Quote:
I think another thing that should be said is that a LOT of people have had some kind of brush with the law. Now, this can mean one of two things, that they are inherently criminal and can strike again at any time, or that they have learned a lesson and become even more solid citizen.
______________________________

Agreed. Should a name come up on the register there is always an identification that comes with it. Date of birth, location, offense, and length of sentence, therefore, no error can occur just by putting in a name. Criminal check gives only results for sex offenders and not for other crimes.

Some sex offenders get probation for several years and than are dropped from the register, but there are predators that have been sentenced for life and must register every year with the police department even when they move from one State to another, except for a few exceptions of States that do not give names out to the public.

The sex offenders that have repeatedly abused and who have been evaluated by a psychiatric board to be a danger to society and a high risk, who are given a life sentence to register with the police department, and who can under the right conditions and the predatory impulses strike again. These individuals are truly a walking time bomb.

The sex offenders that have repeatedly abused and who have been evaluated by a psychiatric board to be a danger to society and a high risk, who are given a life sentence to register with the police department, and who can under the right conditions and the predatory impulses strike again. These individuals are truly a walking time bomb.

I'm, of course, for protecting children from sexual predators. I don't need to say that, but I just thought I would, especially because of the line I'm going to take. I think it's somewhat ironic that we label people as sexual predators when, in reality, men are all sexual predators to some extent. Oh, that may seem like a silly idea, but look and listen to any group of men (including me and my friends) and we sound like a bunch of wolves on patrol. There is an ever-changing set of rituals, of course (which I think are primarily determined by the female), for taming this aggression. But that aggression is there and ever-present. There are some truly whacked people. There's no denying that. But I think very often what we call "sexual predator" is just someone who doesn't have an "off" switch. And I very often think that we have forgotten just how successful those men are who have their "on" switches set quite high.

.
I wonder if there has always been as much child sexual abuse as we hear about these days, or is it just more out in the open? Has there always been so many men seemingly attracted to very young children, who hid away that part of them until the internet made it easier for them to act on it? I wonder what accounts for so many people being that perverted. How does it happen on such a scale?

We may never know.
.

I wonder if there has always been as much child sexual abuse as we hear about these days, or is it just more out in the open? Has there always been so many men seemingly attracted to very young children, who hid away that part of them until the internet made it easier for them to act on it? I wonder what accounts for so many people being that perverted. How does it happen on such a scale?

We may never know.

At the risk of being labeled an abuse denier, I've read that if it seems that some of these things like this are more common, it may simply be because fewer cases are hidden under the carpet.

Of course, back in olden times, especially in Greek culture, much of this would not have been considered out of the ordinary.

The next time anyone thinks about registries for offenders, they ought to think hard about what life would be like for THEM, if we started having registries for everything, like bad driving, DUI, drugs, and what the hell, how about databases of your affilitations with political groups like the communist party or religious groups, or clubs that reveal your sexual orientation. The same arguments for sex offender registries (protecting children), I could probably argue in all those other cases. The less privacy other people have, the safer my kids are, right? Please.

quote:

The next time anyone thinks about registries for offenders, they ought to think hard about what life would be like for THEM, if we started having registries for everything, like bad driving, DUI, drugs, and what the hell, how about databases of your affilitations with political groups like the communist party or religious groups, or clubs that reveal your sexual orientation. The same arguments for sex offender registries (protecting children), I could probably argue in all those other cases. The less privacy other people have, the safer my kids are, right? Please.

Let me just say first off that if some father (or mother) beat the living shit out of some man (or woman) who was trying to fiddle with their children, I would help to cover their tracks. I would help to bury the body. You can bet your sweet ass I would do nothing to expose these innocent parents to the wrath of the law. But it is potentially a very ugly precedent to start recording everyone in some central registry for every single offense. It would not be long until you were registered for thought crimes, which is what "hate crimes" is a first step toward. What happened to the concept of someone paying for their crimes and then getting a fresh start. Oh? Are you saying that there are natural inclinations toward repeating the same crime one has already been convicted of? I don't find that hard to believe. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is pretty much the case, by and large. But where does the concept of registration start and end?

There must be a better solution. A little vigilante justice would take care of a few, but not all, of the offenders. But does anyone caught stealing have to register if they take up residence near a convenience store? Where does this end?

