Discussion:
Exonerating "Perverts"
Add Reply
i***@gmail.com
2019-09-21 01:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.

However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.

King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.

King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.

Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.

Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.

Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.

It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.

The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.

This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?

Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.

I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.

People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.

It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
George J. Dance
2019-09-21 01:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
I know this pervert that was caught spanking the monkey in a library. I think he wanted the young student to see it. What a creep.
i***@gmail.com
2019-09-21 07:58:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
I know this pervert that was caught spanking the monkey in a library. I think he wanted the young student to see it. What a creep.
Another obvious forgery.
George J. Dance
2019-09-21 09:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by George J. Dance
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
I know this pervert that was caught spanking the monkey in a library. I think he wanted the young student to see it. What a creep.
Another obvious forgery.
Indeed it is. Apparently Bronybrooke is getting desperate for a win.
Hieronymous Corey
2019-09-21 09:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Hotel, motel, Holiday Inn,
if your girl starts acting up,
then you take her friend."
~ Jeffrey Epstein
Will Dockery
2019-09-21 13:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hieronymous Corey
"Hotel, motel, Holiday Inn,
if your girl starts acting up,
then you take her friend."
~ Jeffrey Epstein
Wise words from a great man.
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-09-22 01:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by George J. Dance
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
I know this pervert that was caught spanking the monkey in a library. I think he wanted the young student to see it. What a creep.
Another obvious forgery.
Indeed it is. Apparently Bronybrooke is getting desperate for a win.
I thought I was Bronybrooke? Can you make up your mind, you old codger?
Will Dockery
2019-09-22 01:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by George J. Dance
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
I know this pervert that was caught spanking the monkey in a library. I think he wanted the young student to see it. What a creep.
Another obvious forgery.
Indeed it is. Apparently Bronybrooke is getting desperate for a win.
Key word being "desperate".

;)
Will Dockery
2019-09-21 14:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by George J. Dance
I know this
<troll snip>
Post by i***@gmail.com
Another obvious forgery.
Yes, one of many.
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-21 02:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
I think you need to define "pervert."

The definition I'm familiar with would not include either of the above examples.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
That's unconfirmed and usually dismissed as an urban legend.
Post by i***@gmail.com
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
Post by i***@gmail.com
That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Post by i***@gmail.com
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Polygamy is accepted in many Middle Eastern cultures, including Solomon's. Solomon did not rape any of his wives; the frat boy, otoh, raped a young woman he was on a date with.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
Post by i***@gmail.com
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
Claiming that a group of people are evil based on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or poverty level is a form of bigoted stereotyping. Saying that someone like John Wayne Gacy was genuinely evil is a statement of the obvious.
Post by i***@gmail.com
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
Post by i***@gmail.com
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
Merriam-Webster describes a pervert as "one who is subject to perversion." They define perversion as follows:

"an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual."

How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
i***@gmail.com
2019-09-21 08:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
That man was.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
Post by Michael Pendragon
"an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual."
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-21 16:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
That man was.
What man was?

You haven't identified him. Nor have you linked any article describing the incident.

For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.

A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?

George Dance would label it a "non-sequitur" -- and dismiss it without further comment.

And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?

What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them. Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean? Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?

Or are you saying that their attackers have had traumatic experiences of their own, and that rape victims should understand this and not wish to see them punished for their assaults?
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
"an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual."
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump? George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.

Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.

We all act irresponsibly in our youth, and many young people experiment with illegal drugs. In a permissive society like ours, it's practically a mandatory rite of passage to adulthood.

Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.

And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
i***@gmail.com
2019-09-22 01:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
That man was.
What man was?
A friend of mine.
Post by Michael Pendragon
You haven't identified him. Nor have you linked any article describing the incident.
That's because there was no article about it.
Post by Michael Pendragon
For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.
A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Maybe "chatting up" is not the correct term. He got drunk and talked to a 16-year-old, and I don't know if he sexually propositioned her.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?
The people who have been running witch hunts about "perverts" and "sociopaths."
Post by Michael Pendragon
And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?
That people should not be running witch hunts.
Post by Michael Pendragon
What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them.
Serial killers have committed murder. Most "sociopaths" and "perverts" have not.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Is that your idea?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
In either case, it is a choice.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean?
Being the only person who is traumatized.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?
I am saying that in a single-minded focus on trauma of rape people ignore other trauma.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Most "sociopaths" do not commit inhumane acts. What we have here is an Orwellian institution of crimethink - that people can be made criminal by their personality, meaning by how they think. And in this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump?
Bush Jr.

