[ubermik]

@anita Gofradump wrote:

Comedy, humour, jokes, call it what you will. Has no boundries, so i don’t see these jokes as a problem personally, would they of been so p!ssed off had he made some manc jokes like those, or even about colin mccrae, i think not.

I have to agree with that

Humour is subjective, theres no universal right or wrong as much as many cling desperately to their moral highground trying to claim there is

Things like this just arent types of humour some people get or find funny but which will be a humourous distraction from the darker side of an issue for someone else

[ubermik]

@sweetass wrote:

@waspish wrote:

Hat off to you uber hook line and sinker… :lol: :lol: :lol:
sorry girls but that made fun reading [mabey cos im stoned :wink: ]
i actually see both sides as i worked with paedos for years. i tried reason, cause and effect and medical castration. none of wich work. after many years of listening to their pathetic excuses . I personally think they should be shot in the back of the head.

I’m beginning to have those same thoughts about Uber :wink: :wink: :P

:shock: :shock: :shock: :o

When I asked if there was anychance of “head” and a “bang” that WASNT what I meant silly :P :P :P :P

[ubermik]

@waspish wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

I wonder whether “wheres maddie” books will ever outsell “wheres waldo” ones :lol:

dont you mean wheres wally uber ?
my son spent many happy hours with wheres wally books, mind you he is slightly autistic so every day was a whole new adventure for him in those days. now hes 22 and behaving like a 16 year old so hes getting there slowly. :roll: :roll:
back to maddie ive seen the pic a few times now and i must admit im sceptical now.

Nope, I said exactly what I meant, waldo, not wally

[ubermik]

I wonder whether “wheres maddie” books will ever outsell “wheres waldo” ones :lol:

[ubermik]

The world has countless millions of little girls that will look “like” maddie

But two things that do spring to mind

1) The pic is hardly a secretly snapped one, so do you REALLY think that with all the media attention someone who has her would so blatantly pose for piccies? lol

and

2) IF the “snapper” was SOOOOO sure why not follow her to where they were staying and (as most people have cell phones now) inform the authorities along the way so they could intercept?

To me this kind of dross has more of the form of people finding a photo that “looks” like a UFO, ghost or elvis is in it when they are looking through the blurred remnants of holiday snapping

I’ve seen a potato that looked like prince charles too, but I didnt for one second think it WAS prince charles (or was it a mr potato head toy? as both of those look like the jug eared bumbling idiotic inbred kraut anyway lol)

[ubermik]

@drivel wrote:

At what point do you think Witchfinder Ubermik and his able assistant Witchfinderess Bat will concede ???

Perhaps when the real culprit has been hung , drawn and quartered – probably not though

makes you a bit ashamed to be British – what with Innocent until proved Guilty and all that – seems to have fallen by the wayside

Actually your post is more of an embarassment to being british as you quote concepts you obviously are totally incapable of understanding like a child reciting einstein

Just what exactly about innocent till proven guilty do you missguidedly think equates into the phrases

“above suspicion until proven guilty”?

Or

“above investigation till proven guilty”?

The actual phrase and precept is ONLY what it says, someone is for the most part not CLASSED as guilty until its proven, none of that absolves them from or places them above suspicion, investigation, theorisation, formulation or doubt before being found guilty

Infact if the phrase did mean the illogical nonsensical crap you seem to be deludedly claiming it means NOBODY would ever be able to be found guilty of anything ever, because they wouldnt be able to be suspected or investigated until AFTER being proven guilty, which would quite seriously hamper the proving of that guilt just a tad lol

You also seem to lack the basic intellectual acumen to distinguish the difference between suspicion and conclusion, one is being open minded enough to accept or suspect someone COULD have done something, the other is closedmindedly claiming they have.

And the only closedminded posts on this topic are coming from the people who cant even entertain the thought they MIGHT have been involved in killing maddy even tho they have no PROOF to back that up but still vaccuously talk as tho its “known” to be true, rather than merely being possible

THe flip side of the phrase you incorrectly wheeled out is this one

“There is possibility of guilt until PROVEN innocent”

As they have niether been “PROVEN” (seeing as its word you try to use) innocent nor guilty they ARE quite capable of being either on the matter of having killed her

Anyone who claims more than that with any delusional degree of certainty is an idiot irrespective of whether they are claiming innocence or guilt as both can ONLY be details as “possibly” being the case at the moment in lieu of any “proof” to validate either suspicion

A trailing question re the hanged drawn and quartering you mentioned

How is total absolution and freedom from suspicion or prosecution of a child murderer a “wholesome” pursuit?