I think in cases of clear and unambiguous sexual crime we ought to chemically castrate these people. And I'm not talking about the case of Mary Kay Laterno, nor am I talking about cases of statutory rape. I'm talking about clear cases of forced rape or clear child molestation where the idea of "consensual" is clearly not possible or not in doubt.

quote:

Of course, back in olden times, especially in Greek culture, much of this would not have been considered out of the ordinary.

I would imagine that even in ancient Greece there was some age limit for children, below which adults couldn't go. The Greeks were "flexible," but they weren't crazy.
.

I would imagine that even in ancient Greece there was some age limit for children, below which adults couldn't go. The Greeks were "flexible," but they weren't crazy.

It seems you are right, Markle. All anyone could want to know, and more, about pederasty. And it apparently all started because of a shortage of females on Crete in the eighth century BC.

I have a friend who is afraid of flying. And he feels guilty about this. I told him, "Okay. We human beings have free will, right? So turn off your fear. Choose not to be afraid."

Well, of course this doesn't work and it shows how stupid the doctrine of free will is. It's a nice illusion. It may even be a necessary illusion. But it isn't real.

Brad's quote:
But I think very often what we call "sexual predator" is just someone who doen't have an "off" switch. And I very often think that we have forgotten just how succesful those men are who have their "on" switches set quite high.
_______________________________________

There is a distinct difference in a sex offender and a sexual predator, although both are abusers, which can and may lead to high crimes, like rape and murder.

Usually a sex offender is a man or woman who most likely will entrap an underage person to have sex. This is quite commonly shared between men and women, the women part was quite a surprise for me in my researching the subject, yet they still remain rarer.
There may only be an isolated incident, or repeat performances.

A "sexual predator" is often referred to a person who has habitually offended one or multiple victims. The pedophile is high on that list. A predator uses cunning, fantasy, pornography, etc. in the acquisition of his/her desired sexual object, and within this cunningness lies the real danger and the reason as to why these individuals are labeled predators. The sexual excitement in these individuals is progressive over a period of time, way before the offense and abuse has occurred. They may also possess a high level of sexual dysfunction needing these abnormal releases, or may may only be sexually aroused by these twisted expressions.

It appears that the sexual force in these individuals is rampant, unchecked, and no "off" switch is even thinkable for them being without reason and rationale, and that is why they are so dangerous. It is like a primordial sex force without conscience, brutal, animalistic. A very serious crime indeed with dire consequences for the victims.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/7836/predator.html

Usually a sex offender is a man or woman who most likely will entrap an underage person to have sex.

That is the job of men…to entrap. If this is done too violently, or if the women are too young in age, we call this predation or being an offender. If not, we call it courtship or seduction.

It appears that the sexual force in these individuals is rampant, unchecked, and no "off" switch is even thinkable for them being without reason and rationale, and that is why they are so dangerous. It is like a primordial sex force without conscience, brutal, animalistic. A very serious crime indeed with dire consequences for the victims.

Human societies differ on what is considered good and humane. Some civilizations (even today) allow sexual slavery. Some (such as Islam) treat women as second class citizens and give men extra sexual privileges. There seems no doubt that some people become brutalized themselves as children and pass this behavior on to others when they become adults (if not sooner). Others just seem to be born with something wrong in them. But very powerful too is whatever socialization processes exists in a society. And it's easy for some people to sort of "fall out of the loop" of this socialization process and not know how to act. They feel isolated and powerless. That, I think, is probably what is at the root of many sex crimes. This idea that sexual crimes are of a different and persistent nature I think ought rightly to be questioned. I think many of the assumptions are dubious. We might end up giving people the modern-day equivalent of the Scarlet Letter (in the form of registering people in some registry) instead of giving them the help they need. Granted, I doubt in most cases we're capable of giving people the help they need. There is no non-invasive antidote to the sexual impulse, and it's probably a good thing for any species that this is so, at least if that species wishes to survive.

What we're all talking about, of course, is socially acceptable sexual behavior. And that's fine. But if we lose sight of the fact the sex is just about the #1 goal of any species, and any individual in a species will do just about anything he or she can in order to reproduce (aka "satisfy sexual urges"), then we could end up with a bunch of goofy ideas for why some people are not "normal." Well, the fact is that in a way they are normal. It's just that their behavior is not desirable, but in another time and place that might not be the case.

But if we lose sight of the fact the sex is just about the #1 goal of any species, and any individual in a species will do just about anything he or she can in order to reproduce (aka "satisfy sexual urges"), then we could end up with a bunch of goofy ideas for why some people are not normal.
______________________________________

I see your points in what you are stating, and I can see that everything is much bigger than my own personal belief on the responsibilities of sex. Yet, a stand must be taken to protect the child, the innocent, and the unconsenting underage or even legal age of people from sexual abuses of any kind whatsoever.

