Welcome to Fundies Say the Darndest Things

You’re looking at an archive of the most hilarious, bizarre, ignorant, bigoted, and terrifying quotes from fundies all over the internet.

Random quoteTop quotesLatest commentsFAQ

Friends of FSTDT: The Brick TestamentThe Church of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterThe Cult Education InstituteDeath of ExpertiseFeministingThe Friendly AtheistMetabunkRationalWikiReligious ToleranceRight Wing WatchThe Skeptic’s Annotated BibleSnopesThe Southern Poverty Law CenterTalk OriginsThink ProgressThe United States Humane SocietyWe Hunted the MammothWonkette
Show post

Susanann #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I definitely prefer execution [as a punishment for abortion], because the cost of imprisoning 30 million baby murderers for life, would be in the trillions of dollars. Perhaps many states who dont have the death penalty, would change and reinstate the death penalty under the staggering costs of imprisoning so many doctors, nurses, and women.

Show post

Napier, Lionsib, even Sven ,Joey p, infovore #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on being friends with a pedophile that actively downloads real child porn


Napier: Tough one. I said I'd remain his friend, but without having experienced this scenario I can't say I'm sure


LIONsob: Stay friends and think that the prosecution is politicaly motivated thought-policing.


Joey P : I'd feel sorry for him but remain friends with him. He knows he has a problem and he deals with it in such a way that he's not harming anyone. What he does in his own house, by himself is his business, not mine, not anyone elses.


even sven: I'd have no problem remaining friends with him. People have all sorts of strange fantasies, and as long as you can recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, I see nothing wrong with beating off to whatever.

infovoreAs long as Al has never done anything to a real child and proactively keeps himself away from children, I would remain his friend. I would feel very sorry for him and it would probably squick me out--I'm not sure that the friendship would continue in the same form that it did before the material was discovered. But as long as he had not and would not hurt, bother, or otherwise cause mental or physical harm to actual kids, then yes, I'd stay his friend.

Show post

Alan smithee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on being friends with a pedophile that actively downloads real child porn


Hell, I'll go further than most, and say that I would continue to be friends with him even if he had actually done something provided that all of the following conditions were met: He was caught and convicted, he was punished, he complied with all of the elements of legal supervision (parole, registration as a sex offender, etc.), he admits what he did, he feels bad about it, it happened no more than once, he was under 22 when it happened, it has been at least 10 years since it happened, and all the other conditions of the OP are met.

I believe in judging people as they are now. It would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that all of those conditions were met (and of course things like his age and the length of time are not bright lines), but if he is really as good a friend as described, I think it would be possible.

I will add the following caveats: I have no kids. If I did, I think I'd still be friends under the OP's conditions, but very likely not if he'd actually done anything. I'm sure I'd agonize over it no matter what. And finally, I'm not sure this makes me a better person. My natural tendency is to react to people based on what I actually see, not on what else I know about them. It's easy to make this into a virtue, but it could just as much be moral laziness. Along with this is the fact that I don't tend to form extremely close friendships, so what I'm picturing as a continued friendship may be just an aquaintenceship to someone else.

Oh, and regarding the legal aspect, I voted that he would be convicted and it would stand (assuming he was convicted of obscenity, not child pornography), but actually, I believe that most people in that situation would plead guilty and not appeal it only to get the whole ordeal over with. (A decision they would possibly regret, but nevertheless what they would do. Fighting a legal battle is very expensive and extremely stressful and this story would undoubtedly be in the press a great deal while it was ongoing in court.)

Show post

Rachellelogram #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on turning in a murderer . ]

If my suspicions are right and he is guilty, then he didn't commit a perfect crime. Therefore, any investigators worth their salt should have been able to crack the case. I don't feel obligated to go out of my way and make their job any easier.

Show post

Sahirrnee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on being friends with an active murderer. ]

Would not turn him in, would not question him, would not even let him know I know the sob is dead. Like Sgt Shultz, 'I know nothing'.

I don't know that he did it and I'm not about to ruin a friendship over suspicion, nor am I going to let someone know I think they might be guilty. If they are innocent I'm hurting their feelings, if they're guilty I'd rather they didn't think they have to get rid of me too.


Even if for some reason I was questioned I don't know anything, so there is nothing to tell.

However I will not perjure myself for anybody and once a 'friend' asked me to lie to the police for him and lie to the court for him. Nope! It was over a DWI though, not a murder.

FWIW I was kind of in this situation and I had my suspicions and I kept my mouth shut. Other peo

Show post

Jakeyjake #fundie boards.straightdope.com

How would you act if given absolute power over an alien civilization?

There is an episode of the Twilight Zone called the Little People where a couple astronauts get stranded on a distant planet and while repairing their ship, they stumble upon a race of tiny humans a who are sophisticated enough to build houses, boats, trucks, cities, and appear in all aspects to be identical to the humans in every way except their size.

You can probably guess what happens next. An alien version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. One of the astronauts decides he's going to be their God and begins to dominate the little people through fear and cruelty, based on no godly qualities except the advantage of having evolved to be massively bigger than them. It was a cool episode.

Anyway, what's interesting and possibly shocking to some, is I don't think I'd act very differently from that guy in his circumstance. I could see myself becoming a tyrant to them and enjoy every second of it. If I somehow came across a planet of tiny little aliens that were the size of ants to me, I don' think I'd have much of a problem with crushing a few of their towns, provided that that no one (or at least no one who mattered) would find out or try to punish me for it. I'd actually think it's hard to blame a guy like me for taking advantage of the size difference. I would love the chance to be revered as a god, even if I'd very much be an old testament god. Well, except that instead of meting out discipline with lightning, I'd be tyrannizing the little aliens by squashing dissenters with my giant stinking feet. If they needed me to press a giant sneaker-shaped footprint in the middle of their capital to remind them to worship me, then that's fine. Actually, I'd probably do that anyway.

Here is where you may disagree, but to me it seems like nature taking its course and I don't think I can fault some giant alien who came to Earth doing this either. In the immediate moment he's planting a huge foot down on NYC, I'd probably think the alien was a giant jerk, but looking at the big picture, I know I'd be too insignificant to this being to even get his attention, much less communicate in any meaningful way. And does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on? Besides, I already step on bugs all the time, often purposely.

In spite of what I'd do in the above situation, I wouldn't consider myself to be evil, immoral, or unethical. Rather, I'm generally considered to be an all-around great guy by friends and coworkers. I help people all the time for nothing in return, have donated to charities, given people rides, and I even volunteer as an EMT when I can. I run competitively, coach track for no pay. I've never been arrested, vandalized property, or wanted to hurt anyone.

What do you think of the behavior I described? How would you behave when in a situation where you gain absolute power over others? Would you be kind or cruel? Or would you walk away from the situation? Try to stay respectful of one another!

Show post

Isamu #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I don't turn in friends or family, for anything.

How about if your brother molested your three-year-old daughter? I mean, surely there are exceptions to such blanket statement?


I don't have a daughter, so it's difficult for me to put myself in those shoes.

But say it was my brother who molested my little sister, I'd prefer to handle it in-house. I wouldn't stop my sister from going to the police though, and would support her is that's what she wanted.

Show post

Sahirrnee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on being friends with legit racists and bigots ]

I have no problem being friends with people whose views are different. It's would be awfully boring to hang around with people who agreed on everything.
What matters is if we can respect each others position without agreeing with it and if we can agree to disagree and drop it.

Deal breakers for me are things I view as character flaws or worse.

I found out a co-worker and friend of a friend was a child molester. I couldn't even look at him let alone talk to him. Deal breaker.
When a 'friend' asked me to look up the symptoms of mesothelioma so he knew what to say to the doctor, he was always looking for a law suit to set him up for life. Deal breaker.
People who try to get on disability



There's the kind of prejudice that makes people afraid to drive into certain neighborhoods or make eye contact with certain people. I think all of us have this kind of prejudice, and it's not necessarily mapped onto racism.

However, I'm kind of sick of racism and sexism being likened to political differences. If someone thinks an entire group of people are animals and they are bold enough to make this known to others, then they deserve to be shunned and shamed. It is perfectly fine to be intolerant of this kind of intolerance.

I'm personally struggling with this because the aforementioned friend of mine was so bold. The way she was talking, she might as well have called me an animal. Now, I'm not a perfect saint and I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not obligated to forgive people just because otherwise they're decent. There are flaws and then there are defects. Everyone has the former, but not everyone has the latter.

I can be friendly with just about anyone, because I know how to be fake and phony while keeping my true feelings secret. But being friends is a different matter. The average black person spends much of their 9-5 playing the good ambassador and not going off on the ignorant racist assholes in their midst. But when they are with friends, they should be abe to relax and not worry about "playing nice" for the sake of racial harmony.

Saying "nobody's perfect" with regard to befriending racists...this sounds like something only a person with limited experience with racism and bigoty would be able say with a straight face.

Maybe it's different being white?
I have a black friend who will quite often go off on white people, how we are no good, how we are haters but hide it, how we are the devil incarnate. After a while I'll look at him and say 'uh excuse me but'. He'll give me a blank look and then he realizes I am white and says, 'well you're different, you know what I mean, it's not all white people, you're one of the okay ones'.
I'll say, 'uh huh I see'.
Then we laugh and move on to something else.
I know he doesn't really hate white people, I know he's venting, I know it's about racism and sometimes he lumps all of us white folk together even though he knows not all whites are racist.

Show post

Kambuckta #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Go fuck yourself Mrs. Sandusky

liar liar soul on fire
Now, now, woman. Ya'll reap what you sow.

He's raping little boys for years in the basement, and you never heard anything? Never saw anything? You make Helen Keller look like an eagle-eyed lookout.

