KILLER ARRESTED IN SO. CAL!

[so.cal.fan]

Does anyone think that manditory castration of these preditors should be a new law? Lobotomy?

My brother runs a State facility for the criminally insane in Calif. and he says that they NEVER are CURED. NEVER CURED.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[boxcar]

so.cal.fan wrote:

>>
Does anyone think that manditory castration of these preditors should be a new law? Lobotomy?
>>

Hanging would be cheaper, no?

>>
My brother runs a State facility for the criminally insane in Calif. and he says that they NEVER are CURED. NEVER CURED.
>>

Of course, not! How can you "cure" genetically-driven behavior? I hope they're not too hard on the guy. They should send this poor soul off to some remote, deserted island paradise somewhere and provide him with all the amenities of life. I mean...how could he _possibly help_ himself?

Boxcar (who just had a religious experience and converted to Liberalism)

[so.cal.fan]

Boxcar,

Hanging would be cheaper, no?

I have a better idea. We have a Zoo nearby here in Los Angeles.
As you enter, they have a large Gator pit nearby...........
The sound of the splashing aligators would be a comfort.......

[Rick]

Well, there are only two solutions in my opinion. You either have to execute the guy or put him in prison without possiblitly of parole. I'm in favor of the less expensive alternative, but I guess some would call me barbaric for saying that. Some people just can't be saved. Sorry about that.

[boxcar]

Hey, Rick, even the worst scum in society can't tolerate pedophiles.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/719223/posts

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Well, i'd like to have him spend some time with me and a redhot poker.

[boxcar]

Now, now, Lefty. Put a lid on that hate speech. Tolerance, my boy. Tolerance.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Boxcar,

Hanging would be cheaper, no?

I have a better idea. We have a Zoo nearby here in Los Angeles.
As you enter, they have a large Gator pit nearby...........
The sound of the splashing aligators would be a comfort.......

I like your style, SCF!:cool:

[Tom]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Does anyone think that manditory castration of these preditors should be a new law? Lobotomy?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Put him in a wooden shed. Put his "manhood" in a bench vise.
Tighten it down, then break off the handle. Give the SOB a dull pocket knife. Set the shed on fire and let him decide his own fate.
If he comes out, shoot him.

This sick SOB must be killed-whether or not he is insane. He must be put to death and all like him. I was hoping they would have to
(have an opportunity to ) kill him when they found him. ( and get it on tape on CNN so we could enjoy it over and over again). Now we have to waste money on a trial. Too bad Johnny Cockroach is tied up with a couple of cases right now...this kind of creature seems to suit his stlye nicely. Maybe some other member of the Dream Team will crawl out from under a rock somewhere to do their duty?

[so.cal.fan]

Pedophiles, whether they be male, female, priest, or celebrity
should be given lobotomies and castrated.
There MUST be ZERO tolerance. To even put these "things" in prisons with others is not right.
I cheered when the guy killed Jeffrey Dahmer in the Minn. prison.
He did society a service, not to mention the poor families of his victims.
The family deserves to KNOW these monsters done away with.
I wish this guy in Calif. would have pulled a gun or knife on the police so they could have killed him on the spot.
No doubt, some sensationalist high profile attny. will take the case. Won't matter.
I have never seen people so angry in Calif. EVER.
Won't matter what kind of jury they get. He is going down and out! Count on it.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[PaceAdvantage]

I just hope the police caught the right guy.....


==PA

[boxcar]

I'll reserve comment for later.

Boxcar

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20020720.shtml

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:

>>
I just hope the police caught the right guy.....
>>

The Orange County Sheriff last night said he was "100% certain" they have the guy. Early on in the investigation it was reported that the perpetrator left no small amount of forensic evidence at the crime scene; so evidently, the Sheriff could make that kind of strong statement based on scientific test results.

Boxcar

[Tom]

OJ was the right guy too, but loook what happened.
Wasn't that verdict "racist?"

[Lefty]

Tom, if they had killed the guy and caught it on tape then they'd put the cops on trial.
Hey we need to send that sheriff and his men to Golden Colorado.
Maybe they could solve that mystery.

OJ: Wasn't it sickening when a couple of jurors later said they thgt OJ was guilty but just not enough evidence to overcome a reasonable doubt.

