what stops you raping kids?

[John99]

Even if what Asguard says about mental illness is true, and there is some truth to it, there is a difference between the criminally insane and just insane. Not to mention you have the full palette of in-between. It isn't fair for these things to be treated equally but then it isn't only about fairness, but what is possible or simply logical.

That the problem for good ideas is reality.

 

[chimpkin]

I think that if you let yourself, you can allow moral barriers to degrade slowly until you are capable of doing "anything" (Chinatown).

WTF???

I have not noticed screaming immorality in our Chinatown. And it's like, the biggest outside of, well, China, where they just call it... China
A lot of our ethnic Chinese moved here so they could openly practice religion...or make money, let's be honest.

Really great tofu dishes. Yes.

If the Buddhist monks have dinner there...it's a good spot.

Flaming immorality? not so much.

I once heard a Chinese lady curse out a work-ethic-challenged African teenaged employee (had a broad African accent, and the rest? trust me, body language, kid was a slacker) at a gas station and I thought:
"Damn! when I move, I am really going to miss this stuff."

Edited to add: if you weren't right-wing in slant I'd ask if you were willnever's sock puppet.

 

[Bells]

The voices in my head say thanks.

The vast majority of criminals are perfectly sane...and I'd like to say as a major depressive and PTSD-suffering person, I think this whole discussion plays into the negative and inaccurate stereotype of MI people as all dangerous.

I'm very much not dangerous to other people, unless you are clearly dangerous to me first. Then I reserve the right to be dangerous back. But that's fair, I think.

As far as being dangerous to myself...my wife has the key to my gun lock for a reason, and unilaterally may lock it up, or order me to the ER, and I am not allowed to say no. That's our agreement.

Do you know what angers me about Asguard's proposition?

Is that he has effectively classed the mentally ill in the same basket as criminals. In other words, the two become one and the same.

I am not saying that the mental health system is not in need of direct funds. In Australia at least, the mental health system is in a disastrous state. It also does not mean that some who are mentally ill will not go on to commit crimes. But not everyone is mentally ill and a large majority of people who commit crimes are not mentally ill. Motivating factors such as greed, hatred, disrespect for others and their property does not amount to mental illness in my opinion.

Around the same time that Asguard started on this.. err.. crusade, a police officer in the suburb where my parents live was shot point blank in the face with a shot gun after he responded to a call to an armed robbery with hostages having been taken. My parents knew him well. My father once witnessed a fatal accident and was required to testify in court and the slain officer was the one who dealt with my concerned father, who came to the house every day to speak to him, who organised for a French interpretor in case my father felt uncomfortable speaking English in such a stressful situation, who organised counselling for my father who was in quite a bit of shock after the accident he saw first hand.. This guy was a good guy. The officer and his partner had gone to the tavern where this robbery was taking place, where hostages were still inside and had snuck around to the back of the building to try to gain entry. They were the first and only at the scene at the time. The South East region of the state had seen a huge increase in armed robberies, which was highly unusual. So this officer and his partner rounded a corner and were confronted with the robbers themselves, exiting the tavern. All apparently armed. One instantly raised his weapon and shot the officer in the head before all 3 scattered and tried to escape. The officer died a few days later after his family turned off his life support. The man who shot him was caught soon after. His response was to say that he didn't think he'd have hurt the officer that much... because apparently shooting someone in the head is not supposed to cause that much damage, let alone at point blank range. He then professed to being scared because of what he had done and how terrifying this was for him and how hurt he was - as reported by his lawyers. The underlying message from his lawyer was about him.. not that he had ended someone's life, but how this would affect himself. As his lawyer put it:

Mr Abell's defence lawyer, former police officer Neil Lawler, later said his client was in shock and hadn't realised how seriously the officer was hurt.

He said Mr Abell had suffered broken ribs and dog bite wounds during his arrest at the scene, but there would be no allegation police had mistreated him.

"He's very shocked and scared as you would be, not only by the injuries he's received but by the circumstances he finds himself in," Mr Lawler said outside the court. "He wasn't aware the police officer was as badly injured as he is so he's in a world of shock."

Mr Lawler said he'd had no instructions from Mr Abell about whether he would defend the charges.