For shame, you whining fuck. For shame.


Here's a woman who has spent how ever many years being married to an upright citizen, a man who has coached kids, probably attends church weekly and is for all intents and purposes a bloke beyond moral reproach.

Then the shit hits the fan with allegations, charges and sentences of child abuse.

If you were his wife, how would you respond? Me? I'd probably be in denial as well. To acknowledge otherwise would shatter my entire life. It would mean that *my* life had been a lie from the outset, that things I might have seen or heard along the way were not just innocent happenings, but toxic and horrid scenes. It would mean I'd have to let go of EVERYTHING I'd ever held precious. It'd mean that I was equally culpable even though I had nothing to do with the crimes.

Damn.....whatever Sandusky has done, it's just wrong to implicate his wife (and by extension, his kids) in the crimes. At the same time, it's time for her now to let him go and to get on with a life without him if she can.

Rock, hard place, fuck I'm glad it's not me.

Show post

Fotheringay-Phipps #fundie boards.straightdope.com

ISTM that Dottie Sandusky and the posters to this thread share a common premise, i.e. that the accusations against Sandusky are all-or-nothing. Either all are true down to the last detail, or all are false and Sandusky is a persecuted saint.

The reality is that it's possible that some accusations are true and some are not, and within valid accusations, that some details are true and some are not. Meaning that while based on all evidence Sandusky was a serial child molestor, that does not preclude the possibility that other opportunists also jumped in with a chance to score a financial settlement, settle an old score or whatever. And it does not preclude the possibility that some genuine victims are misremembering (or possibly even misrepresenting) details of or relating to their abuse.

So it's possible - just possible - that Dottie Sandusky is simply relating the truth as she knows it: she did not in fact ever hear any suspicious sounds coming from that basement. And either the victim in that case was not a genuine victim, or he was a genuine victim who misrembered after the years how loud the sounds were, or perhaps even misjudged it at the time etc. etc.


Where she's going wrong - assuming this is true - is in making the leap to the assumption that this accuser's entire story must be fake, and that the other accusers' stories must also be fake, and so on. However, this is a premise shared with many others on the other side of the issue, who assume that since the evidence shows Sandusky to be a serial molestor it must follow that the particular detail of this kid making noise in the basement must also be true.


View Post
So, she should call her own son a liar and ignore that her husband molested him? And, if she doesn't do that, but accepts that her son is telling the truth, then what - she should believe that he was molested, but all of the other kids were lying? OK, so maybe not all of them - maybe she just believes he moslested half of them - does that really change anything at all? I think if she said, "yeah, turns out he was a serial molester, but I never heard anything from the basement that one time" people might actually buy it. But right now she's landing square in the 'blind eye' camp and it's not unreasonable to assume she probably knew something was going on and chose not look too hard.

I wouldn't put too much into the "own son" bit.

Matt Sandusky is not the Sandusky's biological son and is not someone who was raised by the Sanduskys. He is a former juvenile delinquent who became their foster child at the age of 17 and was adopted at age 18. (
cite
.)

There's no particular reason for Mrs. Sandusky to find Matt Sandusky any more credible than any other accuser, and her feeling of betrayal would be even stronger.

Show post

Rachellelogram #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on sanduskys wife turning a blind eye to her husband molesting children


A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse for a reason. They're a single unit in the eyes of the law, as well as emotionally (for many/most couples). And come on, they are both old as fuck. It's way less upsetting to think that your husband was pilloried unfairly in court than it is to accept that you are married to a child molester--even if that does mean calling dozens of victims liars. It's easy to talk tough online. But I'm not even married yet, and I can't say I would likely do anything differently in her position.

Show post

HoneyBadgerDC #fundie boards.straightdope.com


There seems to be entirely too many people in this thread who are entirely too willing to dismiss completely abhorrent behavior as "kids being kids." It's very disquieting.

I think parents are looking for the best possible outcome. I believe that parents should have that right to raise their kids. Parents should be trusted to make family decisions until they have proven themselves to be lousy parents. Any attempt to be premptive in these types of issues will cause more harm than good.


you're OK with that? Why do we send any molesters to jail then?

when did I ever say i was ok with anything to do with molestation. I said for best possible outcomes families in most cases could best handle it themselves. When you involve social workers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and have an agenda going in you are flirting with disaster worse than the molestation.

View Post
Really? Really? This sounds more like people who have been badly victimized blaming themselves for what happened. Even assuming that a little girl who was asleep/lying there did "want it" (ugh), how does that make the guy any less of a molester--how is he supposed to know the girl wanted it?

These posts are starting to make me feel like I took a left turn off the the Fighting Ignorance one onto some Incest Is Best site.


Just the opposite of what you are saying, the adult is always at fault. What it does say is that a big part of the damage associated with molestation is a result of repressed guilt and shame and blaming themselves. Often they feel guilt about getting someone else in trouble when they feel it is their fault. It is always the adult fault regardless of wether or not a kid was flirting with them.

The young Dugar boy souns like he has some serious issues while in a lot of cases all the parties involved grow up to be responsible well adjust adults with no interference from law enforcement. Trying to be too preemptive and bringin law enforcement or social workers too soon would end up compounding the damage done.

Yeah, I'm not seeing the difference between that and "kids will be kids." And, just because "nobody said it was right" doesn't mean that people are not dismissing this. 'Dismiss,' in this context, meaning that the people chalking this up to "teens doing stupid stuff" are not reacting to this with nearly enough revulsion.

I have no idea what the statistics on things like this happening are but I do know that it is common enough to be considered a challenge of raising kids that we all hope we will never face. Adding guilt and shame to a bad decision driven by hormones does nothing for either of the children involved. It does not have to be a dramatic life changing event. If it does happen a best outcome might be turned into a learning experience and a little blip in the childrens lives.

This reminds me of homophobia, kind of a contest to see who can show the most disgust. Everyone is afraid if they don't show major revulsion they will appear to approve of this behavior. Evidenced by the number of politicians and civic leaders who come out the strongest against it.

I really don't see why it would be a bad thing for someone to feel guilty and ashamed about molesting someone. Why should hormones be a get out of jail/guilt free card?

They should feel guilty if they are normal kids, if they don't feel guilty they may have deeper problems. They also need to learn to forgive themselves and move on. there is a process involved in this that starts with an apology. If an apology is not possible then simply resigning themselves to never repeat behavior like this again is all that should be neccessary to resolve them of guilt and allow them to live a normal life.

Believe it or not, hormones are a powerful drug that can influence behavior. Some kids aren't driven as much as others and some have better self control. But the bottom line is that if they learned their lesson they should feel good about forgiving themselves and moving on.

Show post

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[On the Duggars]

Most families don't continue to have children after being unable to protect their existing kids from sexual abuse.

Wrong. Most families take no action at all to protect their kids from sexual abuse by family members. Strangers they'll get all mama and papa bear on, but when it's within the family the reaction is almost always denial or lame attempts to keep them separated. "Don't ever leave the kids alone with Uncle Jim! You know how he is!"

Most families don't go on national television and present themselves as perfect families with this kind of shit in their closet.

Most families don't go on national TV, but most families who are well regarded in their community have secrets.


Most families don't run around on television telling grown women they shouldn't be allowed access to birth control or that gays stink.

Which has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Liberal families have sexual abuse problems too.

And for the eleventeenth time, WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THE ABUSE WAS SHORT LIVED. We don't know shit about the abuse. We don't know when it stopped or if it is still going on. The Duggars are bunch of badly educated dumb shits with too many kids and tiny little brains. Why the hell should we believe a word they say?

It's certainly possible that Josh Duggar is a very sick man who will always be a sexual offender. And when there's evidence that this is the case, I'll believe it.

They don't seem like a happy brood. They seem like a group of really dumb people with an idiotic belief system that encourages sexism, overpopulation, homophobia and deliberate ignorance. Jim Bob Duggar makes disgusting excuses for sexual abuse. Michelle Duggar talks like a five year old and refuses to educate her own kids properly. Her daughters sound like the kind of morons who want to join ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church. Her eldest son is a pedophile and a sanctimonious asshole with a GED and an over inflated sense of importance.

It is deeply disturbing to see how many foolish people still blindly support them.


Sounds like part of your issue is their belief system. Fine, so show me a more liberal, secular family that handled sexual abuse within their family in a more productive way
Show post

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

So, it goes back to minimizing, denial, victim blaming, scapegoating and whitewashing. So, so gross. With much more to be said about the apologists than is getting mention.

That's the problem with your analysis though. There hasn't been any victim blaming. THe Duggars took the accusations seriously rather than resorting to denial, which is unfortunately what most families do in that situation.

It's certainly fair to say the Duggars should have done something else, but until someone can show me a real world example of a family handling it better than the Duggars did, I'm not inclined to judge them harshly. The vast bulk of situations like these are allowed to go on forever with no intervention from the family. At best, the problem is usually ignored, at worst the victim is blamed or called a liar.


I also see a lot of criticism of the Duggars' "fundie cult", but it seems to me that their cultish moral values are what led to them believing the accusers rather than trying to deny or blame the victim. When you believe that we're all sinners, ruled by desires of the flesh, it's easy to believe that your son can do horrible things. Whereas non-religious families often seem to be under the impression that their kids can do no wrong.


And again, it sounds to me like that was done. Most sexual abuse cases I've seen it's ongoing for as long as the victim lives with the perp and the family is forever broken because of it. The Duggars seem like a happy brood, relatively unaffected by what was a very short-lived problem.

Again, show me a family that did a better job. Most families do a lot worse

Show post

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Then you are special. In practice, the response to sexual abuse is nearly always to try to handle it within the family, or organization, whatever the case may be.