If you inneffectually and innacurately try to portray suspicion of guilt as assumption of guilt then using your own lack of cohesion and logic bereft words against you, your own witterings then become assumption of innocence rather than suspicion of it

As that assumption cant be and hasnt been proven, they you are to all intents and purposes trying to encourage the total avoidence of any suspicion or investigation of a possible child killer based on no “proof of innocence” whatsoever

Do you think thats a “british” pastime then? Protecting child killers from prosecution?

Anyway, youre male innit?

So the concept of “innocent till proven guilty” doesnt apply to you anyway on a whole host of issues which is steadily increasing. The absolute application of the innocence until guilt is proven ONLY applies to women nowadays in the british legal system so you are using a phrase that no longer applies to british justice or your gender anyway making it a bit of an eroneous thing to cling to anyway even if you had actually managed to use the phrase in an at least marginally acurate rendition of its meaning

[ubermik]

@sweetass wrote:

You’re not worth arguing with Uber . You backtrack and change your opinions like a chameleon changes its colours . I , at least am consistent in my views . :roll: :twisted: :?

As you’ve elected quite predictably to not back up your eroneous claims of “justifying” paedophiles with any actual evidence of same I guess it would be just as pointless asking you to show “contradiction” too eh lol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And thats probably why youre posts are emotive and as a result lacking in any form of logical reasoning then if youre “argueing”, isnt this a discussion or debate board rather than an “arguement” board or hissy fit one? haha :lol:

[ubermik]

@sweetass wrote:

I’m not sure who you’re trying to patronise Uber.. But it’s a poor attempt at justifying the behaviour of paedophile ….. I wonder if you and other pc friendly sympathetics would be so understanding if you or someone you loved was (God forbid) ever attacked :?: :?:
There is NO justification for creatures such as these…. I am clever enough to know that what has been ‘ingrained’ can be taken away …. A normal feeling human being is aware of what is right and wrong… for you to TRY and justify the actions of paedophiles concerns ME. I am a parent and if my child was sexually abused by a paedophile. You can guarantee I would not rest until I’d cut off the filthy barstuds bollix and stuffed them in his throat .. in the case of it being a female ?? I’d wash her cervix with acid.
I am a parent and I’m a bloody good one .. anyone who would harm my child OR any child for that matter, is not now nor EVER going to get sympathy from me …
Do you consider the act of sexual abuse to a child an act of a person who is ill :?: I’m fugged if I do or ever would.
My children are my life and part of my role as a parent is to nurture the good in them. To encourage morals and the basic knowledge of right and wrong.
Jeffery Dahmer nor Denis Neilson were sexually abused as children .
Peadophiles and deviants such as these are this way through choice. They found no other way to get their kicks. So the abuse and eventual murder of innocents.. whatever their sexuality was down to the fact that they.. like peadophiles enjoy the power they have over thei victims.
Get a grip Uber.. stop trying to pyschoanalyse shyte that you think you might know about .. but obviously don’t
This is about the very simple fact of right and wrong.. Paedophiles know they’re doing wrong .. yet they ‘can’t help themselves’ cos daddy was a bad man, mummy didnt love them enough or uncle freddy from bromley touched them when they were little

THERE IS NO EXCUSE AND PPL LIKE YOU WHO TRY TO OFFER ANY ARE AS BAD IF NOT WORSE THAN THE SCUM WHO PERPRETRATE THESE APPALLING ACTS
Makes me sick to my stomach :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Ps show me a society that condones paedophillia :?: :?:

And I’m not even sure if youre lost and posting on the wrong thread, coz yet again you seem to be responding to posts that havent been posted and countering points that havent been raised

As a side point the actual format of a discussion is person A says something, person B then reads what was written and replies to it

Whereas you seem to think that person B is supposed to totally ignore whats been written and instead respond to what they would have preferred to have been written so they can type predictable tabloid mindless cliché ridden tripe bereft of any relevance but fraught with emotive illogic in the hopes nobody will either notice or point out they are actually responding to things that havent actually been said :shock:

Hardly the same now is it lol :lol: :lol:

