[ubermik]

@forumhostpb wrote:

So ………… back to the topic – Chris Langham and by extension paedophilia.

May i offer a few thoughts.

Most sex crimes (including paedophilia) start in a relatively innocent and minor way and go on to develop from there – as the perpetrator needs to increase their activity so as to maintain the thrill they get.

The bloke who starts off by pinching knickers from clotheslines or being a ”peeping tom” will often graduate to wanting to touch a real person and from that they go on eventually to full rape. This progression is well known to professionals and criminologists.

Similarly with paedophilia – looking at a few innocent pictures soon loses its ability to excite the perv so they need to go further – maybe nastier pictures or videos. Eventually they progress to actual physical attacks on their victims.

So it is I believe with Chris Langham. He may have only had a few ”mild” pictures on a computer – but I’ll bet he had or did more than that – but this would have (over time) inevitably progressed to physical attacks on children.

I really think that the sentencing policy set by the Lord Chancellor’s office is, on many many occasions, utterly barmy.

My last and probably most important point is this:

Every time a picture is taken of a child and posted onto the internet for paedophiles to look at and download – THAT child is suffering abuse from the person taking the picture, THAT child is the real victim here and we should all never forget this.

Chris Langham can rot in hell for all I care. He has personally contributed to the depraved abuse of a poor innocent child and for that he can NEVER be forgiven.

Actually PB, try that line of thought if you ever post on a thread about rape lol

Suggest that women, even if they like it and get off on it should NEVER under any circumstances indulge in any sexual act that has even the slightest hint of force, restraint, power or domination. Should never want to be “taken”, or seek to feel submissive in anyway just incase that eventually stops being enough for their partner who then goes on to need to commit an actual rape over a period of time when the psuedo stuff loses its “buzz”

Just make sure you wear your tin hat and dive for cover tho lol as it treads into the scary realm of personal and social responsibility conflicting with personal wants, which isnt a good place to wander :)

[ubermik]

Actually pebbles heres a paradigm shift for ya

Lets suppose for a moment that youre right, that people wanting to watch paedo stuff makes other people become paedos and start molesting kids (the ones you said would stop doing it if nobody wanted to watch)

If someones sexual drive can be so easily driven askew by a visual representation then why dont we have a mass campaigh to stop depictations like Britney spears in her school uniform? Strippers wearing school uniforms, sex shops being banned from selling school uniforms and manufacturers banned from making thongs and “womanly” underwear as well as clothes that should be called the “teenage hooker” style for kids?

All of those and many other things eat into a childs childness and blurrs the boundaries between childhood and sexuality?

Now having a daughter myself the kind of slutty trash they are allowed to make and sell specifically for children, not even small adults is disgusting (in the proper sense of the word) and yet mothers the country over rush out and buy it for their kids and send or take them out in it (or in the MCanns case drug them and leave them home alone in it haha :D, soz, couldnt resist that one :D)

So if theres this link between visuals and sexual urges where is the huge campaign to stamp out such things?

Even without that link why hasnt morality kicked in and why havent mothers en masse refused to buy such garbage for their kids?

is the real root cause of the apparent and alleged increase in paedophillia simply the result of social apathy on seemingly inconsequential things that in turn make children be seen as “sexual” in the same way the media has controlled what men and women view as “sexy” by over exposure of a certain type of person which has to varying degrees influenced entire generations

But if people cant be bothered to do something as simple as making the choice to not dress their kids like whores what amount of effort could be expected to really be put behind any decent degree of social change and remoralisation?

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

speaking of miss quotes as you were Uber, I didnt say videos created paedos, i actually said, and i quote “viewing images creates a DEMAND which encourages others to continue abusing and hurting children.” Get it right.

But that demand would ONLY be by paedos

And if they are already paedos to begin with nothing has been created there

The ones making the films however, they would do it whether anyone watched or not, as they are also ALREADY paedos, doing it because they are paedos and not simply because people want to watch it MAKES them decide to be paedos

So the demand isnt created, its already there, and that demand doesnt “encourage” anyone to continue or start doing anything at all

Thats like saying men watching watching women have sex creates a demand and makes women continue to have sex

They would do it whether anyone watched or not, they do it because they WANT to do it, because they are driven to do it

So as its only to do with paedos, and as those paedos are just there anyway then whether there was a worldwide distribution net of child porn or not they would still be paedos with the same driving urges

Infact you cant create a demand thats already being met, if someone is watching some child porn that demand is already in existence and is already being met otherwise they wouldnt be watching the porn you mentioned to begin with, them WANTING to watch some would be a demand that creates the videos, but them wanting to watch something that has already been made creates nothing at all, it just utilises whats already in existence

But do you really think that if every paedo the world over suddenly, tomorrow stopped watching child porn and never did again that paedos would magically just cease to exist because the demand to watch it vanished? Or would they wake up STILL being paedos and still doing what paedos do but simply saving a fortune on video equipment and postage?