Also, while there is a lot of merit to taking such issues to the legal system, which can use experts to attempt to get at the truth, it's also outsourcing parental duties to the state, which is not really kosher either. When one kid beats another up, how many parents go to the police to get their kids charged with assault? I realize that sex crimes cause even more moral revulsion, but it's still something parents should handle when it's their children, if they can. If they can't, or won't, then the police should get involved. And I'd say the same thing about non-sexual assault too.


Ah, yes. The very parents who enabled the sexual molestation should handle it.
The little fuck committed a crime and got away with it due to his parents covering it up.

They covered it up from the legal system. They did take steps to end the abuse and by all accounts they did end the abuse.

Unless you've hauled your kid into the station for hitting a sibling, you believe in this method too. 99.9% of parents do not involve the legal system when a child assaults another child, whether physically or sexually. This is not a problem, this is what parents are supposed to do. It's a problem when the parents are unable to effectively deal with the situation, which is alas very common. But the Duggars handled it better than most families in their situation. In my experience, most families stigmatize the victim, accuse them of lying, or do ineffective things like try to keep them separated, which is not really possible when you live together. Stuff that rises to the level of what Josh did are a lot more common than you think. The court system would be inundated if we turned in every child who touched another child inappropriately.


If your 15-year-old neighbor admitted to molesting your five-year-old (son or daughter) on multiple occasions, what would your response be? Would it be "boys will be boys LOL!" Because if that's your reaction, you need to go to jail too.

It's funny how suddenly 15-year-old kids are so innocent and child-like. I wish black boys could catch the same break.

Kids get away with things all the time. We'd all have juvenile records if we were sent to the police for every crime we committed.

When kids misbehave, the answer isn't to get the government involved, it's to teach them to behave themselves. The Duggars did that.

Show post

llcoolbj77 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

can't believe I am wading in to this, but here goes...

I am a public defender representing mostly juveniles; including several juvenile sex offenders. I have two small children, and most of the prosecutors I work with have small children. We often discuss what we would do if we caught our kids acting out sexually. And it is a fucking quagmire.

Let me say, with some authority, that going the court route can be helpful. With the right combination of prosecutor, judge, attorney, probation officer, therapist, parents, race, socioeconomic background, and resources, there can be some real success with juvenile sex offenders. And the recidivism rates are much lower than with adults. HOWEVER, the stars do not usually align that way. Take any one of those factors out, and things can get bad really quickly.

Let's assume Josh was caught in my jurisdiction. He is 14. He had multiple victims, with multiple incidents, and some as young as 5. He is white, with involved parents, so maybe the prosecutor would not automatically jump to certifying him as an adult. But they might try. He could not go home, so unless the family could afford residential treatment, he would be in juvenile detention. His psychosexual eval (with the facts we know) would put him at a moderate to high risk level to recidivate. If he's lucky, he escapes with no felony convictions. If he's not, he gets juvenile felony convictions and the juvenile registry. He is at risk, however, for being certified as an adult, prison time (in adult prison) and the adult sex offender registry. Life over. Game over. Done. And don't forget what CPS might do with all the other kids in the home that Mom and Dad were not able to protect.

Knowing all this... what would I do? If my sweet kid did something unspeakable to my other sweet kid? I don't know. I would do everything in my power to protect both children.

Show post

The flying dutchman #fundie boards.straightdope.com

was quite disturbed by watching John Walsh describe Foley as a pedophile. The youngest person Foley is known to hit upon was 15 years old.

Lets look at what the
pages
think about Foley


"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.

Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address.
The first thing to take note of is that 18 is not to old for Foley. It is quite clear that he does take an interest in post pubescent young men.

The second thing I notice is that all the pages were made aware of his interest from the gitgo. These kids aren't victims. They are not alone as prey. They had each other and the power to take him down if they wanted to but preferred not to during their time as pages.

What strikes me is that I can so identify with these kids. In my teenage years in the small town of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, there was a wealthy eye doctor by the name of Dr Mitchell, a community benefactor to the Shaw Festival who was well known by all the teenage boys for being a queer. He hit on a lot of us. He hit on me when I was 14 or 15. To this day I do not know if the adults were aware but all us kids knew, he was a middle aged bachelor, talked "queer" and defined the concept of homosexuality for us. None of us kids that I know of, felt like victims. We reported these incidents to each other.

When I began to hear of gay bashing in general, it is these incidents which I perceived as the reason for a few hotheaded guys who felt the need for retribution.

So lets get a sense of right and wrong here. Teenage girls get hit on all the time by older men. Young is preferred for a sexual object, hence the multi billion dollar industry for the maintenance of youth. Outside the realm of sexual harrassment, there are no penalties where no physical contact has occurred.

So why should that be any different for homosexual hitting?

Foley is not a pedophile. He is however very guilty of sexual harrassment in the work place. I think we need to keep the perspective in mind.

Show post

Rittersport #fundie boards.straightdope.com


If you found out he had attempted to rape a 15 year old girl?

Yes, I am referring to the Kavanaugh case.

But really. Lets say you are a parent of a 17 year old boy. You find out thru sources he did it, you confront him. He becomes angry at first but then breaks down sobbing that he did it and he is now really, really, sorry.

What are your options? I can only think of the following:

1. Turn him into the police which will mean a trial and him possibly serving time plus being required to register as a sex offender.
2. Talking things over with the girls parents and working out some sort of resolution where he agrees to apologize and never speak of this again.
3. Nothing. Besides smacking the boy around and vowing to never letting him out of your sight again and hoping this goes away.
4. Moving.
5. Sending him away to go to say a boarding school or to live with another relative.

I'd probably attempt 2, and if that got nowhere, I'd maybe try to get him out of the country. If I even got a hint that 2 might not work, I'd probably try to get him out of the country. I know it's not the right thing, but it's hard to get past those parental instincts.

I'm really opposed to sex offender registries -- they seem like additional post-sentence punishment. Plus, why single out sex offenders? I'd also like to know if a murderer or burglar moved into my neighborhood. The existence of these registries would help me (wrongly) justify to myself that I'm doing the right thing by getting him out of the situation by any means necessary.

Show post

Tripolar #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Scenario 1: The Feds have captured a man involved in an extremist militia group. Through surveillance they have determined he was/is involved in the planning of an upcoming terrorist attack. Specifically, an impending bomb attack in a populated area, like a shopping mall or high street - somewhere that will potentially cause hundreds of casualties. Authorities are sweeping all likely buildings, but with no concrete details it's unlikely to be successful. Under standard interrogation he reveals that the bomb has been planted and the clock is ticking - it will explode in about 12 hours, but refuses to divulge its location. What do you do?

Scenario 2: The CIA have picked up a leading terror suspect. He is suspected of stealing a nuclear device from the Ruskies and according to surveillance the CIA has firm reason to believe that he is currently shipping it to your country - you have 12 hours maximum before the ship reaches any destination in your country, figuring in loading and unloading times. Unfortunately they haven't picked up the name of the ship or its destination, and once again he'd refusing to talk. The authorities are on the lookout for suspicious activity around ports, but without more concrete details there's a good chance that the stolen nuke will slip through and cause potentially millions of casualties. He refuses to say anything. What do you do?

Scenario 3: A ruthless criminal gang have kidnapped your close loved ones - wife/mother/sister/daughter/husband/father/brother/son, delete as applicable. You receive note asking for a ransom of $1 million in 12 hours. The police tell you that in 100% of cases involving this particular gang, even if the ransom is delivered the captees are murdered anyway. Fortunately meticulous forensics performed on the ransom note - DNA and fingerprints - are already on the police radar and they pick up the suspect. They recognise him as one of the head-honchos of the gang who, if he doesn't know where your family are, at least knows where to find someone who does. He's the only lead you have, but isn't saying a word. What do you do?

All 3 scenarios, "I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away."

These scenarios aren't real and don't happen. But if they did, I wouldn't hesitate. Of course it would be part of a more complex good cop/bad cop setup, but I'd prefer to be the bad cop.

In each of these cases you present some kind of assurance that the suspect has actual information that could be revealed. But only an idiot says "I know where the bomb is and I won't tell you" because he is inviting torture. Now if you have nothing but suspicion, you can't use torture, because that would make you evil. But if I do know someone has information that would save lives and might be revealed by torture, I have no reason to hesitate.

Show post

Ranchoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Well, I got to figure that with the nuke example, with the stakes that high, I really don't have much to lose. Maybe the torture won't work, but there's a chance that it might, and the bomb can be stopped. If we don't torture him, there's no chance. It's as good as if I set the bomb off myself.

Either way, I've got the blood of at least one person on my hands—I just have the chance to keep the blood of 999,999 others off of them.

Of course, there's also the Realpolitik take on the situation—stopping the bomb might prevent a nuclear retaliation on the terror group and/or any country that was harboring them, which could conceivably be much MORE than a million people. Especially if there was a risk of word getting out that a government agent had the chance to get information out of the terrorist that could have stopped the bomb, but didn't, because he thought it would be immoral—otherwise, the government risks getting voted out (or toppled) in exchange for the kind of leaders who'd vow to never let that massacre happen again. At any cost.

In practical terms, that'd probably set back the cause of human rights and ethical government action back a lot farther and a lot faster than one would-be mass murderer coming to harm, and then quietly "disappearing."


But where do you draw the line? Would you torture an innocent person if it would save a million lives?

Take this for an example...the nuke terrorist has a five year old girl, who he loves dearly. Who you've also managed to take into custody, and is in the next room over.
Show post

Fushjoomang #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Dying teen in jail told to ‘suck it up’

MIAMI -- A supervising guard at a juvenile jail told a dying teen to “suck it up” as the boy retched, wept and moaned from stomach pain, evidence given to a grand jury shows.