Firstly I’d suggest looking up the word “justify” as you dont seem to be able to grasp what it actually means, theres (to cognitive people) a massive difference between understanding something and “justifying” it, although morons cant seem to tell the difference between the two, but trust me there IS one nonetheless

As discussions also tend to flow far better when people actually back up their eroneous linkages would you care to point out exactly where either myself or DOA have “justified” paedo behaviour? Take your time, theres no rush lol

Its also quite laughable that you called me “PC”, do you even know what sort of views “PC” idiots have?, infact not wanting to figure out why people do something, infact not questioning things, blindly following doctrine, wanting to hang the people your told its ok to hang and not wanting to scrutinise the ones youre told its not ok to scrutinise is what being PC is

So on an issue like this, rape and other cases NOT discussing the intricacies of the act, NOT wanting to try and meticulously figure out the variances, details and driving factors is being PC

Wanting to assume all of each group is exactly as claimed in tabloids and just hang em IS being PC

Being nonsensically emotive and incapable of rational discussion IS being PC

So to see someone who is PC on this matter you might want to find a mirror chick :wink:

As for the rather daily tabloid wheeling out of “right and wrong” lol, right and wrong has little meaning in the arena of sexual gratification, desire and taboos

Taboos for one dont exist with “right” things, fidelity isnt “right”, to many people who partake in things like gang bangs, S&M, dogging and countless other sexual pursuits the fact they are considered “wrong” is a large part of why they do it in the first place, and thats men AND woman

All of which is conveniently and moronically overlooked and ignored when a topic like this is wheeled out as it clouds the oversimplified dumbed down definition the masses are capable of absorbing

History is full of peoples sexual desires being practiced irrespective of whether they were socially deemed “right” or even if they were illegal, infact adultery is practised in many countries where the penalty is death, yet even that doesnt act as a deterrant or discourage people partaking in that socially, morally and legally “wrong” sexual pursuit, yet its whimsically claimed that with other sexual pursuits that should somehow be “different” and the mere knowledge of other people viewing it as wrong should be that? LOL, on what planet is that exactly? Coz it sure aint this one :lol: :lol:

Sodomy/buggery, bestiality, infidelity, sex outside marriage, homosexuality and many other sexual pursuits HAVE throughout time been carried out by men and women in abundance whether morally frowned upon, specifically religiously banned, legally banned and even when punished by banishment, death or imprisonment

Yet paedos, you seem to think ought to be the only subset of society that might actually pay heed to any of those dissaprovals and desist??? Why?

And also where all of those other examples of sexual preferences not being acceptable are concerned, for every person that does actually still partake in them there are people who will want to but will be discouraged from doing so. I dont think for one second that wont also be the case with paedophillia. SOME people will act on the urge, some wont

Probably in similar proportions to the percentages of gay and straight people that do or dont act on their urges when society or the law frowns on them really I’d expect

And just to clear something up, a compulsion is something done when the person themselves considers it totally wrong but does it anyway. Its not a compulsion when they are simply aware that other people define it as wrong but they dont, which is often the case with paedos, animal fakkers, cheats, pain junkies, subs and the like

In their own minds they have a different view even if that view is born out of their own unique way of rationalising things, but even the sane people twist reality to suit the version they want to exist, that is also common to pretty much every person who has ever lived as ALL perspective is unique and therefore flawed

[ubermik]

@minim wrote:

Could it be that the reason the hypothalamus region of the brain didn’t react when paedophiles were shown adult sexual images is for the simple reason, they don’t get turned on by adults!

Just a thought.

It COULD, but have you ever seen a venn diagram?

If we have the outer circle of people whos hippopotamus didnt start glowing inside there would be countless smaller circles, one for kiddy fiddlers, one for people who just dont like porn, one for frigid folksies, one for prudes, one for people who like porn but not what was going on in the material, one for people who have the oppsosite orientation to what they are watching, one for people who just arent attracted to the people in the material and countless others

Whilst over in inside the circle of people who WERE turned on by the porn (the non paedos) will be circles for paedos who dont ONLY get off at the thought of kids, ones where the people or the acts being depicted REMINDED them of kids or past experiences with kids and others paedos turned on by the adult porn for other reaons

Just because something MIGHt be indicative of it doesnt mean its proof

[ubermik]

@slayer wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

Topics like this are viewed with a near lack of common sense even by many alleged “profesionals”