And a little later there was a young black man on trial for murder in NY with no doubt he did it and a black jury said they knew he was guilty but just wasn't about to send another young black male to prison.

Racist? Ya think?

[so.cal.fan]

They WILL send this guy to his execution.
When the "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez was captured, it was in Boyle Highths, a Hispanic neighborhood in East Los Angeles.
Mexican people captured Ramirez.
Several of the men and one woman wanted to KILL Ramirez there on the spot, but were talked out of it, by another neighbor who was a fireman, if I recall, who pursuaded them to "follow the law", the woman was going to say she "feared for her life" and the men were going to kill the "night stalker", right there on the streets of East LA.
I'm sure if Mexican people in Lake Elsinore would have caught this guy...............they would have had to take forensic evidence off a dead guy, people don't like child killers......of any race or creed.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I just hope the police caught the right guy.....


==PA Me too.If its the guy get rid of him.I used to be so death penalty til DNA evidence released several wrongly convicted in Oklahoma,just this year.It also looks like we fried at least one innocent guy last year.Like I said ,if hes the guy ,get rid of him.But lets make sure.

[smf]

Siouxperfecta,

Yeah, that lady you're talking about got a lot of ink down here a year or 2 ago. Her face was on tv every nite for a week as well. Innocent folks were lined up to die b/c of her.

She had a nickname up there, can't recall what it was.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by smf
Siouxperfecta,

Yeah, that lady you're talking about got a lot of ink down here a year or 2 ago. Her face was on tv every nite for a week as well. Innocent folks were lined up to die b/c of her.

She had a nickname up there, can't recall what it was. OL BLACK MAGIC....no kidding,thats what her nickname was.She could make anything happen in the lab.She's one that needs to go to the top of the "should be in jail"list.

[smf]

Siouxper,

Yeah I don't understand that. A street cop that gets cussed and spit at every day, punches a criminal in the heat of an exchange and he's rung up on charges. Someone that rigs up charges on innocent people (sent to die) doesn't have to do time.

[boxcar]

It's worth subscribing to the Times just to read the last two paragraphs to this story.

If they create a new Order for all the perverts in the church perhaps they could name it The Order of the Benevolent and Merciful Predatory Homos.

Methinks the author of that book was probably right when he said the corruption extends all the way to the Vatican.

Boxcar

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/22/national/22CHUR.html?todaysheadlines

[boxcar]

Found a site that discusses this book, provides excercepts, reviews, etc. Scary stuff.

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5976&sour_cd20=PRB002502

[boxcar]

Revisiting the question I asked earlier about whether abuses, abduction and/or murders involving children should be made federal crimes, I will propose one solution - a solution which I think is more reasonable than O'Reilly's knee jerk reaction which calls for more federal involvement. All states have laws on their books regarding these kinds of crimes, so federalizing them would simply be redundant and constitute, yet, another infringement on states' rights.

Having said this, however, I do agree with O'Reilly that more needs to be done. And I do find megabytes of irony in the fact that Liberals will quickly politicize gun deaths, yet virtually ignore kidnapping and acts of pedophilia, or for that matter just about all sex crimes. Liberals will focus on and demonize an inanimate object like a gun that is a means used to kill, while ignoring or downplaying the animate cause behind the means. Likewise, Liberals will ignore a leading cause behind virtually all sexually abusive acts - of women and children. It's just wouldn't be politically correct to focus on this leading cause (which I'll take up in my next post). It wouldn't be politically feasible - so just about all politicians seem to think.

Also, Mr. O was on the money with one aspect to his, otherwise, less than compelling argument: A major weak link is the judiciary. Far too many justices are reticent about mandating prison sentences that would actually punish convicted perpetrators. Too many judges are prone, mostly for political reasons, to merely substitute a slap on the wrist for real justice. I would propose two fixes for this situation.

First, state legislatures need to mandate stiff mandatory sentences - even for first time offenders. And since the recidivism rate for these sexual offenders is so high, I would propose VERY stiff prison terms for second time offenders - basically adopting a two strikes you're out policy.