George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.
Exactly. People allow people who use drugs to become president while howling bloody murder about sex crimes. A great deal of human dignity has been allotted these men, meanwhile a man who gets drunk and talks to a 16-year-old goes to jail for a year and loses everything he has.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.
Do you have treatment for this illness? Do you know what causes it? Or is it a way to stigmatize something that you do not understand?
Post by Michael Pendragon
And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
That is not limited to "perverts."
Will Dockery
2019-09-22 01:49:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
That man was.
What man was?
A friend of mine.
Post by Michael Pendragon
You haven't identified him. Nor have you linked any article describing the incident.
That's because there was no article about it.
Post by Michael Pendragon
For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.
A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Maybe "chatting up" is not the correct term. He got drunk and talked to a 16-year-old, and I don't know if he sexually propositioned her.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?
The people who have been running witch hunts about "perverts" and "sociopaths."
Post by Michael Pendragon
And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?
That people should not be running witch hunts.
Post by Michael Pendragon
What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them.
Serial killers have committed murder. Most "sociopaths" and "perverts" have not.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Is that your idea?
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
In either case, it is a choice.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean?
Being the only person who is traumatized.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?
I am saying that in a single-minded focus on trauma of rape people ignore other trauma.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Most "sociopaths" do not commit inhumane acts. What we have here is an Orwellian institution of crimethink - that people can be made criminal by their personality, meaning by how they think. And in this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump?
Bush Jr.
George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.
Exactly. People allow people who use drugs to become president while howling bloody murder about sex crimes. A great deal of human dignity has been allotted these men, meanwhile a man who gets drunk and talks to a 16-year-old goes to jail for a year and loses everything he has.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.
Do you have treatment for this illness? Do you know what causes it? Or is it a way to stigmatize something that you do not understand?
Post by Michael Pendragon
And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
That is not limited to "perverts."
Thanks for setting the record straight, Ilya.
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-22 07:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
That man was.
What man was?
A friend of mine.
Post by Michael Pendragon
You haven't identified him. Nor have you linked any article describing the incident.
That's because there was no article about it.
Post by Michael Pendragon
For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.
A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Maybe "chatting up" is not the correct term. He got drunk and talked to a 16-year-old, and I don't know if he sexually propositioned her.
So this man was 30-something? 40-something? got drunk and came onto a 16-year old girl. There's no law against talking. He could have gotten arrested for propositioning her... but then how would anyone know what he had said? I'm guessing that he got a little forceful when talking to her; refusing to let her leave, touching her inappropriately, etc.

If a 40-year old man is restraining and or touching a 16-year old girl, it's going to draw attention to itself and someone is going to call the police. Your friend hasn't given you the entire story -- and, having been drunk, he might not have the entire story himself.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?
The people who have been running witch hunts about "perverts" and "sociopaths."
Where are these witch hunts? Perverts get arrested when they force themselves on others: Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein. Or when they're caught masturbating in public: George Michael, Pee Wee Herman.

Sociopaths get arrested when they commit a crime: rape, robbery, murder, whatever.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is painting "P"s or "S"s on innocent people's doors, nor are any angry mobs dragging them out of their beds to burn them at the stake.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?
That people should not be running witch hunts.
Again, what witch hunts?

Your drunk friend tried to have sex with a 16-year old girl, and a college girl reported you for masturbating in the school library.

Your friend is probably guilty of more than you're letting on, and you have admitted that you'd been vigorously rubbing your lower abdomen with your hands inside your pants, so even if the college girl had been mistaken, she certainly wasn't persecuting you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them.
Serial killers have committed murder. Most "sociopaths" and "perverts" have not.
That may be true, but it's the principal of the thing. If we're going to give perverts and sociopaths a "Get Out of Jail Free" card and a clean slate, why not do the same for other nutters and criminals?

You'd argued that perverts and sociopaths are not innately immoral and that they can be regenerated, and that their human dignity should be restored. But is a serial killer stuck in the serial killer role for life? Shouldn't he be as liable to change as a pervert or a sociopath?

If you're drawing a line of distinction based on murderer vs possible murderer, it's both an arbitrary and illogical one. IOW: If a pervert of capable of reforming, a serial killer should be equally capable of reforming. If a reformed pervert is to be accorded human dignity, then a reformed serial killer should be granted that same human dignity.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Is that your idea?
Mine? God no. I'm for making our prisons self-supportive by bringing back gladiator arenas and using convicts as both combatants and lion chow.

I'm just taking your argument about perverts to its logical conclusion.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
In either case, it is a choice.
No, it isn't.

If you're programmed to always "choose" the option that seems most beneficial, there is no choice at all. You simply evaluate the situation, determine which course of action is most advantageous to you, and follow that course.

You can read Baron d'Holbach's argument, if you're interested:

" Theologians repeatedly tell us, that man is free, while all their principles conspire to destroy his liberty. By endeavouring to justify the Divinity, they in reality accuse him of the blackest injustice. They suppose, that without grace, man is necessitated to do evil. They affirm, that God will punish him, because God has not given him grace to do good!

Little reflection will suffice to convince us, that man is necessitated in all his actions, that his free will is a chimera, even in the system of theologians. Does it depend upon man to be born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to imbibe or not to imbibe the opinions of his parents or instructors? If I had been born of idolatrous or Mahometan parents, would it have depended upon me to become a Christian? Yet, divines gravely assure us, that a just God will damn without pity all those, to whom he has not given grace to know the Christian religion!

Man's birth is wholly independent of his choice. He is not asked whether he is willing, or not, to come into the world. Nature does not consult him upon the country and parents she gives him. His acquired ideas, his opinions, his notions true or false, are necessary fruits of the education which he has received, and of which he has not been the director. His passions and desires are necessary consequences of the temperament given him by nature. During his whole life, his volitions and actions are determined by his connections, habits, occupations, pleasures, and conversations; by the thoughts, that are involuntarily presented to his mind; in a word, by a multitude of events and accidents, which it is out of his power to foresee or prevent. Incapable of looking into futurity, he knows not what he will do. From the instant of his birth to that of his death, he is never free. You will say, that he wills, deliberates, chooses, determines; and you will hence conclude, that his actions are free. It is true, that man wills, but he is not master of his will or his desires; he can desire and will only what he judges advantageous to himself; he can neither love pain, nor detest pleasure. It will be said, that he sometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then he prefers a momentary pain with a view of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this case, the prospect of a greater good necessarily determines him to forego a less considerable good.

The lover does not give his mistress the features which captivate him; he is not then master of loving, or not loving the object of his tenderness; he is not master of his imagination or temperament. Whence it evidently follows, that man is not master of his volitions and desires. "But man," you will say, "can resist his desires; therefore he is free." Man resists his desires, when the motives, which divert him from an object, are stronger than those, which incline him towards it; but then his resistance is necessary. A man, whose fear of dishonour or punishment is greater than his love of money, necessarily resists the desire of stealing.