So unless people watching the stuff MAKES people start abusing kids to satisfy the newly invented demand to watch them doing it nothing is “created” at all

So I did get it right actually (IMO obviously)

Because when any demand is “created” theres a void, a void that people then move to fill (no pun intended honest), which would mean people would have to “become” paedos and START abusing kids to fill that void else nothing has been created

And as you also claim if nobody watched them they wouldnt carry on doing it, that also suggests that by the virtue of people watching it non paedo people “become” a paedo just because someone will watch them being one

Now maybe thats not what you intended to be saying, that happens

But just because its not what you meant to intimate doesnt negate the fact that in a purely logical and gramatical sense it IS what you said albeit not directly, but saying all coal is black IS the same as saying no coal is white even tho you didnt actually mention white coal at all

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

oh do shut up you boring old man…people see you for what you are, a sad perverted (and most likely bald) old man, they dont need me to point it out for them

A simple “OOPS, busted” would have sufficed lol

[ubermik]

@sharongooner wrote:

Typicaly psycopath… great work there uber. :wink: Turn the problem on the complainer.

You really are clever. Loads of words. Lots of bullshi/t. Somewhere in there is a bit of sense. But you dont really care do you?

What university did you go to? I must write to them and congratulate them. Did you get a 2:2?

I think the in word for you at the mo is a “flamer”. :lol:

Bored with you now.

Well firstly as my post was a “response” (look it up) then sussing out who the flamer is doesnt take much really

And as for “turning it on the complainer” lol, thats so funny I dont know where to start, so youre saying if someone quoted you totally out of context and twisted what you said to make it say the complete opposite of what it said you wouldnt “respond” (thats the proper word for “turning it on the complainer btw) by pointing out what they did? Yeah right lol

Before you critcise my grammatical construction maybe you should actually read whats been written eh instead of just falling in line with the cliqué you “arent” a part of and squeezing on the bandwaggon lol

It was Pebbles who claimed video files “created” paedos if you check back, a point the bit it copied was questioning for validity, except it copied and pasted it so it looked like it said the exact opposite which I then pointed out

So before you talk about turning and twisting things try getting your facts untwisted to begin with, and I’ve never worn a 2:2 in my life, I dont have the legs for it lol :lol:

So yeah, there was lots of BS in that exchange, its just not coming from the person you want it to come from sweetie, but thats life

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

QUOTE FROM UBER “That a non perverted hetrosexual realises that people want to watch kids being molested and THAT “makes” them become a paedo? Well no “excuse” as such, on that I agree, but I also would wonder how many people who are for whatever reason turned on by this kind of stuff can get all the kicks they require from such files meaning they wont then actively add to the amount of people actually physically molesting? “END QUOTE

First of all, any one who likes watching kids being molested CANT be described as “non perverted” and as for people getting kicks out of it??? how you can sit there and defend them is beyond me.

Ok hands up, you have now totally confused me

Either you really are a very very stupid person with a very poor graspa da ainglaise or youre just a halfwit who thinks they are super clever

Do you really think that selectively cutting out part of a paragraph so the entire tone of the excert is altered is SOOOO devilishly clever that it will magically whoosh right over the heads of anyone reading it?

Or do you just not grasp the construct of paragraphs and sentences and think each it a totally enclosed separate entity with no relationship to the ones pre or proceeding them?

Try reading the WHOLE think INCLUDING the first sentence you very conveniently and accidentally (yeah right lol) ommitted to copy first time round and see if you can get any closer to actually understanding what WAS said rather than as I have already pointed out “what you WANTED to have been said”

“
Do you REALLY think that a paedophile is created merely because theres a demand for viewing such tripe? That a non perverted hetrosexual realises that people want to watch kids being molested and THAT “makes” them become a paedo? Do you?
“

There ya go, save your poor ickle fingers having to click all the way back lol

Sort of a nice touch clouding it by adding a response to a totally different bit of your post in the form of “Well no “excuse” as such, on that I agree, but I also would wonder how many people who are for whatever reason turned on by this kind of stuff can get all the kicks they require from such files meaning they wont then actively add to the amount of people actually physically molesting?” but still far too obvious to trick anyone lol

The thing with a quote is that unless you quote what was said as a complete block its not really a quote at all lol, its a cut and shut ringer that doesnt quote the person but is a sentence of your own construction designed to say what you want to have been said rather than showing what was actually said IN context

Fail your GCSE english did ya by any chance?

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

uber just because you have a bad case of verbal diarrhea doesnt mean the rest of us have to suffer with the same affliction.