The second thing I would recommend is that all state legislatures have in place a nonpartisan or bipartisan judiciary review board with powers of impeachment for those judges who misuse or abuse their powers. In some cases this might mean an amendment to a state constitution. So be it, if this is this would be the case! You see, the term "punishment" is absent from too many justices' vocabularies. Punishment, as a consequence, presupposes moral culpability - real moral guilt. And right here lies the crux of this judiciary problem - too many leftist judges view sex crimes as "diseases" or "disorders" or as matter of "genetics" - and none of these things are hardly worthy of punishment - to their minds. It's not unusual at all to read or hear about some judge letting some convicted sex offender off lightly - just so the lowlife can turn right around in the near future and commit a bigger and more heinous crime!

In a later post, I'll discuss the role the federal government can and should play with all sex-related crimes, and why I think the feds would be better qualified and equipped to handle this aspect to my response. I'm sure many of you will find my proposal to be quite controversial - and possibly even "reactionary". But I'm a big guy and I'll be prepared to take your slings and arrows.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Forget about eating. First and foremost, we are what we THINK! Upon what our minds ingest and ultimately digest is what we are. This is why the Apostle Paul exhorted the church at Philippi in the following manner:

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things." (Phil. 4:8)

Hmm…porn wouldn't seem to fit here. Nor would smut either. (But now I'm being redundant.) Yet, when criminal sexual perverts of all stripes, including but not limited to heterosexuals, homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles and ephebophiles (adult males with a sexual interest in male teens or adolescents) were profiled scientifically through police, court or psychiatric records, it was found that these kinds of folks very frequently had been in possession of pornography in one or more of its forms.

These findings shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. For example "soft" porn could be likened to "soft" drugs, e.g. marijuana. Most often drug abusers start out with the soft stuff then progress to hard drugs either through mere experimentation or because the "innocuous" drugs no longer satisfy. So it is with porn. One usually goes from soft to hard to really hard…and then it could it go anywhere from here --unto rape of women to child abuse even to murder.

Personally, I find no redeeming social value to porn, and wouldn't mind seeing it outlawed. However, courts have ruled that most porn is a form of "protected speech" -- even a form of art. The SC recently ruled that virtual child porn is okay since actual children aren't used in its creation, and therefore the court felt there is no child abuse, no victims, no exploitation. However, this is a very simplistic and lopsided view. Every aspect to pornography has its victims whether it be at the production stage, the marketing/sales stage or at the end use stage. People involved in any aspect of the "porn" industry are debased, dehumanized, desensitized and degraded - whether they realize it or not. In fact, it's these very negative effects that often tempt then induce porn addicts to engage in criminal sexual behavior. For these reasons pornography is often a leading cause of sexual crimes.

What I would propose is that the federal government regulate the porn industry a lot more closely than it is currently. Since pornography is a contributing cause of sexual criminality, I would require all consumers of porn to undergo a permit or licensing process. Just as citizens must apply for gun permits by submitting to background checks, so, too, people who wish to become consumers of porn would have to submit to background checks. Anyone who was ever convicted of any sex-related crime (even a misdemeanor) at any time in any state should be permanently denied a porn permit. However, people with clean sexual criminal records should be issued a permit at a hefty "sin tax" price - perhaps paying as much as $100. annually.

All purveyors (all the middleman suppliers/sellers) of porn would be required to carefully check the permits of all potential consumers of their products. Failure of purveyors to comply with the law would carry very stiff penalties in terms of prison time and/or fines.

Furthermore, I would broaden the definition of porn to include all live entertainment, nude bars, movie theaters, and even the "adult" only channels on cable or satellite TV.

The purpose behind porn permits is that laws of this nature would take porn out of the reach of all convicted sex offenders. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow sex offenders to feed their sexual fantasies and lusts with porn, since unbridled feeding frenzies could well lead to more serious crimes. Granted, starving previous offenders' sexual lusts by forced abstinence from porn may not prevent all of them from committing sex crimes in the future, but it certainly can't hurt; and such a process may in fact save some lives and prevent some crimes. And it would certainly be worth the experiment to find out - to make statistical comparisons before and after the permit process.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar,

You're kidding, right?? You're painting with a very broad and very dangerous brush when you assume that sexual criminals are frequently in the possession of porn. You are trying to imply that the pornography itself is somehow responsible for the terrible acts these people CHOSE to commit. I'm sure most every one of these criminals also were in the possession of automobiles that transported them to the scenes of their crimes. They probably read newspapers that they knew would report of these crimes as well....