"Are we not free, when we deliberate?" But, are we masters of knowing or not knowing, of being in doubt or certainty? Deliberation is a necessary effect of our uncertainty respecting the consequences of our actions. When we are sure, or think we are sure, of these consequences, we necessarily decide, and we then act necessarily according to our true or false judgment. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarily determined by the ideas, we have received, or which our minds have formed.

"Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently necessitated to choose what he judges most useful and agreeable. Neither is he free, when he suspends his choice; he is forced to suspend it until he knows, or thinks he knows, the qualities of the objects presented to him, or, until he has weighed the consequences of his actions. "Man," you will say, "often decides in favour of actions, which he knows must be detrimental to himself; man sometimes kills himself; therefore he is free." I deny it. Is man master of reasoning well or ill? Do not his reason and wisdom depend upon the opinions he has formed, or upon the conformation of his machine? As neither one nor the other depends upon his will, they are no proof of liberty. "If I lay a wager, that I shall do, or not do a thing, am I not free? Does it not depend upon me to do it or not?" No, I answer; the desire of winning the wager will necessarily determine you to do, or not to do the thing in question. "But, supposing I consent to lose the wager?" Then the desire of proving to me, that you are free, will have become a stronger motive than the desire of winning the wager; and this motive will have necessarily determined you to do, or not to do, the thing in question.

"But," you will say, "I feel free." This is an illusion, that may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, lighting upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly, who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it.

"The inward persuasion that we are free to do, or not to do a thing, is but a mere illusion. If we trace the true principle of our actions, we shall find, that they are always necessary consequences of our volitions and desires, which are never in our power. You think yourself free, because you do what you will; but are you free to will, or not to will; to desire, or not to desire? Are not your volitions and desires necessarily excited by objects or qualities totally independent of you?"

[END QUOTE]

The entire "Testament" (under the title of "Good Sense Without God") can be read here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean?
Being the only person who is traumatized.
So who else is traumatized? The rapist?
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?
I am saying that in a single-minded focus on trauma of rape people ignore other trauma.
Ignore what other trauma?

If you're going to make accusations against groups of people (rape victims), you need to provide specific instances of their having done so.

Whose trauma do rape victims ignore? What percentage of rape victims ignore what percentage of other trauma sufferers?

Without any actual data/examples to back up your claims, your argument is meaningless.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Most "sociopaths" do not commit inhumane acts. What we have here is an Orwellian institution of crimethink - that people can be made criminal by their personality, meaning by how they think. And in this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
Sociopaths lack empathy for others. It's a psychological illness, or perhaps a genetic aberration, but it's not a crime and no one is being persecuted for it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump?
Bush Jr.
George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.
Exactly. People allow people who use drugs to become president while howling bloody murder about sex crimes. A great deal of human dignity has been allotted these men, meanwhile a man who gets drunk and talks to a 16-year-old goes to jail for a year and loses everything he has.
That didn't happen, Ilya. At least, it didn't happen the way your friend (or his family) has told you. Your friend could not have gotten arrested for simply talking to a 16-year old. He had to have committed a crime against her.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.
Do you have treatment for this illness? Do you know what causes it? Or is it a way to stigmatize something that you do not understand?
Sigmund Freud dealt with the treatment of it in his "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis." And, yes, all mental illness can be treated. Some treatments are not successful, but it can be done. A gross oversimplification of the process would be that one has to identify the stage of psycho-sexual development at which the deviation took place, then determine why the patient either regressed to that stage or never progressed to the following one. Psychoanalysis would be used to identify what the patient is using the deviant behavior as a means of psychologically addressing, to get him to confront his problem and to come to terms with it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
That is not limited to "perverts."
Of course it isn't.