Most of us manage to get our point across in a short sharp fashion, maybe you should try it instead of boring everyone to tears with your lengthly unintersting drivel.

I tried that and you havent stopped whinging about it since lol

Serious question tho pebbly, how is your admittedly far more concise but wholly inacurate and illogical drivel boring people in anyway “better”? Coz I really cant see the point your totally failing to make at all

You prefer things dumbed down so even a retarded 8 year old could grasp the vaccuousness of the point and other people dont, niether is right nor wrong just different

And you can whinge and whine about it as much as you like but I can wholeheartedly assure you nothing will change as it hasnt done in the last 20 years I’ve been using online discussion forums so it sort of begs the questions of a) what enjoyment do you actually get out of posting the exact same whinge over and over again, and b) why havent you managed to figure out you can just copy it and keep pasting it instead of typing it out each time? lol :P

[ubermik]

@sharongooner wrote:

………….and of course you would know.

PMSL.

Touchéé, fiar cop guvnor(ess) :lol: :lol:

:oops:

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

You might say that viewing the images is not as punishable as actually committing the offence but Paedophiles viewing images creates a demand which encourages others to continue abusing and hurting children.

Well you COULD say that, but you could also say that apples are purple with pink stripes and that the moon is made out of lego but they wouldnt be true either

Do you REALLY think that a paedophile is created merely because theres a demand for viewing such tripe? That a non perverted hetrosexual realises that people want to watch kids being molested and THAT “makes” them become a paedo? Do you?

That arguement holds water with crimes such as receiving stolen goods, but is as water retentive as a sieve where crimes like this are the topic

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

There is no excuse for downloading and viewing images of child sex abuse

Well no “excuse” as such, on that I agree, but I also would wonder how many people who are for whatever reason turned on by this kind of stuff can get all the kicks they require from such files meaning they wont then actively add to the amount of people actually physically molesting?

Its perhaps a similar arguement to ones based around the fact that the countries with the most stringent anti prostitution laws have the highest amounts of rapes and the ones with the more lapse ones or legalised prosititution tend to have the lowest amount of rapes

We will never remove such an urge within people and detecting them before they act on the impulse is hard and often impossible so perhaps the law might be more effectively frozen for lets say offences involving over 12’s and toughened and more focused on concerning younger kids as they are not only the ones more traumatised but are also the ones who are more vulnerable and are more easily intimidated into silence.

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

I read somewhere that he was actually abused as a child himself, its often the case that abused people go on to abuse themselves.

So youre saying he is actually a victim rather than a perpetrator then?

You really are a sick individual if you think viewing child por/n is acceptable, this added to your maddie post is more than enough for most people to see you for the pervert that you are[/quote]

And yet from where I’m sitting your response just seems to show that either your grasp of the english language is quite poor with sentences longer than 10 words or that concepts delivered in a style more complex than a peter and jane book confuse you, or simply that you prefer to read what you want to have been written rather than what is actually written

Go figure eh? :lol:

[ubermik]

@sharongooner wrote:

omg… just heard on ITV news about the scale of 1 to 5 of child abuse. over 60% of child abuse is a 4 to 5. it means internal abuse and/or se/x.

This is really disturbing.

Well it shouldnt really be that disturbing as common sense should surely have made that a fairly predictable result anyway, plus it wouldnt be so fervently made public knowledge if the results were anything less as the aim is to exploit the predictable disturbingness (is that a real word?) of it

Chances are 95%+ is on the scale around 1 and 2, but will be so trivial, unimpactive and rarely even discovered that its existence wont be known and cant therefore be included in such weighted studies

But the higher up the scale something is the more chance that it will be discovered and as only the discovered instances can be used to plot a frequency graph the outcome of the graph is pretty much a foregone conclusion

And with pretty much everyday being a bad news day for the government at the moment some pretty hefty distractions are needed to draw interest and effort away from them so things like this are often compiled and then shelved so they can be presented when such distractions are needed although even that sometimes backfires

One that was done about 5 years ago lasted a totaly of just under 18 hours on a government website before being removed due to the public backlash as it showed that all forms of child abuse from sexual to neglect were done to varying amounts by women more than men of which I think violent abuse was the largest difference

But as most single parents (Which we have an epidemic of) are women, and as even in a relationship women still do most of the childrearing that doesnt show anything more shocking than more women spend more time with kids than men and that women are human too and therefore are affected by the same pressures and stresses as men rather than it “depicting women in an unfair and bad light” as it was claimed

Studies can and do say what the person conducting the study wants, or is told to make them say

Sometimes by very meticulously careful collecting of quite deliberate data from specific sources and othertimes merely because the realities of society mean they will yield a particular result but they arent any more acurate or conclusive irrespective of the reason a conclusion is “discovered” (or created)

[Author]

Posts