(Source)
​

If Asguard were to be believed, from the other thread, the shooter should not only not be punished because his guilt would be enough (because apparently that will be enough to make sure that he does not re-offend), but that he should be treated for a mental illness that he is not diagnosed as having.. Meanwhile Leeding's killer is only concerned about himself.. How this will affect his chances and he is apparently feeling a lot of hurt because he was bitten by the police dog that was sent into the bushes to flush him and his co-horts out.

This arsewipe doesn't deserve to be coddled. He deserves to be imprisoned for life. He doesn't give a shit about what he did. He only cares about how it affects him. And he is not mentally ill. He was fully aware of what he was doing.. the armed robbery, the hostage taking, the shooting a police detective point blank in the face.. But apparently, we are supposed to get rid of the one system in place to yes, punish Mr Abell and provide some sense of justice for the many family and friends the officer left behind. I'm sorry, but I find it galling. It angers me.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Bells

What I don't understand is why Asguard in all his moral indignation hasn't shown up to answer any questions and give us an idea of what he would like to see happen in practical terms if there were not criminal justice system.

By the way Bells I invite you to take a look at this and tell me what you think: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2766215#post2766215

I think we should have a special international CJS just for those folks.

Or maybe Asguard would have them in therapy too.

 

[chimpkin]

I think we should have a special international CJS just for those folks.

I've thought that for a while...I'll stick it in the other thread though, that deserves a bump.

 

[wynn]

What I don't understand is why Asguard in all his moral indignation hasn't shown up to answer any questions and give us an idea of what he would like to see happen in practical terms if there were not criminal justice system.

The point of moral indignation is just that - to insist in it, without anything else.

 

[chimpkin]

The point of moral indignation is just that - to insist in it, without anything else.

It is?
It would seem to me something that ought to lead to some sort of constructive action if such can be managed.
(Then again I find nothing so demoralizing as helplessness in the face of evil...)

If Asgard wanted to make the point that the penal system is bad in many respects and could use better management, I'd agree with him. Certainly in my country, probably in his.

I just think disposing of it would be much worse.

 

[wynn]

SOME EFFECTS OF MORAL INDIGNATION ON LAW
http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/articles/3/12 Sunstein Book 3, Vol. 33.pdf

ABSTRACT
Moral intuitions operate in much the same way as other intuitions do;
what makes the moral domain distinctive is the frequent foundation of
moral judgments in the emotions, beliefs, and response tendencies that
define indignation. The intuitive system of cognition, System 1, is typically
responsible for indignation; the more reflective system, System 2, may or
may not provide an override. An understanding of indignation helps to
explain many phenomena of interest to law and politics: the outrage
heuristic, the severity shift, the puzzling centrality of harm, moral framing,
and the act–omission distinction. The operation of System 1 also helps to
explain moral dumbfounding, understood as intense moral opprobrium that
people are unable to justify, and moral numbness, understood as moral
indifference that people know on reflection to be unwarranted. Both moral
dumbfounding and moral numbness play a significant role in law and
politics. Because of the nature of indignation, it is extremely difficult for
people to achieve coherence in their moral intuitions, and the absence of
coherence appears to be replicated in several areas of law. Legal and
political institutions usually aspire to be deliberative, to check intuitions
that misfire, and to pay close attention to System 2; but even in deliberative
institutions, System 1 can make some compelling demands. A general
implication is that judges may not be aware of the actual causes of their
moral judgments and of the legal conclusions that rely on them.

 

[adoucette]

WTF???

I presumed he meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_(1974_film)

 

[Anti-Flag]

Operative word? yet.

If we're going to be judgemental then sure, but isn't it a tad wrong to start arresting people for things they haven't done yet but may be in danger of doing?

His supervision order was clear. He was not to have any contact with children. At all.

What he did was befriend the neighbour's children, buy them gifts and invite them over for meals, as well as other activities, such as invite them over to play video games.

When people like Mr Buckby do it, it's called grooming.

This is a man who had raped and sexually molested many children. There is no cure for him. The risk of his re-offending was huge in the first place. He was resistant to rehabilitation as he did not deem himself as having had a problem. Upon having breached his supervision order, he was sent back to jail, for more rehabilitation and treatment. He ended up refusing as he did not believe he had done anything wrong in the first place (ie raping the girls) and he did not believe he had a problem. Hence why he may now never be released.. because he poses such a risk to children as if he is released, he will re-offend. No if's or buts.