Some guards tried to get help for 17-year-old Omar Paisley before he died of a burst appendix, the records show, but their supervisors and jail nurses believed he was faking or exaggerating.

“Ain’t nothing wrong with his ass,” one nurse said, according to seven boxes of documents examined by The Miami Herald for a story published Friday.
...
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20040228/dying-teen-in-jail-told-to-suck-it-up


Maybe I'm the only one who's seeing the oddity here, but a prisoner who was in for a sentence of unstated length for attacking his neighbor suddenly gets 'ill' on the FIRST day he's there? I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for this kid. His family, yea, seeing as any death in any family is a personal tragedy, but here's a thought for all you people calling for the heads of those who allowed this kid to die...

Where was he and why was he there?

He was in a jail for attacking his neighbor. He was in JAIL for ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOR. Oh, let me repeat that just once more, so there is NO question. HE WAS IN JAIL FOR ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOR.

*sighs* Ok, now, let's move on.

A ruptured appendix, from what I remember on my first-responders class can lead to death in 12-24 hours if surgery is no performed to clean out the lower bowels. What you have here is a punk kid, a criminal, who's been in a jail for (if the timeline provided within the story is accurate) under 48 hours. Now, tell me, at what point did he suddenly feel 'real bad?' From what I remember from my first-responders class, an inflammed pre-rupture appendix is supposed to rate somewhere between "stabbed in the gut" painful and "stabbed in the gut with a rusty knife" painful. If he was able to simply state that "My stomach (hits buzzer, sorry bub, wrong body part!) hurts real bad" then the staff physician ain't going to look for appendicitis. If he'd said something like "I've got a sharp pain below my stomach" then he might have gotten a bit more attention.

As far as symptoms, puking, shitting, and sweating were all symptoms of MY last bout with influenza, so if this guy is doing it, I doubt that anyone's gonna take a second look.

Finally, for those of you who are calling for the head of the nurse who "didn't want to take that shit home to her kids," lets ask what type of nurse was she? Was she a nurse-practicioner? Was she a registered nurse? Was she an LPN? No, the article doesn't say. She may or may not have been qualified to do something. How well stocked was the clinic in this punk's jail? Again, the article doesn't say. You don't know that she could have done anything even if she was inclined to do so. What it does say is that she (the nurse) did come, did examine him (however briefly,) concluded that (in combination with the doctor's previous assessment that it was a stomach virus) "Ain't nothing wrong with his ass" and then proceeded to file the paperwork to get him transferred to a hospital.

Ladies and gentelmen, the folks in the jail did their job. If that kid wasn't a criminal, then maybe he'd be alive today. Isn't this what the same ones of you in the 'dumbass driver, silly car-wreck' type threads refer to as karma? You know, he fucked up, and it came around and bit him in the ass?


You are blaming the kid of being in prison in the first place for his inhumane death caused by negligent nurses and doctors who didn't do their fucking jobs.

You are blaming a teenager (who probably dropped out of school) for not being able to explain clearly where the pain was to a doctor. Moreover, it's all fucking speculation... you don't even fucking know what exactly happened, what the kid said, how he cried...

Fuck you!


Well, yea. Seems you've figured out what I'm trying to get at. It engaged in a criminal behavior, and was found guilty of said behavior before a court of law, and was placed by said court in a juvinile confinement facility for a (as yet unknown) term. If it had not engaged in it's criminal activities, well, then it wouldn't have been hauled in front of a court, sentenced, and jailed, and thus exposed to the (as it seems to be a concensus in here, with myself being the only dissenting voice) incompentent and lazy docs and nurses.

The teenager put himself in this position. The teenager got what he had coming to him. As far as the "What the kid said, how he cried..." bit, go ahead, pull my heart strings (yes, I do have them. I'm not totally inhuman.) In this case, nothing's gonna happen. I reserve my compassion for folks like our fellow Doper "Lady Kate" who caught the shit end of a stick from her SO. I feel badly for the kid who got outed in the thread that "Matt_MCL" put up earlier this week. But these folks didn't get themselves into the prediciments that they were in. Someone else did something to them. The shit in our article here got himself into this prediciment. Sorry, no sympathy here.

What I really want to know is did this kid pray for forgiveness for what he did to get himself into this situation before he died, or did he die believing that he'd done no wrong? If someone can come up with a cite that shows he'd had some remorse for his crimes and expressed it as his time came, the I'll apologize for my words.

Show post

Dinsdale #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ in respnse to a 12 year old being killed by a crocodile]
@tunabreath

I hope this may help some of you on both sides (pro gator/poor child, family and friends)
My daughter was warned to NEVER go to a sand pit on the property next door where she liked to go to catch bullfrog tadpoles. She was warned about the drop-offs and how dangerous they can be, how so many children drown in them. The day after a most severe warning she sneaked off with her younger brother and her friend. [b
]She sneaked away and she drowned. Did she deserve it? No. Is it her fault? Yes

She was almost 11, she was a very bright girl who attended William and Mary University as part of the "Gifted" program, so she wasn't stupid. Maybe she thought she was so smart she thought she knew better. She was hard headed.
I know it was her fault. I don't want or need the pit filled in or have a fence around it even though it was offered(revenge). I doubt anyone will ever go there again for a long time except to visit the place where she died. The death of a child devastates a community.


Sorry for your loss tunabreath. But the fact that people - even 11-12 year old children, bear tragic consequences for their stupid choices, doesn't change my opinion.

People cannot be protected from every possible danger in the world. They certainly cannot be protected from themselves if they wish to act recklessly or foolishly.

A greater percentage of kids who choose to ride bikes without helmets, swim with gators, or ignore their parents' repeated instructions about avoiding water-filled sandpits are going to die than kids who wear their helmets, swim in safe places or at least get their foolish asses out of the water when the gators slide their asses in, or listen to their parents' repeated stern warnings.

And that, IMO, is how it should be.

Do the dead kids "deserve" to die? Well, not if you think that means they were "bad" people to whom "bad" things should occur. But I do not think it is really a terrible thing when people bear the consequences of their reckless behavior.

Personally, I get a lot more broken up about a little kid who develops cancer, than some kid who endangers himself. Many people have commented that there isn't exactly a shortage of alligators. Well, it doesn't look like we are in danger of running out of 12 year old kids either.

And I feel VERY strongly about the inherent good of wild places and wildlife.

Unfortunately, I think most humans are too shortsighted or outright ignorant to realize the harm they are doing their descendants countless generations down the line when they cut down, drain, and pave increasing amounts of natural habitat. For the most part, people do not move into swamps, forests, and mountains out of necessity. Instead, it is done out of selfish preference (at least in developed countries).

Again, I far prefer that stupid and/or reckless kids die, than those who heed their parent's warnings and exercise common sense. Recalling back to nature shows on public TV, isn't it the foolish and reckless specimens (in addition to the old or sick) that get culled from the herd? Sorry you guys dislike having such terms applied to your particular species of beast, but your indignation does not make those terms any less accurate.

Show post

atomicbadgerrace #fundie boards.straightdope.com

You do have a reason to believe that, though. He's already told you he wants to. The fact that he's said he won't act on his pathology as long as it's illegal is hardly enough of a safety net to allow him unfettered access to children.?

What, are we living in Minority Report now? Sorry, but the disbelief that someone is capable of resisting their urges isn't enough to warrant 24/7 surveillance and potential removal from their workplace, IMO.

Really, what is it exactly you'd be "reporting" him for, aside from inappropriate discussion in the workplace? Or is that the angle -- get him on that, and use it as an excuse to dismiss the creepy pedophile you don't trust?

I'd be reporting that someone entrusted with taking care of children has said that he'd like to rape them. It's not fucking complicated, You keep the fucking perverts away from the children. Jesus, I can't believe this place sometimes.

Well, I guess you mean reporting to the employer and not the police, since I don't think *wanting* to rape a child is a crime.

So that's all you'd say to the employer? Omitting the part about how he absolutely refuses to act on his desires? And then expecting all work history up to that point to be disregarded, so that the disgusting, creepy pedophile can be thrown on the street where he belongs?

So you're willing to wait around until AFTER he's already raped a baby (a BABY) to decide wether it's dangerous to let someone who says he wants to rape babies take care of babies?

That's how the legal system works. Or should we open up a precrime department and fix the world your way?

Entirely irrelevant, but I was abstracting on the john, and it occurs to me that this kind of workplace interaction wouldn't happen to begin with if the pedophile in question didn't think you'd believe him when he said he refused to act on his desires.

Kind of like if your best friend told you in confidence, "man, your girlfriend is so, so sexy. If you weren't dating her, I'd hit it so hard. Oh god, I'd love to be with her, but while you're dating her, I wouldn't do anything." Do you still trust them to hang out alone?

Show post

YogSothoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

would you report a pedophile coworker ?
This comment ensued
Say you have a co-worker who proudly spills out his inclination to have sex with babies but won't because its illegal.
How do you respond ?
I would report him and do everything I can to ensure he no longer works with me.

I wouldn't report because I'd think of it as a sick joke first. Who goes around telling other people that? Its much more likely he's an idiot rather than a pedo.

Now if I was convinced he was serious, then it be equally likely that I'd be convinced he was serious about not touching any kids, so either way I'm fine with just ignoring him.

Glad to know the kiddies can rely on you.

Well I like to live dangerously

I eat rare meat, I go outside without a sweater, and play video games or read while driving the car.

What real assurance do I have that its just an offhand comment and not a serious declaration of intent? None. Assuming I believe him, why think he'll break the law if I thought he was serious about being a pedophile? Take the emotion out of the argument, and you'd have just a co-worker who has an odd taste in jokes.