We just cannot allow the impersonal sex force expressed in people to dominate, abuse, control and enslave, together with impregnating any individual that same force desires. This force must be under the subjection of reason, rational and love. Although at this very moment this force snickers and says: "I do what I will do", I reply: "Go fly a kite instead". (Thanks to Yabor, I am in a jolly mood this morning. ).

Getting to your points, Brad, right now we have mating season for the wildlife. The turkey Toms are a sight to behold with their spread out feather display looking like something that comes out of the African Jungle. Have any of you seen them in this state?. I tell you quite frankly, that they thrill and excite me and that I am envious of the turkey hens. The Canadian geese are doing their mating ritual out back and it is quite a sight to behold, four or five ganders trying to win the female of their heart's desires.

As far as I am concerned, you men have to come up with something that surpasses these wonderful mating displays that I am part of through my observations and energies.

I wonder how many people's illusions of marriage and romance have been shattered and how many have been fulfilled? I think there are two main routes one can take in life. One can try to nurture and sustain one's most favored illusions or one can try to dispel them and get down to the nitty gritty and thus (in theory) not be subject to the vagaries of illusions. And yet by doing the latter, what is the point or fun of life? And so perhaps you might see how we usually are in the middle just a bit trying to sustain an uncertain balance between these two things. We have to dispel some of our least robust illusions because its hard to build a house on sand. And yet if you keep digging, one might never build a house anywhere. In practice, I think everyone decides what their "ground" is even though, in theory, we could all keep digging forever.

This might describe the tension between the reductionists and the anti-reductionists, the cynic and the romanticist. Arguably, the inherent nature of consciousness itself means we not only can't escape illusions but that illusions are what make up our experience of reality. We have an illusion, for example that the field of vision in front of us at any time is like a painting, as if our eyes were analogous to movie cameras. In fact, this is an illusion patched together by our minds. The only part of our field of vision that is sharp and hi-res is a relatively small patch in the middle. You can test this (as noted in Daniel Dennett's book, "Consciousness Explained") by taking a random playing card and holding it out at arm's length at the periphery of ones vision while staring strait ahead at some fixed point. Slowly move your arm toward the center and note how close you have to come to the center (while keeping your eyes fixed straight ahead) before you even know the color of the playing card (its suit), let alone its number.

Our perception of reality seems a lot more solid and substantial than it actual is. Our perception is, at best, an interpretation of reality, and it might be a very useful one. But that's a far cry from being directly in touch with ultimate reality, assuming this is even possible. So even if we don't want to admit it to ourselves, we're always dealing in illusions. And one might even take a wide view of many of the battles inherent to society and see them as battles between the people who want to keep digging and those who like their ground just where it is. But a sympathetic (and surely a rational) view is to understand the ultimate arbitrariness of any ground. That may be one reason these "grounds" are often so violently defended. Deep down perhaps we know they are built of sand. And yet it is reasonable to take a pragmatic view of things. We can say that this system might work better than some other system. Democratic republics work much better than dictatorships, for example (at least at securing economic and political freedom and prosperity for the maximum number of people). But is democracy just an arbitrary agreement? Of course it is. But it's one that works.

How deep do we look, and are we in danger of upsetting the rather functional and pragmatic track of our lives if we do look deep? If you're an ape-shit Muslim, the answers is "If you can bring yourself to look deeply at all, it will make you very upset." The same might be said of those who have an idealized vision of marriage and relationships. Unless one is very lucky, it is inevitable that these illusions will fall apart. Eventually what sustains them maybe be the reality of building and living in a "lifeboat for two." Hey, we all need some kind of shelter from the storm. And once you have children, well, you're hooked. It's too late to go back. No use looking deeply because commitments have been already made. Like being a devout Muslim, you can't afford to look deeply. You have too much invested in a particular way of life or belief. It's simply unthinkable to start over.