But no one is imprisoned unless it is believed that they have committed an actual crime against someone else.
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-09-26 03:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
One can't be arrested for making conversation with a 16-year old.
That man was.
What man was?
A friend of mine.
Post by Michael Pendragon
You haven't identified him. Nor have you linked any article describing the incident.
That's because there was no article about it.
Post by Michael Pendragon
For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.
A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Maybe "chatting up" is not the correct term. He got drunk and talked to a 16-year-old, and I don't know if he sexually propositioned her.
So this man was 30-something? 40-something? got drunk and came onto a 16-year old girl. There's no law against talking. He could have gotten arrested for propositioning her... but then how would anyone know what he had said? I'm guessing that he got a little forceful when talking to her; refusing to let her leave, touching her inappropriately, etc.
If a 40-year old man is restraining and or touching a 16-year old girl, it's going to draw attention to itself and someone is going to call the police. Your friend hasn't given you the entire story -- and, having been drunk, he might not have the entire story himself.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?
The people who have been running witch hunts about "perverts" and "sociopaths."
Where are these witch hunts? Perverts get arrested when they force themselves on others: Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein. Or when they're caught masturbating in public: George Michael, Pee Wee Herman.
Sociopaths get arrested when they commit a crime: rape, robbery, murder, whatever.
To the best of my knowledge, no one is painting "P"s or "S"s on innocent people's doors, nor are any angry mobs dragging them out of their beds to burn them at the stake.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?
That people should not be running witch hunts.
Again, what witch hunts?
Your drunk friend tried to have sex with a 16-year old girl, and a college girl reported you for masturbating in the school library.
Your friend is probably guilty of more than you're letting on, and you have admitted that you'd been vigorously rubbing your lower abdomen with your hands inside your pants, so even if the college girl had been mistaken, she certainly wasn't persecuting you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them.
Serial killers have committed murder. Most "sociopaths" and "perverts" have not.
That may be true, but it's the principal of the thing. If we're going to give perverts and sociopaths a "Get Out of Jail Free" card and a clean slate, why not do the same for other nutters and criminals?
You'd argued that perverts and sociopaths are not innately immoral and that they can be regenerated, and that their human dignity should be restored. But is a serial killer stuck in the serial killer role for life? Shouldn't he be as liable to change as a pervert or a sociopath?
If you're drawing a line of distinction based on murderer vs possible murderer, it's both an arbitrary and illogical one. IOW: If a pervert of capable of reforming, a serial killer should be equally capable of reforming. If a reformed pervert is to be accorded human dignity, then a reformed serial killer should be granted that same human dignity.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Is that your idea?
Mine? God no. I'm for making our prisons self-supportive by bringing back gladiator arenas and using convicts as both combatants and lion chow.
I'm just taking your argument about perverts to its logical conclusion.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
In either case, it is a choice.
No, it isn't.
If you're programmed to always "choose" the option that seems most beneficial, there is no choice at all. You simply evaluate the situation, determine which course of action is most advantageous to you, and follow that course.
" Theologians repeatedly tell us, that man is free, while all their principles conspire to destroy his liberty. By endeavouring to justify the Divinity, they in reality accuse him of the blackest injustice. They suppose, that without grace, man is necessitated to do evil. They affirm, that God will punish him, because God has not given him grace to do good!
Little reflection will suffice to convince us, that man is necessitated in all his actions, that his free will is a chimera, even in the system of theologians. Does it depend upon man to be born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to imbibe or not to imbibe the opinions of his parents or instructors? If I had been born of idolatrous or Mahometan parents, would it have depended upon me to become a Christian? Yet, divines gravely assure us, that a just God will damn without pity all those, to whom he has not given grace to know the Christian religion!
Man's birth is wholly independent of his choice. He is not asked whether he is willing, or not, to come into the world. Nature does not consult him upon the country and parents she gives him. His acquired ideas, his opinions, his notions true or false, are necessary fruits of the education which he has received, and of which he has not been the director. His passions and desires are necessary consequences of the temperament given him by nature. During his whole life, his volitions and actions are determined by his connections, habits, occupations, pleasures, and conversations; by the thoughts, that are involuntarily presented to his mind; in a word, by a multitude of events and accidents, which it is out of his power to foresee or prevent. Incapable of looking into futurity, he knows not what he will do. From the instant of his birth to that of his death, he is never free. You will say, that he wills, deliberates, chooses, determines; and you will hence conclude, that his actions are free. It is true, that man wills, but he is not master of his will or his desires; he can desire and will only what he judges advantageous to himself; he can neither love pain, nor detest pleasure. It will be said, that he sometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then he prefers a momentary pain with a view of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this case, the prospect of a greater good necessarily determines him to forego a less considerable good.
The lover does not give his mistress the features which captivate him; he is not then master of loving, or not loving the object of his tenderness; he is not master of his imagination or temperament. Whence it evidently follows, that man is not master of his volitions and desires. "But man," you will say, "can resist his desires; therefore he is free." Man resists his desires, when the motives, which divert him from an object, are stronger than those, which incline him towards it; but then his resistance is necessary. A man, whose fear of dishonour or punishment is greater than his love of money, necessarily resists the desire of stealing.
"Are we not free, when we deliberate?" But, are we masters of knowing or not knowing, of being in doubt or certainty? Deliberation is a necessary effect of our uncertainty respecting the consequences of our actions. When we are sure, or think we are sure, of these consequences, we necessarily decide, and we then act necessarily according to our true or false judgment. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarily determined by the ideas, we have received, or which our minds have formed.
"Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently necessitated to choose what he judges most useful and agreeable. Neither is he free, when he suspends his choice; he is forced to suspend it until he knows, or thinks he knows, the qualities of the objects presented to him, or, until he has weighed the consequences of his actions. "Man," you will say, "often decides in favour of actions, which he knows must be detrimental to himself; man sometimes kills himself; therefore he is free." I deny it. Is man master of reasoning well or ill? Do not his reason and wisdom depend upon the opinions he has formed, or upon the conformation of his machine? As neither one nor the other depends upon his will, they are no proof of liberty. "If I lay a wager, that I shall do, or not do a thing, am I not free? Does it not depend upon me to do it or not?" No, I answer; the desire of winning the wager will necessarily determine you to do, or not to do the thing in question. "But, supposing I consent to lose the wager?" Then the desire of proving to me, that you are free, will have become a stronger motive than the desire of winning the wager; and this motive will have necessarily determined you to do, or not to do, the thing in question.
"But," you will say, "I feel free." This is an illusion, that may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, lighting upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly, who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it.
"The inward persuasion that we are free to do, or not to do a thing, is but a mere illusion. If we trace the true principle of our actions, we shall find, that they are always necessary consequences of our volitions and desires, which are never in our power. You think yourself free, because you do what you will; but are you free to will, or not to will; to desire, or not to desire? Are not your volitions and desires necessarily excited by objects or qualities totally independent of you?"
[END QUOTE]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean?
Being the only person who is traumatized.
So who else is traumatized? The rapist?
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?
I am saying that in a single-minded focus on trauma of rape people ignore other trauma.
Ignore what other trauma?
If you're going to make accusations against groups of people (rape victims), you need to provide specific instances of their having done so.
Whose trauma do rape victims ignore? What percentage of rape victims ignore what percentage of other trauma sufferers?
Without any actual data/examples to back up your claims, your argument is meaningless.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Most "sociopaths" do not commit inhumane acts. What we have here is an Orwellian institution of crimethink - that people can be made criminal by their personality, meaning by how they think. And in this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
Sociopaths lack empathy for others. It's a psychological illness, or perhaps a genetic aberration, but it's not a crime and no one is being persecuted for it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump?
Bush Jr.
George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.
Exactly. People allow people who use drugs to become president while howling bloody murder about sex crimes. A great deal of human dignity has been allotted these men, meanwhile a man who gets drunk and talks to a 16-year-old goes to jail for a year and loses everything he has.
That didn't happen, Ilya. At least, it didn't happen the way your friend (or his family) has told you. Your friend could not have gotten arrested for simply talking to a 16-year old. He had to have committed a crime against her.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.
Do you have treatment for this illness? Do you know what causes it? Or is it a way to stigmatize something that you do not understand?
Sigmund Freud dealt with the treatment of it in his "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis." And, yes, all mental illness can be treated. Some treatments are not successful, but it can be done. A gross oversimplification of the process would be that one has to identify the stage of psycho-sexual development at which the deviation took place, then determine why the patient either regressed to that stage or never progressed to the following one. Psychoanalysis would be used to identify what the patient is using the deviant behavior as a means of psychologically addressing, to get him to confront his problem and to come to terms with it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
That is not limited to "perverts."
Of course it isn't.
But no one is imprisoned unless it is believed that they have committed an actual crime against someone else.
This Ilya is a fucked up dude.
Will Dockery
2019-09-26 03:50:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.
A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Maybe "chatting up" is not the correct term. He got drunk and talked to a 16-year-old, and I don't know if he sexually propositioned her.
So this man was 30-something? 40-something? got drunk and came onto a 16-year old girl. There's no law against talking. He could have gotten arrested for propositioning her... but then how would anyone know what he had said? I'm guessing that he got a little forceful when talking to her; refusing to let her leave, touching her inappropriately, etc.
If a 40-year old man is restraining and or touching a 16-year old girl, it's going to draw attention to itself and someone is going to call the police. Your friend hasn't given you the entire story -- and, having been drunk, he might not have the entire story himself.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?
The people who have been running witch hunts about "perverts" and "sociopaths."
Where are these witch hunts? Perverts get arrested when they force themselves on others: Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein. Or when they're caught masturbating in public: George Michael, Pee Wee Herman.
Sociopaths get arrested when they commit a crime: rape, robbery, murder, whatever.
To the best of my knowledge, no one is painting "P"s or "S"s on innocent people's doors, nor are any angry mobs dragging them out of their beds to burn them at the stake.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?
That people should not be running witch hunts.
Again, what witch hunts?
Your drunk friend tried to have sex with a 16-year old girl, and a college girl reported you for masturbating in the school library.
Your friend is probably guilty of more than you're letting on, and you have admitted that you'd been vigorously rubbing your lower abdomen with your hands inside your pants, so even if the college girl had been mistaken, she certainly wasn't persecuting you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them.
Serial killers have committed murder. Most "sociopaths" and "perverts" have not.
That may be true, but it's the principal of the thing. If we're going to give perverts and sociopaths a "Get Out of Jail Free" card and a clean slate, why not do the same for other nutters and criminals?
You'd argued that perverts and sociopaths are not innately immoral and that they can be regenerated, and that their human dignity should be restored. But is a serial killer stuck in the serial killer role for life? Shouldn't he be as liable to change as a pervert or a sociopath?
If you're drawing a line of distinction based on murderer vs possible murderer, it's both an arbitrary and illogical one. IOW: If a pervert of capable of reforming, a serial killer should be equally capable of reforming. If a reformed pervert is to be accorded human dignity, then a reformed serial killer should be granted that same human dignity.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Is that your idea?
Mine? God no. I'm for making our prisons self-supportive by bringing back gladiator arenas and using convicts as both combatants and lion chow.
I'm just taking your argument about perverts to its logical conclusion.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
In either case, it is a choice.
No, it isn't.
If you're programmed to always "choose" the option that seems most beneficial, there is no choice at all. You simply evaluate the situation, determine which course of action is most advantageous to you, and follow that course.
" Theologians repeatedly tell us, that man is free, while all their principles conspire to destroy his liberty. By endeavouring to justify the Divinity, they in reality accuse him of the blackest injustice. They suppose, that without grace, man is necessitated to do evil. They affirm, that God will punish him, because God has not given him grace to do good!