Logically speaking, it doesn't matter whether he works with kids or the elderly, because the above statement works either way. So I don't think its the right thing to report him at all because you'd either be sure he's joking, or be sure he won't break the law. Only someone steeped in bias would callously twist his words into the no-win scenario you've driven him in to. By your actions, why shouldn't he go and rape the next baby he sees? Either way, he'll get the cops on him, probably lose his job, and be ostracized. Might as well indulge, right?

And before you ask, yes, I would totally leave him alone with any kid, even mine. It would be hypocritical for me to display distrust after defending him, and I'd be pretty sure of correctness to the point where I don't think he's a threat. Sometimes you just gotta take chances Dio

Show post

atomicbadgerrace #fundie boards.straightdope.com


We're not talking about wishing something was legal in a vast generic sense, we're talking about someone who is responsible for the care of small children telling you he would like to rape them. You're saying this is a job he should be permitted to keep?

Having no reason to believe that he would act on his desires or otherwise commit a crime, yes.
Show post

atomicbadgerrace #fundie boards.straightdope.com


What if I said nothing and he ended up screwing the neighbour's three-year old, in spite of his protestations that he would do no such thing? I'd rather have his ostracisation on my conscience than that.

I'd rather respect his right to privacy than play "what if?" games. Ruining someone's reputation/socially ostracizing them/putting myself in the line of fire for potential slander or harassment lawsuits isn't something I want on my conscience.

I encourage you to consider the question posed by others in this thread: where do you draw the line with hypotheticals?

he has told you that he would like to fuck children. That isn't speculation. You're saying that if you worked at a job in which you were responsible for working with young children, and a coworker told you he wished he could have sx with them, you wopuld not think that was any cause for alarm or anything worth reporting to your employer? Becaus if that's the acse, then you should be fired too.

Maybe, but I'm not employed by the Mind Police, and I won't risk ruining someone's reputation, or inciting potential harassment or finger-pointing, over what they wish was legal without the intent to commit a crime.
Show post

astro #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on tranqulility bay and abusive boot camps ]

This is an interesting thread as it touches many doper’s right where they live on a variety of different levels as both parents and children, past and present.

It is evident to me that many of the posters going through the "anything but boot camp" arguments, even those who deal with behavioral problems professionally, have never been grill to grill, day in and day out, with a truly, dangerously out of control of control teenager as an on site parent in the middle of the whirlwind that is destroying their family.

The question at this point, where conventional discipline and behavioral control strategies have lost traction, is obviously "What are you going to do?” While Tranquility Bay specifically may not best the best solution, there are real world situations where therapy, talking it out, grounding and double secret probation and the host of other non-physically coercive strategies are simply not going to work.

My social cohort is mostly middle and middle-upper class professionals. I have personally observed several "out of control teen" scenarios in these households of varying degrees but most involve an admixture of drugs, theft, serious property damage, some violence and an absolute cast iron determination on the part of the teen that "I will do what I want, when I want and no one is gonna be the boss of me or had better get in my way", and this is generally after thousands and thousands of therapy dollars.

Now... in about half these situations the parents inter-personal cluelessness and abject lack of parenting skills or inclination to enforce discipline fairly and effectively are mostly to blame for the bad behavior, and I'd like to send these idiot parents off to boot camp myself in those scenarios because the kids in these situations might be turned around with intelligent parenting. In the other half of the “out of control kid “scenarios the child, despite the best efforts of concerned parents is seemingly, for lack a of better description, an incipient sociopath and is simply determined that nothing matters more than their immediate desires and directly or subversively and will stop at almost nothing to achieve these ends.

Until you have a child and a situation like this, and quite frankly very few posters in this thread have given any indication that they have even the slightest real world grasp of the realities of dealing with a person like this, do not be quick to judge the parent who tries to save their child by sending them to a boot camp. Of the children sent to boot camp(s) I am familiar with 3 out of 5 returned substantially better adjusted, it had little effect on the 4th, and the 5th was suffering from organic mental problems that could not be effectively addressed by behavior mod therapies.

Boot camps are obviously not the answer for everyone, but for some dangerous and critical situations, if parents have the means to do so, it's better than the alternative of letting the streets and the legal system matriculate their kids into a behaviorially dysfunctional adulthood.

Show post

DreadCthulhu #fundie boards.straightdope.com


Tranquility Bay
Inside, 250 foreign children are locked up. Almost all are American, but though kept prisoner, they were not sent here by a court of law. Their parents paid to have them kidnapped and flown here against their will, to be incarcerated for up to three years, sometimes even longer. They will not be released until they are judged to be respectful, polite and obedient enough to rejoin their families.
...
When most children first arrive they find it difficult to believe that they have no alternative but to submit. In shock, frightened and angry, many simply refuse to obey. This is when they discover the alternative. Guards take them (if necessary by force) to a small bare room and make them (again by force if necessary) lie flat on their face, arms by their sides, on the tiled floor. Watched by a guard, they must remain lying face down, forbidden to speak or move a muscle except for 10 minutes every hour, when they may sit up and stretch before resuming the position. Modest meals are brought to them, and at night they sleep on the floor of the corridor outside under electric light and the gaze of a guard. At dawn they resume the position.

Well, if these kids would just listen to their parents, and not do stupid things, they wouldn't get sent here in the first place. Of course, quite a few of these kids probably came from homes in which the parents didn't do a proper job of discipline on their children (proper discipline can be done without spanking or physical punishment, though it helps) . On the other hand, sometimes perfectly good parents have children who are just total screw-ups. In my family, I have done very well, in College on full scholarships, with no problems with the law beyond minor traffic tickets. My other siblings are doing quite well too, except for my younger sister. She completely disregards authority, has broken numerious laws, dropped out of high school, ect. Frankly she seems like the perfect person to send to this kind of camp. Too bad my parents don't have enough money to do so/She just turned 18 and couldn't be forced to go.

As long as there is no real physical abuse and the kids get a decent diet, this place seems fine to me. Parents should be able to do whatever they want to their children, beyond physical/sexual/severe pychological abuse, or total neglect - not feeding them enough.

Projecting My Psychopathy Award

Show post

Chopper9760 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

These questions come up in my mind when I've spent all day watching a Law & Order marathon.

On this show, people perjure themselves all the time to protect mothers, fathers, siblings, children (rarely spouses), and when at the very end of the episode, the detectives drag the truth out of them (namely, that they knew all along that mom, dad, sis, son was, in fact the murderer), they say, as if it's obvious and self-explanatory, "BUT SHE'S MY MOTHER," or fill in the other first-degree relative.

So I'm asking: would you perjure yourself in court to protect your parent, sibling, or child, knowing they were guilty?

Separate question: would you take the rap (jail) for your guilty parent, sibling, or child? (I'm presuming you wouldn't take the death penalty.)


I'd perjure myself for my folks but I don't think I'd take a murder rap nor would they let me.

might not agree with my dad for killing my neighbor with a snow shovel but if I could convince myself that he wasn't going to kill ALL my neighbors w/ snow shovels, I'd probably help him get away with it.

I think David Kaczynski was a hero but I'd have to be convinced my folks were a danger to society before I held up my social responsibility to rat on them. I'm selfish that way.

As for sex crimes, well, I figure my family's experience with sex crimes has informed my opinion of killing people.

Serious? Even if he did it without any real justification?What you think there's some special legal or moral privilege that attaches to having been a victim of sex crimes, that doesn't count for murder? I don't. And I've been a victim.

Bear in mind that I haven't advocated my actions from a legal, moral, or even a logical standpoint. Obviously everyone should be held to the same standard of justice.

That being said, are you really surprised that I value my loved ones more than the social contract? I picked an extreme example as a way of finding my own personal limit. I would imagine I'd be quite conflicted if I knew Mom or Dad killed someone with no provocation. However, if I saw an opportunity to get them out of trouble I would take it.

I haven't murdered the sex offenders in my own family but I'm not going to be upset if someone else does. I only raised the sex crimes issue to point out a personal hard limit - I can wrap my mind around helping my folks get away with murder but I could never defend them if they committed a sex crime.


So you're saying you're advocating actions you, yourself, think are immoral and illogical?
So you've never made a choice that you knew was wrong? I have a hard time believing you've seriously considered the hypothetical.

I'm saying that I would, in certain circumstances, chuck my morals and rationality for 2 people in a world of, what, 6,000,000,000? That doesn't make me an asshole, that makes me a normal member of society.

You nailed it earlier when you mentioned the justice system. LEO's aren't supposed to investigate family, your relations won't end up in the jury box and our spouses are often exempt from testifying. We've built our society with an acknowledgement of the importance of familial relationships.

MrDibble, I think you have unrealistic expectations of yourself and others. Further, I think slightly irrational balls-to-the-wall loyalty for a small number of people is just as important as trying to be a good global citizen.


View Post

Really, it boils down to a simple question - how can anyone justify helping someone get away with murder? "Because they're family" doesn't quite have enough of an explanatory power to me. Why should it?

Justify is perhaps a poor word choice as we've posited the example of someone we know is guilty. The choice to commit perjury is inherently unjustified no matter what crime we're talking about, that's why it's perjury.

Why would I (in some circumstances) perjure myself so a loved one could escape a murder charge they were guilty of? Because I'd rather have my loved one free and not in prison. Because I value my family over society.

I'm not going to break that way every time but I can imagine doing it.

Show post

Yogsothoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[on someone confessing to being a pedophile]

I think most people choose to focus too much on the child victims in this issue instead of the person whose sexuality forces him to have these thoughts (Personally, I hate children so I have no problems ignoring their side ).


No rumor or inuendo here, though. The OP has stated his problem clearly. Still let your kid stay with him?