That level of detail wasn't in the link, so is that just your opinion and speculation? Whatever happened to being arrested for the crime commited and proportional punishment? IE in this case the crime commited was breaching his supervision order, not molestation. Does that normally carry a life sentence? What if he had kids of his own? If he was that much of a danger why the hell was he even released in the first place? :shrug:
If that's the attitude to rehabilitation then we might as well make everything a life sentence, after all they might be fine upon release, but we just can't take the risk that they might not be or allow them the freedom to try.
Can we arrest a car thief just for looking at a Ferrari? Or is there a chance he might not be the same person anymore?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If we're going to be judgemental then sure, but isn't it a tad wrong to start arresting people for things they haven't done yet but may be in danger of doing?

No. The same standards apply here in the States. When someone has molested a child they are not allowed under the conditions of their freedom to be around children AT ALL! Period. If they fail to keep to these conditions then they are in breach of the guidelines that allows for their freedom in society. Because there is such a high recidivism for pedo's, the breaching of this guideline was what prompted 'Megans' Law'. Megan's law if you are unawares forces government agencies to notify citizens in local communities if a convicted child molester moves into the neighborhood, this way families can protect their children by being forewarned.

Megan's Law is an informal name for laws in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders. Individual states decide what information will be made available and how it should be disseminated. Commonly included information includes the offender's name, picture, address, incarceration date, and nature of crime. The information is often displayed on free public websites, but can be published in newspapers, distributed in pamphlets, or through various other means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law


At the Federal level, Megan's Law is known as the Sexual Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994, and requires persons convicted of sex crimes against children to notify local law enforcement of any change of address or employment after release from custody (prison or psychiatric facility). The notification requirement may be imposed for a fixed period of time - usually at least ten years - or permanently. Some states may legislate registration for all sex crimes, even if no minors were involved. It is a felony in most jurisdictions to fail to register or fail to update information. Megan's Law provides two major information services to the public: sex offender registration and community notification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law

Megan Kanka was a seven year old girl who was molested and killed by a convicted child molester who upon release moved into Megan's neighborhood (she lived next door). He lured her into his house to look at some puppies he didn't have and then had the nerve to join the search team when the family realized she was missing. The question after this case was why the family or rather the community were not allowed to know that there was a convicted child rapist living right next door when they had young children living nearby...hence 'Megan's Law'.

 

[Tiassa]

The nature of these crimes, and the criminals who commit them ....

If we're going to be judgemental then sure, but isn't it a tad wrong to start arresting people for things they haven't done yet but may be in danger of doing?

It would be if that was the case.

But what one gets arrested for is disobeying a supervision order, a probation violation.

And if one does not want such an order blocking their access to children in the future, they ought not rape a child today.

That level of detail wasn't in the link, so is that just your opinion and speculation? Whatever happened to being arrested for the crime commited and proportional punishment?

From the Courier-Mail link:

In May last year, Justice Lyons, in a 10-page decision, said Buckby's failure to engage in rehabilitation and risk of re-offending was too great to release him under a supervision order.

"Psychiatric evidence unequivocally indicates that (Buckby) presents as a serious danger to the community in the absence of ... (an) order," she said.

"I consider that given (Buckby's) failure to engage in rehabilitation, the persistence of his offending against pre-pubertal girls, his lack of insight into his offending as well as his persistent denial of some of his offending that he is not suitable for a supervision order.

"I do not consider that any conditions which could be imposed would adequately address the risk which (Buckby) poses.

In 2009, Justice Mullins was told Buckby had completed an introductory sexual offenders course, but refused to participate further, despite psychiatric recommendations to do so.

Last week's decision by Justice Byrne to order Buckby's on-going detention was part of the convicted sex offender's entitlement to review of his case.

(Boldface accent added)​

With that kind of writing on the wall, recidivism is very nearly inevitable for sexual predators. But he is a multiple offender demonstrating some resistance or incapacity toward accepting and understanding his behavior, who has not demonstrated sufficient psychiatric rehabilitation to offer even a whiff of confidence that his danger to the community is reduced whatsoever, speak nothing of significantly.