Little reflection will suffice to convince us, that man is necessitated in all his actions, that his free will is a chimera, even in the system of theologians. Does it depend upon man to be born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to imbibe or not to imbibe the opinions of his parents or instructors? If I had been born of idolatrous or Mahometan parents, would it have depended upon me to become a Christian? Yet, divines gravely assure us, that a just God will damn without pity all those, to whom he has not given grace to know the Christian religion!
Man's birth is wholly independent of his choice. He is not asked whether he is willing, or not, to come into the world. Nature does not consult him upon the country and parents she gives him. His acquired ideas, his opinions, his notions true or false, are necessary fruits of the education which he has received, and of which he has not been the director. His passions and desires are necessary consequences of the temperament given him by nature. During his whole life, his volitions and actions are determined by his connections, habits, occupations, pleasures, and conversations; by the thoughts, that are involuntarily presented to his mind; in a word, by a multitude of events and accidents, which it is out of his power to foresee or prevent. Incapable of looking into futurity, he knows not what he will do. From the instant of his birth to that of his death, he is never free. You will say, that he wills, deliberates, chooses, determines; and you will hence conclude, that his actions are free. It is true, that man wills, but he is not master of his will or his desires; he can desire and will only what he judges advantageous to himself; he can neither love pain, nor detest pleasure. It will be said, that he sometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then he prefers a momentary pain with a view of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this case, the prospect of a greater good necessarily determines him to forego a less considerable good.
The lover does not give his mistress the features which captivate him; he is not then master of loving, or not loving the object of his tenderness; he is not master of his imagination or temperament. Whence it evidently follows, that man is not master of his volitions and desires. "But man," you will say, "can resist his desires; therefore he is free." Man resists his desires, when the motives, which divert him from an object, are stronger than those, which incline him towards it; but then his resistance is necessary. A man, whose fear of dishonour or punishment is greater than his love of money, necessarily resists the desire of stealing.
"Are we not free, when we deliberate?" But, are we masters of knowing or not knowing, of being in doubt or certainty? Deliberation is a necessary effect of our uncertainty respecting the consequences of our actions. When we are sure, or think we are sure, of these consequences, we necessarily decide, and we then act necessarily according to our true or false judgment. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarily determined by the ideas, we have received, or which our minds have formed.
"Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently necessitated to choose what he judges most useful and agreeable. Neither is he free, when he suspends his choice; he is forced to suspend it until he knows, or thinks he knows, the qualities of the objects presented to him, or, until he has weighed the consequences of his actions. "Man," you will say, "often decides in favour of actions, which he knows must be detrimental to himself; man sometimes kills himself; therefore he is free." I deny it. Is man master of reasoning well or ill? Do not his reason and wisdom depend upon the opinions he has formed, or upon the conformation of his machine? As neither one nor the other depends upon his will, they are no proof of liberty. "If I lay a wager, that I shall do, or not do a thing, am I not free? Does it not depend upon me to do it or not?" No, I answer; the desire of winning the wager will necessarily determine you to do, or not to do the thing in question. "But, supposing I consent to lose the wager?" Then the desire of proving to me, that you are free, will have become a stronger motive than the desire of winning the wager; and this motive will have necessarily determined you to do, or not to do, the thing in question.
"But," you will say, "I feel free." This is an illusion, that may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, lighting upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly, who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it.
"The inward persuasion that we are free to do, or not to do a thing, is but a mere illusion. If we trace the true principle of our actions, we shall find, that they are always necessary consequences of our volitions and desires, which are never in our power. You think yourself free, because you do what you will; but are you free to will, or not to will; to desire, or not to desire? Are not your volitions and desires necessarily excited by objects or qualities totally independent of you?"
[END QUOTE]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean?
Being the only person who is traumatized.
So who else is traumatized? The rapist?
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?
I am saying that in a single-minded focus on trauma of rape people ignore other trauma.
Ignore what other trauma?
If you're going to make accusations against groups of people (rape victims), you need to provide specific instances of their having done so.
Whose trauma do rape victims ignore? What percentage of rape victims ignore what percentage of other trauma sufferers?
Without any actual data/examples to back up your claims, your argument is meaningless.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Most "sociopaths" do not commit inhumane acts. What we have here is an Orwellian institution of crimethink - that people can be made criminal by their personality, meaning by how they think. And in this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
Sociopaths lack empathy for others. It's a psychological illness, or perhaps a genetic aberration, but it's not a crime and no one is being persecuted for it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump?
Bush Jr.
George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.
Exactly. People allow people who use drugs to become president while howling bloody murder about sex crimes. A great deal of human dignity has been allotted these men, meanwhile a man who gets drunk and talks to a 16-year-old goes to jail for a year and loses everything he has.
That didn't happen, Ilya. At least, it didn't happen the way your friend (or his family) has told you. Your friend could not have gotten arrested for simply talking to a 16-year old. He had to have committed a crime against her.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.
Do you have treatment for this illness? Do you know what causes it? Or is it a way to stigmatize something that you do not understand?
Sigmund Freud dealt with the treatment of it in his "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis." And, yes, all mental illness can be treated. Some treatments are not successful, but it can be done. A gross oversimplification of the process would be that one has to identify the stage of psycho-sexual development at which the deviation took place, then determine why the patient either regressed to that stage or never progressed to the following one. Psychoanalysis would be used to identify what the patient is using the deviant behavior as a means of psychologically addressing, to get him to confront his problem and to come to terms with it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
That is not limited to "perverts."
Of course it isn't.
But no one is imprisoned unless it is believed that they have committed an actual crime against someone else.
fucked up
You are?