Well, I've always believed in second chances. If this guy's been around kids without doing them harm, then I'll take my chances.

Personally, I think American society makes too big of a deal out of sex. Like, monstrously big. To the point where I feel that this shit cannot go on without some kind of violent revolution.

Tie that in to my own personal beliefs that may scare people, and it makes me think that it would be me overreacting if I were to simply hear somebody talk about this and immediately become like one of those overprotective parents that I hate. I do not want to become like those people. If I did not trust Pduol when he's already admitted these feelings, then I would be like those people.

Hell, there are plenty of people I would beat up, kill, or otherwise harm if given the chance. I don't do it because I would go to jail. To me, that's a big motivator for me to stay on the law-abiding side. Just hearing Pduol agonize over his lot in life is enough to convince me that there are plenty of others who feel the same way. The threat of prison is there, don't discount it.

So yes, I would allow him to babysit my 11 year old daughter.

Show post

Bear_Nenno #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on otto warmbier , an american who was sentened to 15 years hard labor in north korea for allegedly stealing a sign]

No mixed thoughts on this one. The guy is a cry baby little thief. He is no more a victim than the kid who was caned in Singapore for vandalism. He is probably a spoiled, self-entitled little brat. Mommy can't fix this one with a call to the teacher. He will have a couple months to let this lesson sink in. He will be released in under a year or so, I bet. No sympathy for the shame he's brought upon himself or his country. And on top of it all, he empowers an enemy of the United States and the entire western world by sobbing out that pre-written story about how the America Government made him do it. I hope he spends at least the next 5 years over there planting apple trees. At least 5. Fuck this guy.

Show post

Dinsdale #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Weirdly mixed feelings about Otto Warmbier (American student sentenced to 15 years in N Korea)
He's the guy who decided to go to North Korea for vacation and then tried to swipe one of their propaganda banners. For which, he's just been sentenced to 15 years hard labour
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-sentences-american-cllege-student-otto-warmbier-to-15-years-hard-labor/
...

My sympathy ultimately is with the guy, but there's a kernel of annoyance at the fact that he was dumbass enough to choose to go.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?


I'm generally extremely dubious of our national interest in going to any lengths to repatriate Americans who voluntary go to dangerous places. I'd be happy if the strongest State Department warnings essentially said, "Travel here and you're on your own, Bucko!"

Unless there is some huge as yet unseen factor, such as this guy being a CIA agent, he pushes the furthest end of the curve. He oughtn't have gone there, and if he chose to, he oughtn't have done something so stupid. Sucks to be him. Not one scintilla of American attention or interest ought to be committed to earning his release. The only appropriate response ought to be to publicize his case to inform potential travelers, "Don't be like this idiot"

Show post

Shagnasty #fundie boards.straightdope.com

in a thread about a guy being executed for transporting drugs in singapore

Singapore wants to run a law enforcement and deterrent experiment that fits in with their culture and goals as well as protects its citizens from a threat up to and including death themselves. I see no problem with that. The guy chose to play the game and lost. The game was completely consensual from the start just like two high school kids playing chicken. Sure, it is a shame when someone dies but you can't really call anyone a victim.

I agree with everything you said Broomstick. I am having a really hard time trying to understand the opposing viewpoint on this one. Singapore doesn't want to kill anyone. They don't want people to courier drugs through or into their country. If someone does, they have to follow through with the promise. This guy was willing to assume the rewards (cash) for a job with a very specific set of risks. The job paid a lot because those risk were there.

People die everyday. This guy is very lucky because he gets to die under circumstances that he conscientiously chose. Most people don't have that luxury.I am having problems with some of the questions thrown around. "Wouldn't you have a problem with an American woman getting executed in the Sudan for consciously engaging in this or that illegal thing?"
Hell, fuck, no. No unless she was wrongfully prosecuted, framed, or illegally coerced. One of the greatest human freedoms is to assume risk for conscience actions up to and including death. Anyone can opt out of that arrangement at any time.
Where is the call for tolerance of other cultures here? Singapore has a very thriving and well established culture. They don't randomly pick people to execute or torture I fail to see the problem. Does the tolerance of other cultures only extend to somewhat Americanized people that like to smoke pot?


Some of the legitimate criticisms of death penalty in the U.S. are that it takes too long and that it is unevenly applied. That makes it a less effective deterrent as well as needlessly expensive. Singapore is a good model in this regard. They institute it in a way that is fair and efficient. We should work to emulate their model. Kooks among us seem to love implementing Asian ideas when it comes to crackpot medicine and other things but draw the line when it comes to effective social and legal measures.

Again, why are so many people bigoted against a prosperous culture that most of their citizens admire and outsiders are never forced to step foot in? You should think about your level of cultural tolerance. You can't just take the superficial fruit-loop parts from around the world and call yourself enlightened. This is the real deal. Bigotry is frowned upon.
...

No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that that's the law in Singapore. What matters is that Singapore's law is wrong.

Why is the death penalty "wrong" in this case? If I say it is "right" two times does that cancel out yours? Drug trafficking is wrong on many levels and directly affects other people up to and including death of users and innocents. It is in no way comparable to simply "being" Jewish or anything else. It is an actively chosen and plotted crime with great risks to individuals and societies.

How is the law wrong in your own words? You must be evaluating it according to some external criteria. Is it direct from the word of God or is just part of a quasi-religious humanistic belief? Where did you get this information and how did you process it?

I just look at it like Singapore really doesn't want drugs in their country. That is understandable and it is hardly a victimless crime. People know the consequences and the reason for engaging in it is almost purely financial. I see no problem in opening it up detention, whipping, the death penalty, or live slow dissection if that is what they think is best.

...

Shagnasty, you refute that "societal context" has any relevance to the situation. However, here you admit that alcohol can be a drug with a terrible influence in some people's lives, and then condemn illegal drug dealers.

My "societal context" rebuttal simply means that the harm drug and alcohol addiction causes can't be controlled by overriding social influences nor can its effects be anything other than detrimental in any society. Those are fundamental physiological and psychological processes and they have nothing to do with any society once you get to the point of addiction.

You are correct that the re-legalization of alcohol was probably the best alternative in the U.S. That isn't necessarily true when you talk about crack, the opiates, and meth.

I am a libertarian. That means that I believe in few restrictions on individual freedom and that the ultimate accountability lies with the individual. I was once for the legalization of drugs. However, I sat down one night and tried to come up with a realistic way that this would be implemented. I could not do it. I have come to the conclusion that like, nuclear weapons, a good libertarian can be against the legalization of some things that cause mass harm.

I have yet to hear a workable plan on how the legalization of hard drugs would work at a detailed level. I would love to hear one.

Show post

Shangnasty #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Sure, I would and I would expect them to cover for my murders. Isn't that is what family is for?

Ths strikes me as being the natural order of things. It's her job to protect you. It's not your job to protect her.

I'd die for my child. I'd do almost anything for her, including perjure myself (unless she was quite obviously going to be a menace to herself or others if released) but I don't expect her to do the same for me.


That is basically it for me as well. Sure, I would lie to protect any close family member but I wouldn't let myself get in much trouble unless it is one of of my children then all bets are off. I am a big fan of sociobiology. I am younger than my parents and have kids of my own so we fall in ever increasing importance in the hierarchy in descending birth order. I expect my children and grandchildren to feel the same way.


I'm always amazed when family members reflexively defend someone accused of a heinous crime. "They would never do that! They wouldn't hurt a fly!" I know all of my family members, and they are great people. AS FAR AS I KNOW. And that is key. No one is an open book, and everyone is capable of everything. If my mother turns up dead and my father is implicated as the killer, I'm not automatically think there's a mistake and rush to his defense. And vice versa.

I think a key sticking point is that people are imagining up their own scenarios and how they would respond to it and the universe of possible crimes is large. If one of your parents killed your other parent, you have a true conflict and I can see how you would want the justice system to do whatever is necessary because that is family-on-family crime. I wouldn't cover up for a serial sex offender either especially if I had a high degree of confidence it was actually true.

I imagined the scenario as a murder that was a one-off kind of deal and had some good reason behind it. Maybe it was a person that kept threatening your sister's family including their very lives but the authorities wouldn't take it seriously. One night your sister believed the threat was about to become real and did something about it. It is murder by the strict definition of the law and would be prosecuted as such but only if there are enough witnesses to make a good case. Your sister confessed to you that she did it and even told you where the body was buried. You can talk or not talk. The choice is yours. Right now, it is just a missing person's case and may stay that way.

Show post

Fotheringay-Phipps #fundie boards.straightdope.com

The question here is simple. What would you have done if you were in the same position as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, where several of your daughters told you that their 15-year old brother had been openly touching them on the breasts and genital areas both when sleeping and awake?

I find it a bit odd that all these condemnations of the Duggars seem to completely ignore the fact that - as far as anyone can tell - the approach they took actually worked.

[FTR and FWIW, I'm pretty sure I would not report my kid to the police in a situation like this. I agree about watching him like a hawk, though.]

I'm not even sure I would take the victim kids for therapy. Besides for the fact that therapy in general is not necessarily effective, there's also a serious risk IMO that by doing so you would magnify the significance of the incidents in their minds and by this itself cause them all sorts of trauma that might be avoided if you used a lighter approach.

I would definitely speak to the kids about it and let them know if they were troubled by what had happened we could get help from professionals, but if they seemed fine with parental reassurance that they had nothing to feel bad about then I would probably leave them be.


You think this is a minor thing? A five year old gets molested and you think it's nothing?

No need to exaggerate here. I didn't say it was "nothing" and I can't think of a legitimate reason for you to pretend that I did.