Where does the censorship (or to use your word, 'Regulation') end?? And where is it proven that watching or reading pornography leads to the rape of women, the abuse of children, or murder??


==PA

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
Forget about eating. First and foremost, we are what we THINK!
>>And when we are hungry, we think about food!

"Finally, brethren, ...., whatever is lovely, ... let your mind dwell on these things." (Phil. 4:8)

Hmm…porn wouldn't seem to fit here. Nor would smut either.
>>I think these would fit under whatever is lovely clause<G>.

Boxcar

I think you are confusing cause and effect. You are definately
treading on personal freedoms. One might argue that reading conservative doctine causes facism. Of course that is not true in all cases, but as far a Playboy goes, that is between me and the girl in the centerfold, there by her own choice, entering into a contract with me, for five lousy bucks. And I have never raped anyone, never abused a woman, never treated a woman as a sex object (ok, a few times, but it was her idea<G>). You get my drift? Responsible people do not go off crazed because they looked at porn smoked a weed or two, or whatever else.
Someone else posted on this board that not all arabs were terrorists, but all terrositst were arabs.
I may not like someone's life style, but they have a right to it, as long as they stay off my lawn and shut up at 10PM, and don't rape anyone.

[boxcar]

>>
I think you are confusing cause and effect. You are definately treading on personal freedoms.
>>

No confusion in my corner. Porn _can_ be a contributing cause to sex-related crimes. I read a report two or three years ago that said over 85% (but I forget the exact fig now) of sex offenders were consumers of porn. It was very common to find in their homes or possessions porno magazines, or porn on their hard drives, porno videos, etc. I think any intellectually honest person would have to conclude that those statistics, as they relate to sex offenders, are hardly coincidental.


>>
One might argue that reading conservative doctine causes facism.
>>

I guess we can worry about that when FBI statistics show that deaths from facism are on the rise.

>>
Of course that is not true in all cases, but as far a Playboy goes, that is between me and the girl in the centerfold, there by her own choice, entering into a contract with me, for five lousy bucks.
>>

And my proposal wouldn't take away your precious right to inhale all the smut you want -- provided you have never been convicted of any sex offenses.

>>
Responsible people do not go off crazed because they looked at porn smoked a weed or two, or whatever else.
>>

Then a permit would be issued to them/you. What's the big deal?

>>
Someone else posted on this board that not all arabs were terrorists, but all terrositst were arabs.
>>

So what is your point, precisely? Now I'm saying that not all porno consumers are sex offenders, but a very large percentage of sex offenders are porno consumers.

If I find some time, I'll snoop around to see if I can find more recent studies on porn and the realtionship between it and sex-related crimes.

Boxcar

P.S. Btw, Tom, in that bible verse I quoted, there was no conjuction "or" to be found anywhere in it, which means the conjunction "and" is to be understood between all the phrases. This further means porn would have to meet all the conditions in the verse. But in either case, I'm sure you'd try to make a case that porn is really great, socially redeeming stuff -- just the way some "artist" would mold a phallic symbol out of cow pies and swear it's incredibly great art.

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
>>
.... But in either case, I'm sure you'd try to make a case that porn is really great, socially redeeming stuff -- just the way some "artist" would mold a phallic symbol out of cow pies and swear it's incredibly great art.

Nope, no redeeming social value nor art, nor anyting else except personal freedom. Bottom line, what I do in my home with my life is none of yours or anyone else's business.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
Nope, no redeeming social value nor art, nor anyting else except personal freedom. Bottom line, what I do in my home with my life is none of yours or anyone else's business.
>>

Since you're such a big lover of "freedom", this quote came to mind, of which I'm sure you'll also approve:

"I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way." --Robert Frost

Boxcar

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote on another thread:

>>
Careful Boxcar, you might be contridicting your stance on pornography with your current argument relating to firearms....you're using a similar argument that I used against your idea that porn ought to be regulated by the govt....
>>

Not at all! There are no similarities. In the case of cars, airplanes, guns, axes, knives, chain saws, sledge hammers, etc. as all these things are means by which people can and often do die. It cannot rightly be said that any causal link exists between these items and human deaths. An inanimate object has no mind of its own. It makes no moral choices. In and of itself it is incapable of error. And there isn't anything designed into these things to induce people to use them in ways not intended.