In American terms, I'm a flaming liberal, and this sort of offender is my judicial nightmare. Such an offender is dangerous as hell, but he's also still a human being. Trying to figure out the specific justification for how judicial systems warp around the gravity of such offenses and offenders, as well as the implications of drawing a hard line on human and civil rights, is the kind of conundrum that can drive a liberal to hallucinogens. Seriously, I need to be out in the galaxy before my mind achieves sufficient circumference to get around this sort of issue. And the problem is that it's just impossible to translate some of those sentiments into sober, coherent syntax. Well, that and at some point it just becomes a haunting suggestion to consider humanity in such mechanical and kinetic terms as to erase the fact of humanity from consideration. At some point, emotion always creeps back in.

And yes, there is a significantly greater chance that the car thief might be the former car thief than a pedophile would become the former pedophile.
____________________

Notes:

Keim, Tony. "Convicted pedophile Desmond George Buckby too big a danger for release". The Courier-Mail. June 9, 2011. CourierMail.com.au. June 9, 2011. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...nger-for-release/story-e6freoof-1226071973544

 

[KilljoyKlown]

The vote is ten for number 1 and one for number 2 and not one comment about that. One of us wouldn't do it only because there is a law against it. I find that very disappointing.

 

[Anti-Flag]

No. The same standards apply here in the States. When someone has molested a child they are not allowed under the conditions of their freedom to be around children AT ALL! Period. If they fail to keep to these conditions then they are in breach of the guidelines that allows for their freedom in society. Because there is such a high recidivism for pedo's, the breaching of this guideline was what prompted 'Megans' Law'. Megan's law if you are unawares forces government agencies to notify citizens in local communities if a convicted child molester moves into the neighborhood, this way families can protect their children by being forewarned.

Megan's Law is an informal name for laws in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders. Individual states decide what information will be made available and how it should be disseminated. Commonly included information includes the offender's name, picture, address, incarceration date, and nature of crime. The information is often displayed on free public websites, but can be published in newspapers, distributed in pamphlets, or through various other means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law


At the Federal level, Megan's Law is known as the Sexual Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994, and requires persons convicted of sex crimes against children to notify local law enforcement of any change of address or employment after release from custody (prison or psychiatric facility). The notification requirement may be imposed for a fixed period of time - usually at least ten years - or permanently. Some states may legislate registration for all sex crimes, even if no minors were involved. It is a felony in most jurisdictions to fail to register or fail to update information. Megan's Law provides two major information services to the public: sex offender registration and community notification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law

Megan Kanka was a seven year old girl who was molested and killed by a convicted child molester who upon release moved into Megan's neighborhood (she lived next door). He lured her into his house to look at some puppies he didn't have and then had the nerve to join the search team when the family realized she was missing. The question after this case was why the family or rather the community were not allowed to know that there was a convicted child rapist living right next door when they had young children living nearby...hence 'Megan's Law'.

Sure, he's in breach of the guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily follow that he breached them for the reasons of molestation. As far as the law is concerned he should be a free man, having served his time. I'm sure there's a high probability that a lot of people who commit crimes re-offend, especially given the opportunity, but that doesn't mean everything should carry a life sentence, and it begs the question why bother rehabilitating them if we're that certain it doesn't even make a difference? Just keep them locked up.
We also have to be wary of tarring all with the same brush, we can say the majority might re-offend, but we can't say for sure which ones.
What other past crimes do a community have a right to be told about? Murder? Manslaughter? Hit and Run? Theft? Violence? Rape? Surely people should know about all these too? Are people free after they've done their time or not? We can't have it both ways.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sure, he's in breach of the guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily follow that he breached them for the reasons of molestation. As far as the law is concerned he should be a free man, having served his time. I'm sure there's a high probability that a lot of people who commit crimes re-offend, especially given the opportunity, but that doesn't mean everything should carry a life sentence, and it begs the question why bother rehabilitating them if we're that certain it doesn't even make a difference? Just keep them locked up.
We also have to be wary of tarring all with the same brush, we can say the majority might re-offend, but we can't say for sure which ones.
What other past crimes do a community have a right to be told about? Murder? Manslaughter? Hit and Run? Theft? Violence? Rape? Surely people should know about all these too? Are people free after they've done their time or not? We can't have it both ways.

