I read with extreme disdain the attack on Ben Radford by the intellectual midgets at AZU. For those who have been living under a rock, Ben is the editor of The Skeptical Enquirer and a well respected member of the skeptical community. He has a degree in Psychology and a great many publications to his name. Basically, in intellectual terms, he is as Gulliver to the Lilliputians of AZU. So, for someone as terminally dim as SC to describe him as a "...shallow thinking fool..." is simply outrageous.
SC should get down on her well worn knees, beg his forgiveness and plead to be allowed to sit at his feet and learn what it is to use reason and logic. She should beg him to show her how to reach for the stars rather than continuing to wallow in the muck. For so long she has surrounded herself with sycophants and retards that her own ego has exploded out of control. She seems to have convinced herself by avoiding answering direct questions through a combination of ad homenim attacks and censorship of comments that she's smart. She's not. Not even a little bit.
I came across press reports of this study a couple of weeks ago and thought it sounded interesting. I won't say too much about it as it's pretty self-explanatory but I'll just post the conclusion summary and the link to the study:
Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.
As is often quoted on the Vigilant Antis site, Sarah Tofte pointed out that at least 75% of convicted sex offenders don't reoffend again within at least 15 years. This new study has now found evidence that the viewing of child pornography doesn't lead non-abusers to start sexually abusing children.
Of course I'd never advocate any illegal activity and I'm certainly not advocating the collecting of child pornography. What I am saying is that this study clearly repudiates the unsubstantiated opinions of the posters on some other blogs. As someone who is always open to the evidence, I'll be interested to see if they can produce any academic studies that support their position or if they'll just launch into another series of vacuous ad hominem attacks.
Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.
So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.
So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.
This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.
The fallout from the tragic rape of an 11yo girl continues. In my previous post I concentrated on the cowardly mob attack on a man police suspect of the crime. Now, the inevitable has surfaced: an innocent man was severely beaten by a mob who thought he was the man for whom police were searching.
So, after Jacey posted on the AZU blog offering strident support for the vigilantes, has there been any comment there regarding the beating of an innocent man by another mob of vigilantes? Of course there hasn't. Things like this are their worst nightmare. They believe mobs should be free to attack people with impunity because, in their tiny minds, vigilantes never get it wrong. After all, there's nothing wrong with a bit of street justice is there?
So Jacey, what do you think should be done to the mongrels that attacked this bloke for something he didn't do? Do you really think these animals are any different to the ones that attacked Jose Carrasquillo? Why have you remained silent on this case? I'll tell you why: it's because you're a simpering, whiny little hypocrite who knows that there are no right or wrong vigilantes. There's just criminal scum who use the suffering of others as an excuse to indulge in violent behaviour. AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.
This is the face of a man accused of a truly horrific crime. Last week an 11 year old girl was brutally raped. Her rape was so violent she ended up in hospital needing surgery to repair the damage done to her. Make no mistake, if this guy did actually rape that girl, he should be locked up for a long, long time. Rape is a terrible crime and anyone who commits it must face a long time behind bars.
So, what's the sting in the tail of this case? In their attempt to catch the suspect, police released his picture to get assistance from the public. He was spotted and a couple of members of the public restrained him until police arrived to arrest him. Right? Well actually, no. He was indeed spotted but when he denied being the rapist a mob proceeded to beat him senseless, including one coward using a board to bash him. In fact, the beating continued until the police arrived to stop it. The suspect was left in a critical condition in hospital. But that's ok as mob justice is fine when it comes to someone who raped a little girl right? Well, again, things are not so black and white here either. Not only is he only a suspect, the police are yet to even charge him with the crime.
I have no problem with a citizen's arrest being enacted as long as it's done in a civilised manner but, as is completely clear from the footage above, what happened here fits no-one's definition of 'civilised'. Let's face facts; whilst some of these thugs were legitimately angry about what happened to the girl, I've no doubt that a number of the mob were just exploiting an opportunity to beat the crap out of someone. In my opinion, they overstepped the mark and should be charged with assault.
In reading various comments and blog posts, I'm constantly astounded at the simple-minded people who support vigilantes. A vigilante is neither noble nor brave. The reality is that a vigilante is nothing more than a coward and a criminal and must be treated as such. What was done to the suspect in this case is no different to the mob beatings I saw on the news following the Rodney King decision in the early 90's. It was simply mob violence where a gang of people decided to bash an individual person who was unable to defend himself. The people who make comments supporting these scum try and make an argument that we have to support one side or the other. That's pure rubbish. If the suspect did rape that girl, he is a disgusting, opportunistic human being and I want to see the book thrown at him. The mob that bashed him are also disgusting, opportunistic human beings and I want to see the book thrown at them.
I again come back to the cornerstone of the western justice system: a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. By supporting people who go around making their own decision about who is guilty and what the appropriate punishment should be, we're supporting the undermining of our entire way of life. I don't know if this bloke is guilty of the rape but, more importantly, none of the thugs that bashed him knew either. I just hope that the family and friends of the suspect don't decide to dish out some vigilante justice of their own and attack the cowards responsible for the bashing... although I'm sure there would be plenty of misguided people who'd support them if they did.