However, pornography does not meet all the aforementioned criteria. Creators of porn do indeed design into their products addictive qualities. The primary purpose behind pornography is to arouse or ignite the consumer's passions or lusts to the level to where he or she (most consumers, though, are males) will succumb to the temptation of sexual release through the act of masturbation. And the temporary pleasure that is derived from masturbation is so intense that the next time a porn viewer's mind consumes porn, he will remember the pleasure he derived the first time, and will very often will want to repeat the initial pleasurable experience. And so with the second porno/pleasure experience, we have the beginnings or makings of a pattern. And the more often the pattern is repeated, it can be said that the porn consumer has now transformed himself into full-fledged porno addict. And whenever an addict to anything fails to find satisfaction any longer in the means that he initially used in seeking self-pleasure, he will inevitably seek that satisfaction ELSEWHERE - by other means. This is how a soft/recreational drug user, for instance, "graduates" to harder drugs.

Then PaceAdvantage objected in part to my second recommendation on this thread with:

>>
You're kidding, right?? You're painting with a very broad and very dangerous brush when you assume that sexual criminals are frequently in the possession of porn. You are trying to imply that the pornography itself is somehow responsible for the terrible acts these people CHOSE to commit.

Where does the censorship (or to use your word, 'Regulation') end?? And where is it proven that watching or reading pornography leads to the rape of women, the abuse of children, or murder??
>>

I have to say, PA, I'm surprised a sharp fella like yourself would even question the existence of a causal link between porn and sex crimes. And I "assume" nothing. I stated in an earlier post that I had read a scientifically-based report some years ago that essentially said (going from memory) that about 85% of sex criminals studied were porn consumers. I also said that porn was "a contributing cause" to sex crimes. On second thought, I perhaps should have been more explicit in defining "cause" because when we start talking causes (even in theological circles) we should describe the type of cause. In one the links that I provide below, you'll find a detailed discussion on this topic by a PhD psychologist. Therefore, for the moment, suffice it to say that pornography is probably not a necessary cause, but it is a sufficient cause. For example, you cannot make a fire without fuel. To make a fire, you must have some kind of fuel - something that will ignite and burn. This could be wood; it could be paper; it could be coal; it could be kerosene, etc. But it doesn't necessarily have to be wood, or paper, or coal. I'm sure you get my point. And, moreover, a fire requires multiple causes (or conditions) before we can have one. We not only need fuel, but we need oxygen, friction or a spark, etc.

Sex crimes don't happen in a moral, environmental or societal vacuum either. Sometimes a sex offender only needs his own depraved thoughts to drive him to crime. But more often than not, there are other sufficient (or contributing) causes, such as abusive childhood experiences, poor social skills which have frustrated a person's emotional growth, societal mores or pornography, etc. These kinds of factors can greatly influence people's behavior. Consider the following with me, please:

Why does the TV and movie industry rate movies? Aren't those ratings designed to warn parents about content that could be[psychologically] harmful to young viewers? Doesn't this imply that youngsters tend to be quite impressionable?

Why was such a big flap made over Joe Camel by the anti-smoking lobby and Congress? Wasn't their argument that the cute, little cartoonish character was designed by a tobacco company's ad agency to appeal to impressionable children or teenagers, so as to tempt them to try ciggys?

Why has the government forbidden tobacco and alcohol products from being advertised on radio and TV? Isn't it to help protect young, impressionable minds from being unduly influenced to experiment with these kinds of products?

Why is the Left is so persistent in indoctrinating our school children with their Secular-Humanistic values?

Why did that little girl, after viewing that movie, decide she could fly?

Didn't the accused murderer in the van Dam trial have child porno on his 'puter HD?

And hasn't it been reported that porn was discovered in Avila's home some years ago when he was accused, tried and acquitted for molesting two young girls?

Well, sir, I tell you a truth: Likewise, adult minds are not immune from receiving impressions. The human mind is not immune from being influenced from what it absorbs -- from the contents upon which it dwells.