Just because their sexuality isnt “normal” its assumed to be a totally different thing TO “sexuality” and is tried to be explained away as illness, evil, mental problems etc etc

Realistically tho its merely a sexual variant nothing more, the same as someone developing a foot fetish, or one for slime collector sniffing and millions of other “variants” that arent boring vanilla sexual practices

BUT it is not about whether bestiality, sadism and necrophilia is flogging a dead horse- its about society’s (and the law’s) view of what is and isnt acceptable. Society has made a clear distinct line that adult/child sexual contact is morally, ethically and legally wrong- whilst someone may indeed have a foot fetish and society may view them as “odd” or “unusual”, it does not view them as breaking the law

Of course any form of sexual act, within any thing animate or inanimate, is part of sexuality but just as rape is as much about control and power (and the sexual “buzz” which accompanies that power), so paedophilia is about power and control as much as it is about any sexual act itself- the power over the child and the power to bend that child to their will

@ubermik wrote:

Yes in many cases it COULD “possibly” be traced back to what the exact fascination was caused by, or what traumatic events, dissassociations or affectations were the seed that the sexual obsession grew from

But as is the case with many sexual variations they are very often childhood occurences that will be so deep rooted in the persons mind and that will have permeated so much of their consciousness that came afterwards they will be unchangeable

BUT if you believe sexuality, at least for the majority, is preconceived (literally) and that your sexuality is a given when you are born then events in your childhood cannot affect your future sexual deviances becuase you are already programmed genetically. And if many sexual deviances are affected by the subconscious relfecting pre pubsecent events, then it WOULD be “treatable”-it would be psychological not physical.

@ubermik wrote:

You have I reckon, as much chance of “curing” a paedo as you do a homosexuals sexuality or as much chance of convincing a straight sexually prolific man that tits and fannies arent sexual

But until people consider paedophilia more as an actual sexuality or “kink” and respond to it accordingly rather than as some “illness” or dysfunction of a different type the solutions will be just as missguided and inneffective

But paedophilia is a dysfunction- if your analogy that is all part of sexuality and that it is no different, at its base, than any other debviant sexual act then by the very nature that it is not accepted, it is dysfunctional. It may be an artificially dysfucntional driven by societies abhorrence of paedophilia but it is still a dysfunction.

Just like the many varied and diverse forms of mental illness- mental health, par se, has different variants (from psychotic to dillusional), the variants must be dysfucntional if they are different from what is considered the norm? 30 years ago, mentally ill people were permanently locked up for their own, and societies, safety. Now they are “out in the community”. Perhaps its time to revert that and lock up every paedo walking the street- if they are indeed rational, then it would be a wonderful deterrent

Wow, an actual sensibly worded post on the topic :o , would I be right in guessing youre male then? (Serious question btw)

Re the first part, it is in a way about every form of sexual “deviation” in so much that they ARE sexual deviations. Because trying to segment some off by the use of convenient semantics removes the chance of ever reaching a workable answer to the occurence

Morals are only valid to those who hold and believe in THOSE particular morals, look at religion or different cultures??? Do all of them live and abide by ALL morals applied by ALL religions and cultures? Course not, so non are universally applicable, non are integrally “right” but all of them are to varying degrees reasonably commonsensical constructs to facilitate a workable society

To claim they are in some way hard wired into people is just ludicrous, whats actually the case is that they are brainwashed into members of a society or religion pretty much from birth, but no form of brainwashing is total, so not everyone exposed to it will absorb its concepts as well as a percentage who will rebel against its preachings anyway

Where a sexual matter is concerned that becomes a “taboo”, a forbidden fruit, which to that tiny percentage becomes more desireably, naughtier and more of a draw BECAUSE its a taboo, and the more of a taboo, then the more appeal it holds

As I said earlier, try and find a sexual activity that DOESNT have a greater or lesser degree of power and control involved on a psychological level, you’ll really struggle

We dont hear people wittering on that the missionary position, doggy style et al is preffered by perverts because its a position thats psychologically fraught with domination, power and subjugation do we? But think about it for a second, it IS filled with all of those things, and that is EXACTLY why many men and women get off over one position more than another, because having more or less feeling of power or control is erotic

And people have sex primarily for the eroticism which yes DOES often come via the way of power and control or feeling unempowered and out of control, but its the eroticism of that inbalance thats the root fascination

