Paradox of Child Abuse

prozak

Banned
Banned
Read the following article, and then assume with me the following things:

1. Most abusers were abused as children.

2. Most abusers are therefore unware that what they are doing is "wrong."

Is a life sentence for someone who has repeatedly raped and molested his three daughters from age six onward fair?

Now, setting aside the question of fairness, please assume also:

3. Most abusers are unable to stop being abusive.

4. Most abusers will abuse what they love, or what they hate, indiscriminately.

5. Most abusers can't tell the difference between caring or disliking for another person when that person can be useful as an object of abuse.

Setting aside the question of punishment, what should be done with an abuser to prevent future abuse?

Man who raped three daughters gets 28 years
By David Rudge


HAIFA (November 27) - A resident of the North who raped his three daughters from the time they were each six years of age was yesterday sentenced to a total of 28 years in prison by the Haifa District Court.

The sentence is believed to be the heaviest ever handed down for sex offenses within a nuclear family.

Two of the man's daughters, now 24 and 26, welcomed the sentence, saying their father had behaved like a monster.

The offenses occurred mainly in their home over the years. On one occasion, he sexually abused one of his daughters, then aged 14, while the rest of the family was in a sealed room during Iraqi Scud missile attacks in the 1991 Gulf War.

He also molested his daughters outside of the home when they were on vacation from school.

After the sentencing, his daughters said it was only just and fitting that their father should spend most of the rest of his life in prison.

They said he had made their lives a misery, taken away all their self-respect and self-confidence, and left them hurt and helpless.

"He is not a father, but a monster in the guise of a father. He's simply horrible," one of the young women told reporters at the courthouse yesterday.

"He murdered innocent souls, not one and not two. I can't say that there is satisfaction over the sentence, because he can never be [truly] punished for what he did," said her sister.

"Unfortunately, we are his daughters. It's good that he has been given such a long sentence, because when other girls hear or read about this case, it should give them the courage to complain about their father, uncle, neighbor, or whoever else," said the youngest.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/11/27/News/News.38847.html
 
Prozak:
2. Most abusers are therefore unware that what they are doing is "wrong."

But if they seek secrecy, and threaten their victims, do they not then know that what they are doing is "wrong"?

Setting aside the question of punishment, what should be done with an abuser to prevent future abuse?

Lifetime imprisionment coupled with intense psychological manipulation. Possible parole if they show great improvement and good behaviour.

Or just cap their asses.
 
We all have free will, and can make our own decisions. Even if the guy was abused, it was his choice to abuse people. He should be castrated and left to rot in a dank prison for ever.
 
Originally posted by Xev
Prozak:


But if they seek secrecy, and threaten their victims, do they not then know that what they are doing is "wrong"?



Lifetime imprisionment coupled with intense psychological manipulation. Possible parole if they show great improvement and good behaviour.

Or just cap their asses.

I think they seek secrecy because they fear getting caught from knowing the consequences of getting caught; this does not mean they know "wrong," but only that they're aware that others will try to stop/punish/sodomize them.

An addendum there: if the definition of an abuser is one who was punished before the crime, is it then possible that they are incapable of associating punishment with "wrong"?
 
Prozak:

I think they seek secrecy because they fear getting caught from knowing the consequences of getting caught; this does not mean they know "wrong," but only that they're aware that others will try to stop/ punish/sodomize them.

My apologies, I was being stupid. I'll try to say what I meant better:

There is really no way we can say "they knew what they were doing was ethically wrong", because there is no such thing as a provable "ethical wrong".

Thus, we really can only say that they knew that what they were doing was legally wrong. And we know they did.

An addendum there: if the definition of an abuser is one who was punished before the crime, is it then possible that they are incapable of associating punishment with "wrong"?

But there's a difference between being tormented by someone for no reason but their pleasure, and being tormented by society because you've broken its strictures.

Not only this, but I think it's probable that most, or at least some, abusers can realize that what they are doing is "ethically wrong".

I agree with you in spirit, but I take exception to saying that abusers don't know "right" from "wrong".
 
i herd of a case where the victom of abuse was in his late teens after being subjected to it since he was a young child and he was forced\incoraged (because he thought that was the way it was SURPOSE to be) to abuse another child

i forget exactly but it was a piano teacher i THINK and his 2 puples
 
where is the paradox??

1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases



you make assumptions that are conjured up from thin air. is there hidden print in that article that only you are privy to?

1. Most abusers were abused as children.

there is no evidence of this in the article

2. Most abusers are therefore unware that what they are doing is "wrong."

how do you know this? case studies? cite please! personal experience?

3. Most abusers are unable to stop being abusive.

lets see some stats

4. Most abusers will abuse what they love, or what they hate, indiscriminately.

what??