Ever since I started the clock on AZU's resident sex offender and exposed him as a petty liar, he's tucked his tail between his legs and gone quiet. Still, no problem as there is a pretender to his crown. With Violent Leaves continuing to write her awful 'poetry' and Stitches the Cunt (SC) barely able to string two words together without it sinking to personal abuse, Little Robbie Taylor is quickly emerging as the new leader at the hate site. So I thought it time to have a look at a sample of his contributions...
"Brisson admitted to the court Friday he was a pedophile with a compulsion that can’t be stopped. He also likened society’s fear of pedophiles to long ago fears of African Americans or gays and lesbians and said all adults have thoughts of having sex with children.
“We punish what we don’t understand,” Brisson said during a several minute tirade against police, society and the press. “Then when we’re released it’s to unjust regulations and stipulations.”
He admits to having a compulsion then claims that having a compulsion that can lead to the death of a baby is the same as being gay or being Black.
Um, no, he didn't claim that. He actually compared society's current fear and persecution of paedosexuals to the fear and persecution of African Americans and GLBT people by society in the past.
STRIKE ONE
Yeah Anime fixation is a tell in my opinion. I can appreciate Vampire Hunter D as much as the next guy, but the obsession with collecting cartoons, and anime images etc denotes a immaturity that many pedophiles seem to have. Rob Taylor | Homepage | 05.02.09 - 8:30 pm | #
So it's ok to appreciate anime, as long as one doesn't appreciate it more than Rob deems appropriate as Mr Expert has decided that this denotes immaturity and, possibly, paedosexuality. Personally, I have no interest in anime so if I suffered from Rob's rampant egocentrism, I'd say that his level of interest is a sign of immaturity and possible paedosexuality. Fortunately I'm not that blinded by my own self-importance.
STRIKE TWO
"Not only that, but, since this was a simple, legal 'rape' and not an actual, penetrative, forceful 'rape' (and she, providentially, enjoyed the activity), to imprison someone, for such a ridiculously long period of time (based only on moral outrage) tells us all we need to know about the nature of the US of A; I am compelled to say, that such barbarism has also crept into my country, as well."
Outrageous. How would you know the baby enjoyed being raped? This is the fantasy of a disgusting miscreant. England has a high rate per 100,000 people of rape, assaults and robberies, and just the other day some of your Irish brothers kicked a Catholic to death after a soccer game. English citizens have been filmed taking part in the racist Jihad in Darfur, fighting for the Taliban in Pakistan and taking control of the streets from your police. Not to mention that honor killings and marriages between cousins are actually increasing every year in England.
But we're barbarians for throwing the book at a man that raped a baby.
You claim to point out cognitive distortions in others but the truth is your country has collapsed, is basically a protectorate of America (no longer since our new president has some highly nuanced views of England) and already has installed Sharia law in the Muslim majority areas. You're the product of English barbarism, an immoral man-child lashing out at the world in a futile attempt to maintain some control over your life in a statist society whose official policy is to allow competing cultural norms and a massive welfare state to bleed the country dry and destroy law and order.
Don't pretend you don't pine away to live here, you're desperate seeking of attention from the people here tells us all we need to know. Rob Taylor | Homepage | 06.02.09 - 10:43 am | #
Where does one even start with this? He doesn't like something Dr Oldfield said so he launches into a rant of irrelevant anti-English generalisations. The only specific point he makes is about an attack in Ireland (that's a different country Rob). It would appear his intention was to somehow demonstrate that modern day England is a barbaric society and this is somehow responsible for Dr Oldfield's beliefs and/or orientation. I'll give you one little bit of help here Robbie; try being specific in your points and cite examples to support your assertions. If you want to demonstrate that England is a more barbaric society than the USA you will need to cite specific, provable facts about England and the comparable facts about the USA. Vague assertions may cut it with the folk at AZU but I'm afraid it's not good enough for anyone with the ability to think critically about issues.
The information in this blog is ‘as is’ and confers no rights.This is a blog, not a commercial enterprise.Information provided by the blogmaster is opinion unless otherwise stated.
In accordance with Blogger Terms of Service and Content Policy, this blog in no way promotes, endorses or encourages any illegal activity. Neither does it promote, endorse or encourage hate towards any group based on sexual orientation.
Comments and opinions, discussion and information sharing are encouraged.
There are two simple rules for anyone contributing to this site:
Rule 1:All communication must be respectful. I reserve the right to delete or edit as I see fit anything I consider disrespectful.
Rule 2:All contributions must display a reasonable level of intellect and clarity of thought. I reserve the right to delete or edit as I see fit anything I consider to be lacking in intellect or rational thought.
Reading and contributing to this blog is your choice. You are free to leave at any time.
The blogmaster holds no responsibility for content or products contained on external sites to which we have linked.
My intention is to include relevant links from both sides of the debate in as even-handed a manner as possible. I'm happy to take suggestions for further links but no sites containing illegal material will be considered.
I read with extreme disdain the attack on Ben Radford by the intellectual midgets at AZU. For those who have been living under a rock, Ben is the editor of The Skeptical Enquirer and a well respected member of the skeptical community. He has a degree in Psychology and a great many publications to his name. Basically, in intellectual terms, he is as Gulliver to the Lilliputians of AZU. So, for someone as terminally dim as SC to describe him as a "...shallow thinking fool..." is simply outrageous.
Posts