Yes, we all know you're a fucked up, obsessed forger.

;)
Reverend Zod
2019-09-26 04:55:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
For him to have been arrested there must have been some extenuating circumstances that you've either neglected to include or of which you are blissfully unaware.
A restraining order, perhaps. Or, more likely, he was arrested for sexually propositioning a minor -- which is a bit more serious than merely chatting her up.
Maybe "chatting up" is not the correct term. He got drunk and talked to a 16-year-old, and I don't know if he sexually propositioned her.
So this man was 30-something? 40-something? got drunk and came onto a 16-year old girl. There's no law against talking. He could have gotten arrested for propositioning her... but then how would anyone know what he had said? I'm guessing that he got a little forceful when talking to her; refusing to let her leave, touching her inappropriately, etc.
If a 40-year old man is restraining and or touching a 16-year old girl, it's going to draw attention to itself and someone is going to call the police. Your friend hasn't given you the entire story -- and, having been drunk, he might not have the entire story himself.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil.
You've gone off-subject. Running off on tangents when presenting an argument is basically a kiss of death.
No, I am addressing one of these people's central claims.
First off, you haven't identified who "these people" are. Neo-Nazis? The Moral Majority? MAGAs? Tea Party members? Jehovah's Witnesses? Not those pesky, pernicious radical feminists again?
The people who have been running witch hunts about "perverts" and "sociopaths."
Where are these witch hunts? Perverts get arrested when they force themselves on others: Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein. Or when they're caught masturbating in public: George Michael, Pee Wee Herman.
Sociopaths get arrested when they commit a crime: rape, robbery, murder, whatever.
To the best of my knowledge, no one is painting "P"s or "S"s on innocent people's doors, nor are any angry mobs dragging them out of their beds to burn them at the stake.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And what's the point of your tangent? That people should be more sympathetic to narcissists, sociopaths as well as perverts?
That people should not be running witch hunts.
Again, what witch hunts?
Your drunk friend tried to have sex with a 16-year old girl, and a college girl reported you for masturbating in the school library.
Your friend is probably guilty of more than you're letting on, and you have admitted that you'd been vigorously rubbing your lower abdomen with your hands inside your pants, so even if the college girl had been mistaken, she certainly wasn't persecuting you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
What about serial killers? You mustn't discriminate against them.
Serial killers have committed murder. Most "sociopaths" and "perverts" have not.
That may be true, but it's the principal of the thing. If we're going to give perverts and sociopaths a "Get Out of Jail Free" card and a clean slate, why not do the same for other nutters and criminals?
You'd argued that perverts and sociopaths are not innately immoral and that they can be regenerated, and that their human dignity should be restored. But is a serial killer stuck in the serial killer role for life? Shouldn't he be as liable to change as a pervert or a sociopath?
If you're drawing a line of distinction based on murderer vs possible murderer, it's both an arbitrary and illogical one. IOW: If a pervert of capable of reforming, a serial killer should be equally capable of reforming. If a reformed pervert is to be accorded human dignity, then a reformed serial killer should be granted that same human dignity.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Shouldn't we accord them the same rights as sociopaths and perverts? Shouldn't we have given John Wayne Gacy some much-required counseling and turned him back out on the streets with a clean slate?
Is that your idea?
Mine? God no. I'm for making our prisons self-supportive by bringing back gladiator arenas and using convicts as both combatants and lion chow.
I'm just taking your argument about perverts to its logical conclusion.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
We are not capable of choice. I refer you to the "Testament" of Baron d'Holbach.
Of course we are capable of choice. I want all sorts of things that are no good, but I control myself.
Baron d'Holbach has set forth the argument that from the moment of our birth until that of our death we do not experience so much as one moment of free will. He convincingly argues that when confronted by a choice in life, we are genetically hard-wired to "choose" whichever option we believe to be most beneficial to ourselves. If, for example, you feel a strong desire to masturbate in a college library, but "choose" not to, you've only made that choice because abstinence appeared to be more beneficial to you than getting yourself arrested.
In either case, it is a choice.
No, it isn't.
If you're programmed to always "choose" the option that seems most beneficial, there is no choice at all. You simply evaluate the situation, determine which course of action is most advantageous to you, and follow that course.
" Theologians repeatedly tell us, that man is free, while all their principles conspire to destroy his liberty. By endeavouring to justify the Divinity, they in reality accuse him of the blackest injustice. They suppose, that without grace, man is necessitated to do evil. They affirm, that God will punish him, because God has not given him grace to do good!
Little reflection will suffice to convince us, that man is necessitated in all his actions, that his free will is a chimera, even in the system of theologians. Does it depend upon man to be born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to imbibe or not to imbibe the opinions of his parents or instructors? If I had been born of idolatrous or Mahometan parents, would it have depended upon me to become a Christian? Yet, divines gravely assure us, that a just God will damn without pity all those, to whom he has not given grace to know the Christian religion!
Man's birth is wholly independent of his choice. He is not asked whether he is willing, or not, to come into the world. Nature does not consult him upon the country and parents she gives him. His acquired ideas, his opinions, his notions true or false, are necessary fruits of the education which he has received, and of which he has not been the director. His passions and desires are necessary consequences of the temperament given him by nature. During his whole life, his volitions and actions are determined by his connections, habits, occupations, pleasures, and conversations; by the thoughts, that are involuntarily presented to his mind; in a word, by a multitude of events and accidents, which it is out of his power to foresee or prevent. Incapable of looking into futurity, he knows not what he will do. From the instant of his birth to that of his death, he is never free. You will say, that he wills, deliberates, chooses, determines; and you will hence conclude, that his actions are free. It is true, that man wills, but he is not master of his will or his desires; he can desire and will only what he judges advantageous to himself; he can neither love pain, nor detest pleasure. It will be said, that he sometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then he prefers a momentary pain with a view of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this case, the prospect of a greater good necessarily determines him to forego a less considerable good.
The lover does not give his mistress the features which captivate him; he is not then master of loving, or not loving the object of his tenderness; he is not master of his imagination or temperament. Whence it evidently follows, that man is not master of his volitions and desires. "But man," you will say, "can resist his desires; therefore he is free." Man resists his desires, when the motives, which divert him from an object, are stronger than those, which incline him towards it; but then his resistance is necessary. A man, whose fear of dishonour or punishment is greater than his love of money, necessarily resists the desire of stealing.