Its funny I thought the same thing myself, why not keep them locked-up. Indeed there isn't really a way to 'rehabilitate' as yet and I'm not sure why they just don't levy really long heavy sentences so their willy falls off before they ever see the streets again. But the law doesn't say you have served your time and now you're free to go. The law says you have to stay away from children and I don't think that is too much to ask. Why? Because the safety of children is more important and outweighs some pedo's right to invite kiddies over for cake and ice cream. It outweighs their ability to indulge themselves in relation to children.

There are no laws such as Megan's Law that carries over to violent rape and murder mostly because there isn't any documentation that shows the same kind of recidivism...at least not that I know of.

You are not alone in the argument you're making and its a quite reasonable one too. Personally I would go for very long sentences that keeps them out of society period. But I also think that if they are not going to to do that and have Megan's Law then they should also deprive them of the right to a passport, because for years convicted pedo's would go to poor developing nations where they could more easily abuse children. An inordinate high number of pedo's caught in Cambodia for example were men who had been convicted of the crime in the US.

 

[chimpkin]

Sure, he's in breach of the guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily follow that he breached them for the reasons of molestation.

Sigh. You didn't get the whole thing about grooming, did you? I know the pedophile in our apartment complex where I lived for a couple of years while I was growing up let all the kids come in his apartment, babysat parent's kids for them, got them thinking it was okay to come in and out of his place...good old "uncle" Jerry.
To this day I wonder whether he dealt in child porn, as he was a photographer as well. It would explain how he didn't have a job...

Here's an abstract of a study for you:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a915083362

The relationship between pedophilia and recidivism was examined in a sample of 206 extra-familial child molesters assessed at a university teaching hospital between 1982 and 1992...Overall recidivism rates were 22.8%, 33.9%, and 45.6% for sexual, violent, and any reoffence, respectively.

So, 1 in four will go on to abuse kids again.

I'm wanting to say incestuous offenders are less likely to re-offend? but they do far more damage psychologially.

A sexually abused child, depending on severity and number of incidents involved, can suffer from the damage for a lifetime.

There's a practical reason for registering the sex offender...but also one that...rather fits the way a victim of abuse gets to be haunted...

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Sure, he's in breach of the guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily follow that he breached them for the reasons of molestation.

No, but what do the statistics reveal about convicted child molesters? I'm not sure but I seem to remember about an 80% failure rate for rehabilitation. Not exactly a confidence builder there. Now picture yourself as a parent with small children and your child gets raped and killed by a convicted child rapist that moved into your neighborhood after serving his time and being released and you didn't know anything about it, as a matter of fact you hired this guy to babysit for you. Who are you going to hold responsible for your dead raped child? Who is the whole community going to hold responsible? The rapist for sure, but who else?

Sure I'd like to know about murders living in my neighborhood, but I'm not to worried that one of them will kill one of my kids. Most murders are the result of bad guys killing each other, or robbery related killings. But chances are anybody convicted of murder is fairly old when they get released and won't be much of a problem any more.

 

[Bells]

If we're going to be judgemental then sure, but isn't it a tad wrong to start arresting people for things they haven't done yet but may be in danger of doing?

The laws here are fairly clear on child sex abuse.

He knew that he could never have contact with children or he would be placed back in jail. Yet he befriended his neighbour's 5 children, gave them presents and gifts, invited them over for meals and cooked for them. And invited them over for video games at his house, without the presence of their parents.

I'll put it this way. There was nothing in place which indicated this man would not rape another child. He resisted rehabilitation, in fact, he did not believe he had committed an offense in the first place. Hence why his supervision order was so strict. In many parts of Australia, for child sex offenses and some other sex offenses, if you deliberately breach that supervision order, which Buckby did repeatedly, then yes, that order would be rescinded and you would find yourself back in jail, until such a time where you show that you would not have contact with children. Since he was re-arrested for having breached the order (in 2007), Mr Buckby faced rehabilitation and was offered treatment. He took only the beginner's course in the rehabilitation and then refused all else... because he does not believe he raped little girls in the first place. He does not believe he committed a crime in raping those girls. So yes, that is a sure enough indication that he will rape again. This guy has gone through a ridiculous amount of psychiatric testing. Believe me, I know. And all of it points to the very simple fact that he will re-offend. He was caught last time before he had a chance to, as he was grooming the children.