What I do think is that a big portion of the trauma that abuse victims feel is the result of connotations created by society and culture, and to the extent that the matter is highlighted as a Terrible Thing it would tend to magnify that aspect. IMO. Feel free to disagree without pretending that I've said five year olds getting abused is "nothing".

Show post

Bmalion #fundie boards.straightdope.com

The last resort
"Were you to glance up from the deserted beach below, you might mistake Tranquility Bay for a rather exclusive hotel.
...
Inside, 250 foreign children are locked up. Almost all are American, but though kept prisoner, they were not sent here by a court of law. Their parents paid to have them kidnapped and flown here against their will, to be incarcerated for up to three years, sometimes even longer. They will not be released until they are judged to be respectful, polite and obedient enough to rejoin their families.
...
Parents sign a legal contract with Tranquility Bay granting 49 per cent custody rights. It permits the Jamaican staff, whose qualifications are not required to exceed a high-school education, to use whatever physical force they feel necessary to control their child. The contract also waives Tranquility's liability for harm that should befall a child in its care.
...
Before sending their teen to Tranquility, parents are advised that it might be prudent to keep their plan a secret, and employ an approved escort service to break the news. The first most teenagers hear of Tranquility is therefore when they are woken from their beds at home at 4am by guards, who place them in a van, handcuffed if necessary, drive them to an airport and fly them to Jamaica. The child will not be allowed to speak to his or her parents for up to six months, or see them for up to a year.
...
Watched by chaperones, you read prescribed course books, take notes, then sit a test after each chapter. Two or three Jamaican teachers sit at the back of the room in case you get stuck, and they may be able to help. But to mark the tests, they have to use an answer key sent down from the States.
...
You may also write home to your parents, and though staff can read your mail, you may write what you like. But Tranquility's handbook for parents warns them not to believe anything that sounds like a 'manipulation', the programme's word for a complaint.
...
Tranquility is basically a private detention camp. But it differs in one important respect. When courts jail a juvenile, he has a fixed sentence and may think what he likes while serving it, whereas no child arrives at Tranquility with a release date. Students are judged ready to leave only when they have demonstrated a sincere belief that they deserved to be sent here, and that the programme has, in fact, saved their life. They must renounce their old self, espouse the programme's belief system, display gratitude for their salvation, and police fellow students who resist.
...
When most children first arrive they find it difficult to believe that they have no alternative but to submit. In shock, frightened and angry, many simply refuse to obey. This is when they discover the alternative. Guards take them (if necessary by force) to a small bare room and make them (again by force if necessary) lie flat on their face, arms by their sides, on the tiled floor. Watched by a guard, they must remain lying face down, forbidden to speak or move a muscle except for 10 minutes every hour, when they may sit up and stretch before resuming the position. Modest meals are brought to them, and at night they sleep on the floor of the corridor outside under electric light and the gaze of a guard. At dawn they resume the position."


That's enough quoting for one OP, but please, read the article. The second page describes the flimsy reasons that parents send their kids to this re-education camp, and the eerie, Stepford behavior of some of the "students".

It's not a school, it's a brainwashing facility. The "teachers" have more qualifications in torture than in education.

How can this possibly be legal? Parents would never be allowed to subject their kids to this here in the U.S., yet apparently they have no legal problem with sending their kids overseas to do it:


Rarely do I read a thread that makes me as nauseous as this one. Not because I'm disgusted with this post or that post but because the wounds are still fresh and painful.

However, I feel it is something of my duty to respond, fighting ignorance and all that.

I am one of those parents who have placed heir child in a 'boot-camp' type of home for troubled teens. This one was in the United States. (It never occurred to me to look outside of the U.S.A.)

For those of you who condem me or call me evil or assume I/m some kind of wierd, bible-thumping, frothing at the mouth loon, well, sorry, I'm not.

I agree that it could seem to be inhumane. I thank God that your home life/childhood/children was such that you are so far away from the anguish of this descision that you cannot imagine being here. Be grateful. (I am at work, so be patient)

When loving parents are faced with this it gets down to a "Sophie's choice" basically. For those who never saw the movie, Sophie was a WW2 Jewish woman who had to choose which child she would take with her to the Nazi work farm and which would be sent to the gas chamber. Horrifying. That's how it felt for his mother and me.

We sent our 15 year old son to that place in December of 2002 and I just came back from picking him up. He's been home for 14 days and whether it helped or not in the long run, well, it's just too early to tell. There is some improvement. He talks to us more readily and he's not lost his temper, yet. I think he's grown up a little.

I'll answer any questions that you may have on the mechanics of the process, the behavior that led us to that point and what we knew or didn't know. I will respectfully try to ignore any comments that assume I am a monster or that are merely insulting.

I am sure that your son was not kidnapped in the middle of the night and flown out of the country.

Actually, he was "kidnapped" in the middle of the night. The advice we recieved from all quarters was that this would be the best way to prevent violence or running away. It was done at 4:00 am and it was handled professionally and safely. It took about 90 seconds from start to finish. Then they drove to the airport. No cuffs.

You didn't read the article, did you? How do you come away with the impression that it doesn't involve physical and psychological abuse?

You bring up a good point. There is physical abuse. There is psychological abuse at these camps.

The problem has 3 reasons, I only speak from my experience.

1. The kids are usually not the best behaved bunch to begn with. They are the tough kids, the mean, nasty kids, the kids who get into fights and who's heroes are the thug-like rap singers and 'ganstas'. You have to be very firm and drill-sergent like in order to be in control or they'd be having chaos.

2. The people that work at these facilities are often just in it for the job. Especially in the south, where alot of these places are, the economy is not yet back on it's feet. If you've been in the military and you need to feed your family, this might not be such a hard way to make a living. Plus, these 'instructors' might be in danger of the prison guard/policeman burnout syndrome. The kind of thinking that has them saying to themselves, "Well, since these punks are all criminals anyway, I'll not feel bad about dishing out a few kicks or punches in the line of duty, they deserve it the little rats."

3. Money. If you staffed these places with trained professional counselors at every position, lots of testing and evaluation at every level. It would cost upwards of $5000.00 a month or more, then, only the rich could afford it. The poor people would have to muddle through as best they can. This is sort of what happens now. It was a real financial sacrifice for us to do this. I wondered if I would be better off renting him an aprtment and paying his utilities until he's 18. It would have been cheaper.

Show post

HoneyBadgerDC #fundie boards.straightdope.com

The question here is simple. What would you have done if you were in the same position as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, where several of your daughters told you that their 15-year old brother had been openly touching them on the breasts and genital areas both when sleeping and awake?

This whole thing was blown out of proportion to the point of being beyond rediculous. 14 year old boys are perverts! 1st offense you don't call the police, you don't call a counselor, you have stern talk with both of them. You relieve the girl of any guilt and teach the boy a lesson in self control and then watch him closely for an extended period of time.

I know first hand of many cases of minor incestuous acts where brothers humped on their sister while wrestling, or copped a feel here and there and 20 years later counselors told them how bad it fucked them up. They in turn took it to the family and fucked up the whole family over something that occured as children. The News should be held accountable for this one.


I really don't know anything about the Duggars. My response was based more on general touching by siblings durring early teens. Every little glitch that boys and girls go through in life does not have to be life changing. I would agree that a boy who acts out in this way should be watched and monitored closely as it does point to some scary tendencies but I would also hazard to guess the the vast majority of boys that have done this grow up to be normal responsible men. His life doesn't have to be ruined over an incident and neither does the girls.

I never trusted older boys around my kids period. Boys are prone to making bad decisions when they are going through puberty. Yes it is wrong but it has been happening since the stone age and doesn't seem to be stopping as of yet.


I have spent the past 25 years doing volunteer work with recovering addicts and alcoholics. The great majority of these people have suffered from abuse and molestation to one degree or another.

One thing I find interesting is that amoung the ones who truly do recover and move on in life many of the women have changed their stories. They often admit to being awake and playing asleep because they enjoyed the attention. They admit to being casualy seductive and making the boy feel it was all his idea. Kids are kids, screw guilt. Parents need to step up to the plate and deal with things like this as they come up. Explain to the kids that things like this might happen but should never happen again.
. I said for best possible outcomes families in most cases could best handle it themselves. When you involve social workers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and have an agenda going in you are flirting with disaster worse than the molestation.

Show post

Whynot #fundie boards.straightdope.com

The question here is simple. What would you have done if you were in the same position as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, where several of your daughters told you that their 15-year old brother had been openly touching them on the breasts and genital areas both when sleeping and awake?

Having been the victim in this situation (although only 3 years younger than my brother), I can say with complete and utter confidence: I don't have a fucking clue.

It's easy to say "Separate! Boarding school! Police!" when you're not looking at a son you love who has done a heinous thing. When you're not holding a hysterical younger child begging you not to send her beloved big brother away.

Therapy? Absolutely, for all of us. Like, real, documented, legit therapy. Beyond that...I just don't know, and pray I never have to figure it out.


I'm not even sure I would take the victim kids for therapy. Besides for the fact that therapy in general is not necessarily effective, there's also a serious risk IMO that by doing so you would magnify the significance of the incidents in their minds and by this itself cause them all sorts of trauma that might be avoided if you used a lighter approach.

I would definitely speak to the kids about it and let them know if they were troubled by what had happened we could get help from professionals, but if they seemed fine with parental reassurance that they had nothing to feel bad about then I would probably leave them be.