Think for a second of why thalo.net is different. No, it's not because we're all a bunch of freethinking obnoxious misfits (although, come to think of it, that is part of its charm). It's because you can say anything here. Now, just as a thought experiment (if not an actual experiment), imagine you were posting your thoughts somewhere else. You KNOW the hoops you would have to jump through in order not to offend or in order to play by whatever arbitrary rules some forum is run by. You might not even catch yourself conforming and playing by these rules because one of the more remarkable (and unsung) abilities of humans is our social skills. We can talk to our boss in a certain way and then turn on a dime and talk to our children in a completely different way. It becomes a habit to do so which means we no longer think about it. Well, when is it good to notice stuff like this and when should we just let our habits run as they will? There is no easy answer to this. But I think our habits are absolutely necessary and this is probably why we are so resistant to new ways of thinking. And probably an even bigger issues still is that it may not be true at all that new ways of thinking are of any practical value to a person. It depends. We all also exist within a particular environment. That is where the rubber hits the road and it is most likely why we will defined the "ground" of our beliefs. It's because they are useful to us, and they are likely useful to us because they are shared by the people who we need to interact with.

Registries are for people who theoretically already paid their debt to society. I don't think they should be unduly targeted for vigilante justice (which is exactly what publically accessible registries for offenses make them). It's clearly wrong. It's taking some mob justice idea of saving children and making it more important than civil liberties and the constitution.

Hey, it may very well be that child molesters should NEVER be released from prison. Well, in that case, make that the law. Don't release guys, expect them to start a new law-abiding lives, and then continue to punish them for their crimes. Squelchers who think that criminals haven't PAID ENOUGH, will use the info on the databases to deny them jobs, frighten neighborhoods about them, and make their lives miserable. The databases make it easier to put additional punishment into the hands of the public, unsupervised by law enforcement. It's sanctioning wrath. Even Batman wouldn't go kick the crap out of a guy who hasn't re-offended, after he got out of jail and paid the price for his crimes. I mean, that's what parole officers are for. If somebody was a sex offender, there is a cop assigned to their case, to make sure, for example, they don't open a day care center. But it's not the public's job.

And if there are registries, then heck, like I said, there should be registries for everything. Let squelchers who would do this kind of thing, have THEIR sordid past online for review too. Anyone who goes on the warpath protecting the children, better not have any child-hazardous behavior in THEIR past. Like operating under the influence. There have been efforts to tag the cars of past DUI offenders. Even after paying for their crime. At first blush most of us would go, hey yeah, I'd love to know which cars on the road have people that were once convicted for DUI... it would help me drive defensively. But it doesn't account for the idea that people can pay for a crime, be punished, and then re-enter society with a clean slate. If driving under the influence is a crime worthy of carrying a lifetime stigma, then we need to make that clear in the punishment phase, and make it consistent for everyone who commits that crime. It's not fair for SOME people to have to wear the bumpersticker, and others not.

Well said. Hear hear. That's serious. Now, onto the non-serious:

I want to register people who watch Oprah and read People magazine.

Yet, a stand must be taken to protect the child, the innocent, and the unconsenting underage or even legal age of people from sexual abuses of any kind whatsoever.

Absolutely. And the tangent I’m going off on, Freebird, is to perhaps see the larger picture so that we’re less likely to go off on Inquisition-like tangents. I’m all for protecting children, and yet any law could be passed that satisfied (or seemed to satisfy) this requirement. Let’s change the speed limit on all highways to 40 mph. That would save children. Let’s mandate interlock breath devices on all cars. That would save children. And on and on. I’m not against this motion towards such an idea. It has obviously paid off big-time in terms of saving children (and adults) from being maimed or killed by the enaction of various laws that have made toys safer, cars safer, etc. But it useful anti-demagoguery protection to keep in mind that demagogues and control-freaks will use “for the children” to try to justify the most intrusive and inappropriate laws.

We just cannot allow the impersonal sex force expressed in people to dominate, abuse, control and enslave, together with impregnating any individual that same force desires.

Yes. We have to try to clean up after nature. We have to try to better nature, because it is nature that puts sex and reproduction above all other concerns.

Getting to your points, Brad, right now we have mating season for the wildlife. The turkey Toms are a sight to behold with their spread out feather display looking like something that comes out of the African Jungle. Have any of you seen them in this state?. I tell you quite frankly, that they thrill and excite me and that I am envious of the turkey hens. The Canadian geese are doing their mating ritual out back and it is quite a sight to behold, four or five ganders trying to win the female of their heart's desires.

I’d like to see that. I get a lot of inspiration from seeing such raw things in the world. Up north here we get wild pheasants (in the fall?) that make quite a noise and ruckus.

As far as I am concerned, you men have to come up with something that surpasses these wonderful mating displays that I am part of through my observations and energies.