In short, he cannot be rehabilitated. We have a few paedophiles in the system who cannot be rehabilitated and they are repeat offenders - in that they breached their supervision orders by grooming and raping others - before they were caught again.

Whatever happened to being arrested for the crime commited and proportional punishment? IE in this case the crime commited was breaching his supervision order, not molestation. Does that normally carry a life sentence? What if he had kids of his own? If he was that much of a danger why the hell was he even released in the first place?

That's what you are not getting. He was and the punishment was proportional. If you breach a supervision order (and boy did Buckby breach his), and then go on to refuse rehabilitation or treatment and declare raping a child wasn't or shouldn't be wrong in the instance, then yes, you could find yourself locked up indefinitely...

For child sex offenses it carries an indefinite sentence if you breach supervision orders and if after years of testing and refusing rehabilitation and stating that you actually didn't do anything wrong in raping children, then yes, the State can deem you too dangerous to be released into the general public. If he had children of his own, he would not have access to them. Many have been released and many still have been re-released only to re-offend again.

As the Attorney-General prepares to appeal against a judge's decision to release one of the state's most notorious pedophiles, The Courier-Mail can reveal there were 152 contraventions in the past year by 53 of 81 released sex offenders.

Breaches include trying to abduct a child at a park, touching children at a birthday party, threatening to rape, viewing child pornography, continuing a relationship with a 13-year-old boy, and attending places that children frequent.

Others have been caught trying to remove their monitoring bracelet, failing to take anti-libidinal medication which reduces their sex drive, or taking other illegal drugs such as methamphetamine.

They are mostly pedophiles considered a "high risk" of re-offending, according to Corrective Services documents obtained under Right to Information. They are the worst-of-the-worst and listed under Queensland's Dangerous Prisoner and Sex Offender Act.

------------------------------------------------------------

(source)

He was released in the first place because they assumed the supervision order would have been obeyed. But he instantly befriended the neighbour's children, started inviting them over, giving them presents.. So he was arrested for that and given further treatment in the hope that he would be rehabilitated. But he has been found by doctors to be a high danger to children in society if he was released again. Because his behaviour upon initial release indicated that he was going to re-offend and because he refused rehabilitation and treatment and didn't think his raping those girls was wrong... It's taken years for the doctors to try and they reported to the courts that he cannot be rehabilitated as he resists it and refuses it and because he doesn't think he's even done anything wrong.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It's taken years for the doctors to try and they reported to the courts that he cannot be rehabilitated as he resists it and refuses it and because he doesn't think he's even done anything wrong.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread--some things are just too depressing. But here in the USA the authorities maintain a "sexual predator list." If you have been convicted of a sex crime with a minor, then you are on that list for the rest of your life. You have to keep the authorities apprised of where you live and where you work. If you apply for a new job or try to move to a new residence, the authorities will make sure the employer and the landlord know you're on that list. The neighbors too.

Of course in typical American ham-fisted fashion, they included statutory rape on the list of "sex crimes with a minor," with no regard for the age of the so-called rapist. The son of a friend of mine was 18.1 years old and had sex with his 17.9 year-old girlfriend. Her daddy got a hair up his ass and reported him to the police and made sure he was convicted of statch. That put him on the list and he couldn't get a job or find a place to live. He moved back to California to live with his mother, and she dutifully took him to the police station to register.

The lady behind the counter took one look at his record, laughed, tore up the note, and said, "Welcome home to the Golden State, son. Have a nice life."

Edit: I just got around to looking at the poll. As I have lectured before, humans are a pack-social species and that includes the instinct to protect and nurture all children. It seems like every month there's a news item about some citizen risking his life to save a child he's never even met before.

That's what "stops us from raping kids." It goes against human nature. Sure, by the time they're fifteen--or younger if their stupid parents send them out dressed like hookers--they're starting to look like adults and different instincts kick in. But when it comes to actual children, which is clearly the point of this thread, you simply have to be wired wrong to have the slightest ability to regard them sexually.

Having sex with a child is more disgusting and unnatural to most people than having sex with a non-human animal.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

The rapid decline of males suddenly disliking "ETP"? Exceptionally Tight P....