will do while making sure they take the cure rather than 'treatments'. Abuse of all kinds is an industry with the same riles and the same objectives.
The ones that go into become 'Madams' cannot be cured by anyone, a smoker who enjoys smoking is not going to quit. The who is coughing and puking after every inhale will be able to quit and never think about.
The few that escape and get it back where they can trust the people closest to them are the ones that should be running the treatment centers because their mission would be to make the victim a strong individual as they are the kinds of people that make strong relationships. The ones that commit suicide would be the ones who would give their lives to save a stranger so that trait should be rewarded rather than mocked and ignored. One of the two should become the social workers and the other one being part of an 'entertainment industry for people who prefer the single life with no kids around day or night.
Helping somebody who is not in misery already is abuse.
Some tend to put the most important part at the bottom and minimize it as much as possible. If you include people who even think about sex with a child, ('hidden' probably adds something to the emotions) rather than the ones who act on those thoughts ir the ones that enjoy it so it become a lifelong pleasure button.
Not all are abused and not all that have been abused will become abusers. I can go with that, what I have doubts about is that 'most' is not actually 'all'.
Self exclusion should not cost nor involve anyone except those that self exclude. Making anyone else get fingerprinted or even IDed is an infringement on their rights.You can Pay for your own therapy. Another item that should not cost taxpayers.
So if childhood abuse does not negatively affect the child in adulthood in any way, then why waste taxpayer money incarcerating abusers? Wouldn't a simple fine prove more effective from an economic standpoint?
Who besides you thinks that childhood abuse doesn't affect the child later in life? I just don't think the taxpayers should have to foot the bill. I don't have much use for shrinks to start with. Your medical plan should pay or pay yourself if you want to see a shrink.
Ah, vigilante justice. And what if the mother coaxed the child to say that his father abused him? Such cases have been discovered.