5. Most abusers can't tell the difference between caring or disliking for another person when that person can be useful as an object of abuse.

are they retards too?
 
xev

how do you make the distinction b/w an ethical wrong vs a legal wrong?
isnt the latter merely the former scribbled on paper? or is that too simplistic?
 
"how do you make the distinction b/w an ethical wrong vs a legal wrong?
isnt the latter merely the former scribbled on paper? or is that too simplistic?"

Dear god. An ethical wrong is one of those silly little things that each of us have as subjective like; "murder is wrong". A legal 'wrong' is one of those crazy things like "murder is illegal because over time society as a whole has decided that murder should be illegal".

If you dare tell me laws should be based on morals or that they are I will die and take you with me. Or, if I'm in a more forgiving mood than I am right now, I may explain it. But that's unlikely given life right now.
 
Ethical wrong:
Moral judgement with no basis in reality.

Legal wrong:
Legally enforced moral judgement with no basis in reality.
 
Oh dear Tyler.I was going to say exactly the thing youve asked us not to say. You might not want to hear this but the bible refers to morality as 'the law'. The law says what is right and wrong and so our morality is the basis for this. i still dont buy into this 'morality is subjective' stuff.
 
Oh but Neville, using the 3000 year old mis-translated myths of some desert nomads is a bit arbitrary, wouldn't you say?

:rolleyes:
 
'mis-translated'?? IM taking this definition from the book of romans- made............(guess what :) )......to the romans. In europe.

edit- i could be wrong about the europe bit. i will check that.im pretty sure it was relatively recent though.
 
'mis-translated'?? IM taking this definition from the book of romans- made............(guess what )......to the romans. In europe.

Ummm, Neville, that's in the New Testament. Written in Greek and Aramaic.

You DO go to one of those "special schools".
 
"Oh dear Tyler.I was going to say exactly the thing youve asked us not to say. You might not want to hear this but the bible refers to morality as 'the law'. The law says what is right and wrong and so our morality is the basis for this. i still dont buy into this 'morality is subjective' stuff."

Bible also says Jesus burned cities. Bible also says world started in six days, should we teach this as fact? And furthermore, why use the Bible? Why not the Qu'ran? Or hell, the Torah is older as well as the Talmud, let's go with those! As Xev said - arbitrary choice, huh?

And no, of course you don't "buy into" the whole morality is subjective "stuff". The idea that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" must be somewhat terrifying to you eh? There is no objective morality unless there was a creator, or something, to create objective morals. For objective morality to exist there must, 100% must, be a 'greater power' than us. As you have yet to think outside the bible (apparently, you haven't even thought inside it though. The NT was written mainly in Aramaic, as Xev also said) you will have yet to realize reality for yourself.

Quid pro quo; If morals are objective, how come the morals that people in Greece and Rome held thousands of years ago were unbelievably different from those of Africa, South America, Asia and other such areas that they never came in contact with? Logic would hold that if EVERY human EVERYWHERE had the same morals bred into them, every civilization would have evolved with the same morals.
 
1. Most abusers were abused as children.

True

2. Most abusers are therefore unware that what they are doing is "wrong."

Not true - they do know that its wrong. They might not think its as wrong as others but they do know its wrong. Thats why they usually threaten the children for telling.

Is a life sentence for someone who has repeatedly raped and molested his three daughters from age six onward fair?

No - his children will never have a normal relationship with a man/woman in their lives. Without proper therapy they will have much damage to their social/sexual behaviors. How is this fair? Fair would be to shoot him in the face.

Now, setting aside the question of fairness, please assume also:

3. Most abusers are unable to stop being abusive.

True - I think its an addictive behavior and it is hard to stop

4. Most abusers will abuse what they love, or what they hate, indiscriminately.

True - they dont give a shit. Anything to satisfy their needs

5. Most abusers can't tell the difference between caring or disliking for another person when that person can be useful as an object of abuse.

Dont know, dont really care. Again, they will abuse anyone that will satisfy their needs. Its their sicko mentality that keeps them from distiguishing between "disliking" or "caring". And this is not a sickness people, its perverted acts that gets people off.
 
Always the technical one eh Star?
Out of curiosity, do you ahve any proof to back up your "true"s? Any sites? I honestly do not know what of that list is true. I've heard all of the things stated and been taught them by various people - however I can't honestly say I've seen stats.


"Dont know, dont really care. Again, they will abuse anyone that will satisfy their needs. Its their sicko mentality that keeps them from distiguishing between "disliking" or "caring". And this is not a sickness people, its perverted acts that gets people off."

Perhaps I misunderstand - people who sexually abuse young children do not have a sickness? Again, can you please back up what you say?
 
Nope. No proof. Just personal experience as well as lots and lots of counseling experience. You dont have to believe me but I think Im pretty qualified to comment on this subject. But just to satisfy you, Ill look for some links for ya!

And no I dont believe it is a sickness, I believe it is a personal choice - just like drinkin alcohol or taking drugs.
 
Back
Top