"Are we not free, when we deliberate?" But, are we masters of knowing or not knowing, of being in doubt or certainty? Deliberation is a necessary effect of our uncertainty respecting the consequences of our actions. When we are sure, or think we are sure, of these consequences, we necessarily decide, and we then act necessarily according to our true or false judgment. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarily determined by the ideas, we have received, or which our minds have formed.
"Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently necessitated to choose what he judges most useful and agreeable. Neither is he free, when he suspends his choice; he is forced to suspend it until he knows, or thinks he knows, the qualities of the objects presented to him, or, until he has weighed the consequences of his actions. "Man," you will say, "often decides in favour of actions, which he knows must be detrimental to himself; man sometimes kills himself; therefore he is free." I deny it. Is man master of reasoning well or ill? Do not his reason and wisdom depend upon the opinions he has formed, or upon the conformation of his machine? As neither one nor the other depends upon his will, they are no proof of liberty. "If I lay a wager, that I shall do, or not do a thing, am I not free? Does it not depend upon me to do it or not?" No, I answer; the desire of winning the wager will necessarily determine you to do, or not to do the thing in question. "But, supposing I consent to lose the wager?" Then the desire of proving to me, that you are free, will have become a stronger motive than the desire of winning the wager; and this motive will have necessarily determined you to do, or not to do, the thing in question.
"But," you will say, "I feel free." This is an illusion, that may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, lighting upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly, who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it.
"The inward persuasion that we are free to do, or not to do a thing, is but a mere illusion. If we trace the true principle of our actions, we shall find, that they are always necessary consequences of our volitions and desires, which are never in our power. You think yourself free, because you do what you will; but are you free to will, or not to will; to desire, or not to desire? Are not your volitions and desires necessarily excited by objects or qualities totally independent of you?"
[END QUOTE]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sex abuse victims don't need a right to feel traumatized. The violent act created the trauma. It's there with or without your permission.
I am saying that they don't own traumatization, not that they are not traumatized.
I heard you. But what, exactly, does "owning" trauma mean?
Being the only person who is traumatized.
So who else is traumatized? The rapist?
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Are you saying that rape victims don't allow for the possibility that victims of other crimes could experience trauma as well (or comparable to their own)? Are you saying that a rape victim would attack and/or belittle a terrorist victim who had her face burnt off in an acid attack?
I am saying that in a single-minded focus on trauma of rape people ignore other trauma.
Ignore what other trauma?
If you're going to make accusations against groups of people (rape victims), you need to provide specific instances of their having done so.
Whose trauma do rape victims ignore? What percentage of rape victims ignore what percentage of other trauma sufferers?
Without any actual data/examples to back up your claims, your argument is meaningless.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
You seem to be aligning yourself with sociopaths and perverts.
I want to restore humanity to people who have been dehumanized.
No one has dehumanized sociopaths and perverts. They have dehumanized themselves through their actions. A pervert who sexually molests a child has committed an inhumane act which the vast majority of humans would find appalling beyond words. His inhumane act renders him inhuman for the simple fact that no sane human being would even consider it.
Most "sociopaths" do not commit inhumane acts. What we have here is an Orwellian institution of crimethink - that people can be made criminal by their personality, meaning by how they think. And in this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people are not allowed to be free from it even within the privacy of their minds.
Sociopaths lack empathy for others. It's a psychological illness, or perhaps a genetic aberration, but it's not a crime and no one is being persecuted for it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
How much human dignity can one restore to a man who chooses to dine on canine feces?
About as much as one can restore to a cocaine addict who becomes a US President.
Which President is that? President Trump?
Bush Jr.
George Washington was allegedly hooked on laudanum, Abraham Lincoln on some sort of mercury-based uppers, JFK was regularly provided with amphetamines by the notorious "Dr. Feelgood," and, recently, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have been rumored to have use cocaine and Barrack Obama has admitted to having done so.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Yet, depending upon your political affiliation, a great deal of human dignity has been allotted to each of these men.
Exactly. People allow people who use drugs to become president while howling bloody murder about sex crimes. A great deal of human dignity has been allotted these men, meanwhile a man who gets drunk and talks to a 16-year-old goes to jail for a year and loses everything he has.
That didn't happen, Ilya. At least, it didn't happen the way your friend (or his family) has told you. Your friend could not have gotten arrested for simply talking to a 16-year old. He had to have committed a crime against her.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
Sexual perversion, otoh, is a form of mental illness. People who engage in bestiality, or example, have obviously got more than a few synaptic wires crossed. So whereas drug use can be dismissed as youthful curiosity and indulgence, perversion should be looked on, and treated as, an illness.
Do you have treatment for this illness? Do you know what causes it? Or is it a way to stigmatize something that you do not understand?
Sigmund Freud dealt with the treatment of it in his "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis." And, yes, all mental illness can be treated. Some treatments are not successful, but it can be done. A gross oversimplification of the process would be that one has to identify the stage of psycho-sexual development at which the deviation took place, then determine why the patient either regressed to that stage or never progressed to the following one. Psychoanalysis would be used to identify what the patient is using the deviant behavior as a means of psychologically addressing, to get him to confront his problem and to come to terms with it.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Pendragon
And when someone's perversion impacts the life of another individual in a negative, emotionally damaging, or violent manner, he/she should be both condemned and removed from society before he can perpetrate any further violent/abusive acts.
That is not limited to "perverts."
Of course it isn't.
But no one is imprisoned unless it is believed that they have committed an actual crime against someone else.
fucked up
You are?
Yes, we all know you're a fucked up, obsessed forger.
;)
I know, nothing but a cowardly forging fool, hiding behind a stolen identity...
General Zod
2019-09-22 21:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
Right on...........
General Zod
2019-09-27 16:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
Us perverts need to stick together.
Zod
2019-09-27 21:36:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.
However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.
King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.
King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.
Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.
Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.
Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.
It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.
The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.
This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?
Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.
I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.
People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.
It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.
Well said I.S.

Loading...