I (again, having been there) actually agree with this to a point. Far more damage was done to me by the adults freaking out and telling me I "must be" damaged/hurt/scared/fucked up than was done by the abuse itself. Dragging me against my will to therapists for months did not help; there I was told that I was being too brave and hiding my pain and would have to keep going back until I felt it. When the grown-ups keep telling you you're doing it wrong until you start crying, and then praise you for your tears, it sets up some really destructive emotional and behavioral habits.
Show post

Sleel #fundie boards.straightdope.com

The current mess of consent laws in the US stems from the varied success of turn of the century morality pushes. The initial arguments were geared toward protecting innocent young women from the predations of older men. Then, as now, legal solutions to social phenomena were largely prompted by prejudice and an overwhelming need to get involved in someone else's business.
predations

There are probably 12 year olds who do want to have sex. Some of them, I'm sure, will want to or will actually have sex with older people. I don't see a problem with that situation, as long as both participants are willing. The problem comes in when coercion and force are involved. Neither coercion nor force should be tolerated in any relationship, much less a sexual one. Fortunately, pretty much all societies have both laws and social repercussions to deal with those situations. Currently, I think the US sometimes goes too far.

We now have sexual harassment laws that put a big damper on people meeting at work and starting a relationship, partly because many people view the balance of power to be problematic (possibility of coercion). I have quite a few friends whose parents would never have met under these circumstances since they met at work and even flirting is discouraged at many workplaces. We're now seeing a huge surge in social networking solutions to the problem created by it being socially unacceptable to find someone to date at work, where people spend an increasing amount of their waking hours.

My parents met when my mother was 16 and my father was 24. California law now, and then I believe, would have treated their relationship as statutory rape. My two younger sisters and I would not exist if my parents had had to deal with the same social conditions as now. Nor would another one of my friends, who is also the oldest of three, and whose father is 10 years older than his mother. My first few sexual experiences were technically illegal, since I was underage and doing it with people who were much older than I. The current attitude, that only people 18 years old or older are responsible enough to have sex, is frankly ridiculous in my opinion.

When you get into the position of legislating morality, you often get into the difficulty of judging where to draw the line. In debates about this very subject, the age of consent, you rarely see a consensus. Some people even think the age should be set higher than when they themselves first had sex. I think that it's actually much easier to figure this out on a case by case basis since the cases are self-screening. If there's a complaint, there exists a possible case of coercion or force being used. Both force and coercion are much easier to objectively determine than the age at which everyone should be able to have sex. Most rape laws would work for charging a perpetrator regardless of the age of the victim; consent laws are almost superfluous.

Show post

Whynot #fundie boards.straightdope.com

And, while we're at it, why don't we stop teaching women that the worst thing that could ever happen to them, worse than death itself, is to be raped?

I mean, I've been there, and granted, it ain't fun. But it's also not the end of the world. There's less physical damage and risk of death with a garden variety rape than to a gunshot wound. The only reason there's more psychological trauma to rape than to mugging is because we teach girls they're "ruined" if they're raped. We work them into a state of hysteria because they've been irreparably violated and tell them they're going to be fucked up for years because of this. It's total patriarchal women-as-property antiquated bullshit. It's root is the exact same female oppression mentality which leads fathers to kill their daughters after rape because they've disgraced the family.

Show post

WhyNot #fundie boards.straightdope.com

This post is partly a FYI follow-up to two previous threads (see below), and also looking for advice or opinions on the situation.

Very brief summary version: My boyfriend "Greg" has 3 children with his ex-wife "Susan." Susan is remarried to a man I'll call "Stepfather." Stepfather pleaded no contest to child molestation charges involving an unrelated 13-year-old girl, and will be sentenced in a month. This is a felony and requires lifelong sex offender registration. What should Greg do


Where do the kids want to be? I'm not saying it should be entirely up to them, but if this is an isolated incident, is it worth uprooting them across state lines, losing all their friends and schools and social networks, not to mention a stay at home mother, to come live with a dad who works full time? They've already indicated that they love their stepfather and want him to live with them once.


Show post

Jragon #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I've been bouncing this around in my head for a while, but I'm not really a debater (at least online) so I've somewhat avoided posting this. I get this feeling that we're doing more harm than good by calling for the death of molesters, assuming kids are now traumatized and whatnot. Mostly I'm wondering about the latter.

I mean, is there any real reason to be traumatized? When you really get down to it, what exactly did the molester do? Took advantage of the kid, breached the trust barrier, now that's bad, even worse when it's a loved one, but is it really so much worse than, say, cheating on a spouse or walking out on your family when things get bad? Not if you accept (as people commonly seem to on this bored) that sex isn't particularly sacred and we treat it with too many hush's whispers and dodges.

The kid didn't know what they were doing, as far as Jenny's concerned all she did was make Uncle Ned feel good until he told her to stop, I'm not saying lie to them and say what Uncle Ned told her to do wasn't bad, but when we overreact, coddle them, and tell them how it's SO bad, and how everyone is SO sorry and then later in life seeing all these highly publicized trials and calls for death on molesters... well, it's not a surprise they break down crying and BSOD as far as relationships go, because after seeing all that if they weren't quite convinced they were a victim they're DAMN sure now and will begin to think like a victim. I think we aggravate the issue too much, if we didn't treat child sex crimes as such a be all end all issue I think the children could grow up a lot happier because they'd know they had trust broken and be hurt there, but wouldn't be told they're SUCH a victim all the time and probably wouldn't have issues near as bad as they do when they're convinced they had one of the Ultimate Crimes™ perpetrated against them. Not to mention these paralyzing issues don't really seem to manifest until well after the incident, i.e. once they understand what happened (which is information entirely gleaned from people telling them what happened, like that they were victimized).

Now obviously this would require a major reworking of social mores, so this is more of a thought experiment, but do you think we needlessly aggravate paedophilia (and possibly ephebophilia) issues to the point where it hurts the children more than it deters the offenders (In other words, helps more than it hurts)?

Show post

Whynot #fundie boards.straightdope.com


Is our kneejerk reaction to paedophilia more harmful than helpful?

I've always wondered the same thing. It's pretty similar to my line on rape recovery, actually. I don't see why it should be much different for children. Children ARE more resilient than adults when it comes to actual trauma, like war and abuse. The everyday stuff like breakups, perhaps not so much, but kids can grow up in a war zone and not suffer the rates of PTSD their elders do.

One of the thing I hear a lot from grown survivors of sexual abuse as children is a literally whispered, "I know this is awful to say, but sometimes it kinda felt good." The shame and humiliation dripping off them is palpable. That shame over a perfectly normal bodily reaction is, I think, directly attributable to the reactions of their family members and society as a whole, not to the abuse itself. The appalled reactions they get, the lessons about how much they've been hurt, are in direct contrast with the love, however inappropriate, they may feel for their abusers and the pleasurable sexual sensations they might have felt. What can be concluded except that they are as dirty, bad, perverted and evil as their abusers?

Show post

DrDeth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Well- of course- the MAKING of hard-core child porn is harmful to the child, and is a heinous crime.

But then after that you get into waters where things aren't as clear. If the "kiddie porn" only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child? Some would say it's just our Victorian prudishness that says "the naked body is an obcene thing", an dthat "nudity is a natural and good thing".

I know one can argue that buying kiddy porn aids ands abets the person who makes it, who possibly wouldn't make it except for the chance someone would buy it. But since there were penty of sites where perverts would download for free their "work", it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn't commercial in it's original purpose. Then again- if one doesn't buy it, but just looks at it- it's going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.

It has been hotly debated- even here- whther or not simple "possession" of "kiddy" porn should be such a serious crime.

Note- I am not advocating "free kiddie porn"- I am just playing the "Devils Advocate" and pointing out that not all agree that "child pornography is a bad thing". It's a complex moral subject, not a simplistic one.

Show post

DrDeth #fundie boards.straightdope.com


Being sexually attracted to 16yo girls is not a Perversion. It's illegal to act on, yes, and it should be, but it doesnt mean you're a pervert. Let me put it this way: you are at a bank. You see a bank employee wheel a cart loaded with cash into the vault. Are you a sicko pervert if yu think "Man, I'd like to get my hands on that cash?" No. What's wrong is when you act on it. 16 yo girls are sexually mature. Some few are even mentally mature. You can even marry one perfectly legally in many states. But you cant have sex with one outside of marriage. If a 21yo man marries a 16 yo girl legally, is he some sort of pervert for consummating the marriage during the honeymoon?

Now, being a true pedophile is being a sick pervert. That's being attracted to a person who is not sexualy mature.

Show post

MrDibble #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Ferchrissakes, if he'd given us his word that he was a stamp collector, no one would give a shit. But, "I really want to have sex with children," is not something that rational people will just shine on. And most normal people wouldn't count that as an asset on a baby-sitter's application form either


I didn't say he'd be my first choice of babysitter, but I don't see paedophilia as necessarily an automatic disqualifier anymore than being a bestialist means you can't look after my dog. What I said was if he was a friend of mine (like all my other sitters) and I knew he was an out paedophile, I would still let him look after my kid. Because, call me crazy, but I trust my friends not to hurt my kid (or they wouldn't be my friend), and anyway, I trust people not to act on their every impulse at any opportunity.

Y'all are treating him like he'd be a junkie in a room full of drugs. I'd treat him like a person with a particular attraction in a situation where that's not particularly relevant to the job at hand. IOW, I'd expect a modicum of self control from him, just like I'd trust a gay friend who thought I was hot (of which I have had a couple) not to take advantage of me when I'm drunk, or a straight friend not to try and peek at my wife changing her clothes. You know - civilized behaviour?

Show post

Happy Clam #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Superman and Lois having sex is most definitely bestiality, at the very least (it would be more "natural" for Lois to get it on with a frog or beetle, even). Plus, consider that Supes has died at least once, and very publicly, at that: half the DC universe attended his funeral! Thus we are faced with perhaps the most important question of our generation: is Lois Lane a secret necrophilia buff?