Have you looked at what kids typically do and wear these days or any days? We already far surpass bower birds in regards to collecting and displaying shiny things. There are many theories as to why the peacock has such a splendid and huge tail. One theory is that it is just plain sexual selection run amok. Peahens find colorful tails sexy and choose accordingly. Another theory is that it is an unambiguous way for Peacocks to show their fitness and Peahens to therefore judge their fitness. A bird that can afford to waste such resources on a tail (a tail which makes it more vulnerable to predators too) is unambiguously more fit. A Peahen, lacking MRI scanning abilities to see inside the Peacock, must resort to external clues like these, or so the theory goes. I favor the "sexual selection run amok" theory, or some combination of both.

Give this a read. It's a quick summary of the state-of-the-art regarding our state-of-mind. It's very good and not too technical. And I consider Pinker a fair-minded, even-keeled sort of scientist. His views seem trustworthy because he doesn't seem inflamed with any kind of rampant ideology.

They Mystery of Consciousness
by Steven Pinker.

Great read, Brad.

Another excellent read on our state-of-mind, albeit hard to follow needing a disciplined desire and effort; well worth it, is the book by Immanual Kant: "Critique of Pure Reason", traslated by Max Muller.

Kant in his study of knowledge distinguishes between the material, or content, and the form, of sensation. The material of our sense knowledge comes from experience. The form, however, is not derived from the senses, but is imposed on the material, or content, by the mind in order to render the material or content universal or necessary. The form is, therefore, a priori; it is idependent of experience.

The most important form of sense knowledge, the condition, in fact, of all sensation, are space and time. Not only then are space and time mental entities, in the sense that they are elaborated by the mind out of the data of experience; they are strictly subjective, purely mental, and have no objective entity except in so far as they are applied to the external world to the mind.

It is these ingenious suggestions that make the distinction between "the world itself" and the world as we know it.

Another excellent read on our state-of-mind, albeit hard to follow needing a disciplined desire and effort; well worth it, is the book by Immanual Kant: "Critique of Pure Reason", traslated by Max Muller.

That sounds interesting, Freebird. I’ve stopped and glanced at some of Kant’s stuff in the library and that takes a lot of patience to work one’s way through those ideas. But I’ve read a little bit about his idea of space and time being mental entities. I don’t know if that logically holds up to the evidence, but I have no problem with that idea in principle. I think some of the harder questions in life will probably be solved in ways that resemble this, very probably including the “hard problem” of consciousness.

I just finished reading a book that talked about how “the self” was an illusion. Okay. I’m good with that up to a point. We see no fixed self in our brains anywhere. And that’s what it usually comes down to regarding the idea of “no permanent self” or (more commonly) the idea of having no self at all. And the book I just read was trying to make this point. Only the brain was real. That is surely a materialist view of things for I could easily enough show that the body is not permanent either. It is as surely a flow of matter and energy as surely as our sense of self is a flow of images and feelings. Note, for instance, that there is not permanent body. Almost all the matter in our bodies is flushed away and replace by new matter (old cells dying, new cells being generated) so that after 6 months or so (I forget the exact timeframe), all the matter in our bodies (except, perhaps, for brain cells) is replaced.

There is no doubt we have a self. And who said it had to be fixed or permanent in order to be a self?

Spring is here and I am spending much time outdoors working in my garden area, where I have a raised pond filled with water lilies and goldfish.

As I gazed into the pond's crystal clear water, I was most aware of the fishes shadows swimming beneath them, so black, so pure. Of course, we all have this shadow, which is actually a necessity for all of so we can be seen, for without this dark surface of our shadows none of us would be visible to one another. I make a distinct distinction between this dark shadow from the shadow that is spoken about by Freud, and what we consider to be the evil shadow side of ourselves. This particular surface of blackness that is our twin from the time we come forth from our mothers wombs, is purity itself, and nothing could be blacker than that very surface, said surface being with us all of our life.

What came to my mind, as I was looking at this wondrous sight of the fishes swimming in their absolute joy being following by their black shadows, was the midnight black sky being the background for the radiant full moon. Isn't it this very same beautiful black background of all that lives that gives the moon the splendor and the beauty that we so treasure and cherish in its sight.

Since the light of the moon is the reflection and light of the sun captured in the waters below and is the life that animates us, is it also possible that the darkness, the shadows, of everything that has life, humans, animals, birds and all of nature, is celebrated by what we witness during a full moon, the light that shines in the darkness.

Just a few whimsical thoughts to share.