Otherwise people seeking the ultimate thrill from control over someone would be forcing them to self harm or harm someone they care about as that is the absolute pinnacle of power and control over another person

Eroticism however, would require someone to be participating in a sexual act of some kind, which may have an aspect of power and control as ALL sexual acts do anyway, but saying that means its ONLY about power and control is like saying that because all crashed cars have seatbelts that ALL crashes are ONLY to do with seatbelts which is quite clearly ludicrous

Re sexuality being preconcieved, I dont think anyone would think anything could be finitely concieved at birth, IF that were the case then as much as we are now civilised we would still be clubbing each other to death if someone tried to take a chip off your plate, and rape as well as promiscuity would be the norm rather than the exception

Although we must obviously start with some degree of firmware of an instinctual nature that isnt enough for any form of complex society, from the moment we are born we start to absorb aspects of the society around us, part of which is things pertaining to sex, eroticism rules, constraints and countless other things

But just being exposed to them doesnt mean they WILL be absorbed, or that in all cases they will be absorbed totally

The simple fact that people can vary many times in a life between being almost frigid or celebate to being overtly promiscuous, cant be appalled at a sexual act, then overly indulge in it and then even go back to being apalled by it both along with countless other things show that a persons sexuality is completely fluid, or at least has the ability to be where the persons mind and circumstance is flexible to allow it to be

Its already known that as with more normal folks many paedos have “preferences” in terms of age, gender, hair and eye colour, hieght, shape etc etc. So they arent as often assumed ALL just “into kids” full stop, end of.

The same as with any other area of sexuality there are variants, some more discerning than others and some having a very specific taste the same as you see with women who ONLY want to shag grant mitchel neanderthol types or men who only want to shag petite brunettes as well as you have the ones where anything between a certain group of ages will do of either gender similar to a proper rather than psuedo promiscuous bisexual looks at potential partners

All of these nuances have been documented countless times, and all show that paedophillia has more in common with normal sexuality in terms of driving factors than it doesnt, basically ONLY the target of their fascination differs, which is the same as with things like porker pokers, people who prefer ONLY orientals, asians, blacks, tall people, short people, those with big tits or dicks et al

Meaning it is more like bestiality or fatty fcuking (which some would argue is the same thing anyway) than it is similar to dementia which IS an illness of the mind

As for going back to fix flaws formed in childhood. Thats a topic in its own right really as its not like changing a tyre on a car. Some problems will be fairly isolated, but others will be strongly interlinked with the formation of other aspects of a persons personality

So to remove it fully ALL interlinks, influences and effects have to be removed and also replaced with an alternative association

So removing someones fear of spiders would be a doddle compared to someones fear of people purely because of the extent to which one influences every aspect of that persons life and the other doesnt

Much psychological “fixing” also doesnt really fix much at all. Lets say someons smokes, they are “modified” to not smoke, what often happens then is they start drinking or gambling, because the symptom has been fixed and not the cause of the symptom, so that same “issue” still firmly lodged in the subconcious just finds another way to manifest itself into the conscious domain, similar to someone having liposuction but not altering their overeating, eventually they just get fat somewhere else instead

Just to wrap up, dysfunction is another subjective term

Someone liking anal COULD be classed as a dysfunction IF it was still illegal and if hardly anyone did it

The word is often used in place of saying “not abiding by doctrine” in effect. As the trye meaning of dysfunction would mean there is an absolute working state which some people cant adhere to

But when that working state is a created, indoctrinated and then enforced one to not “abide” by it isnt “dysfunctional” in the true sense of the word, its merely a lack of adherence

Otherwise gays would be “dysfunctional”, in many cultures unmarried women or childless ones would be “dysfunctional”, on a more global level virgins over 25 would be psychologically dysfunctional, anyone who likes anything that the majority doesnt could be classed as dysfunctional, infact go back a few years and women who wanted equality and to vote could have been and were seen as dysfunctional purely because they werent adhering to the social conventions

Really tho, right and wrong is immaterial, what something actually is needs to be established first as whether socially or morally deemed right or wrong is the easy part after all

I dont think anyone, or not many people would argue paedophillia was “right”, certainly not with anyone under 12 ish at least so that can be pretty much taken as given which then leaves identifying what paedophillia is or isnt which is needed by any thinking society before an action in response to it can sensibly rather than idiotically and emotively be decided

[Author]

Posts