Here are a few links I quickly found pertaining to this connection between porn and sex crimes.

http://www.victimsofpornography.org/

http://www.angelfire.com/art/antipornography/statistics.html

http://www.dianarussell.com/

(The above link goes into great detail about this subject, and defines "causes")

http://www.nationalcoalition.org/pornharm.phtml?ID=102

(The above site goes into the four stages of porno addiction.)

In closing, of course, we are all ultimately responsible for the moral choices we make; however, those choices don't happen in a moral vacuum either. However, far be it from me to suggest censoring smut to all people. If someone wants wallow in that filth, then go for it. But don't tell me that adult minds aren't also impressionable and that behavior can't be influenced by the contents of the mind. I only suggested banning porn from convicted sex offenders who are the most likely to be drawn and influenced by it, especially since the recidivism rate is so high with these types of criminals.

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

85% of sex offenders love porn! wow, I'm surprised its not
99% actually. And even if it were, so what: are 85% of porn
lovers sex offenders too? It's all nonsense: the crime of
being a sex offender is one thing & pornography -- if you can
really define it -- should be left alone. Besides most of you old
timers don't get enough action anyways so what else have you
got besides a gurlie mag or two and some memories.

[boxcar]

Spoken like a true lover of porn, D2U! Not surprised at all that you'd defend smut -- which accounts for your twisted logic about the 85% fig -- you know, garbage in, garbage out?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
Tom wrote:

"I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way." --Robert Frost

Boxcar

Yup. That about sums it up. Although, just because your values aren't everyones else's, I am not too worried. Your right, BC, I love freedom-freedom for everyone. You seem to want everyone to be free to live according to your standards.

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
Yup. That about sums it up. Although, just because your values aren't everyones else's, I am not too worried. Your right, BC, I love freedom-freedom for everyone. You seem to want everyone to be free to live according to your standards.
>>

Yeah, I had you pegged, Tom. You just adore that very special kind of freedom that you think frees you from all responsibility, especially the moral kind.

In fact you think you're so free from behaving responsibly that you didn't think twice about deliberately misrepresenting my position on the topic of pornography. You will be very hard pressed to find anything I've said on the subject from which it could reasonably be inferred that I wanted to force my value system on anyone -- other than on convicted sex offenders, that is. (Hmm…on second thought…maybe you do have a legit reason to be uptight towards me, eh?)

Boxcar

[Tom]

Good night!
Lock your doors.

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar,

I'm not about to engage in a full-fledged debate when it comes to porn and whether or not the government needs to step in and regulate the sale to sex offenders.....

I will say that I get the heebie jeebies whenever someone suggests that the federal government ought to step in to regulate ANYTHING, let alone something that has serious 1st Amendment implications.

I will however, add another possible implication of your proposed ban on porno sales to sex offenders....

Let's say Joe SexOffender has had good ol' FedGov come a knockin and tell him he can't buy porn anymore (how this could ever be enforced is beyond me....perhaps they'll paint a big letter 'S' on Joe's chest...or maybe they'll give every non-sex offender a little plastic card authorizing them to buy porn???)

In any event, let's say one night ol' Joe is getting those bad urges again, and he looks around for his porn collection, but remembers that FedGov took it away, and he can't buy anymore. So, ol' Joe, unable to control himself, and unable to release his urges via porn, goes out and finds himself a victim....be it a mother of 2, or an 8-year-old girl...whatever....you get the picture.

Now, wouldn't it have been a whole lot better for everyone involved if ol' Joe SexOffender had been able to purchase a little porn after all????


Just something to think about....


==PA

[canuck]

Boxcar-Dean of Human Sexuality-wrote.....

"The primary purpose behind pornography is to arouse or ignite the consumers passions or lusts to the level where he or she...will succumb to the temptation of sexual release through the act of masturbation"

The primary purpose behind pornography is to make money. Period.
We are talking about a multi billion $ biz--more money is spent on porn than all the movies coming out of Hollywood.

The poor shleps that need to watch have already succumbed--the tape they are watching just hastens the process.

Boxcar(Dr Ruth) drones on...

"And the temporary pleasure that is derived from masturbation is so intense that the next time a porn viewers mind consumes porn,he will remember the pleasure he derived the first time,and will very often want to repeat this pleasurable experience"

Oy vey

Temporary pleasure...so intense...where do you come up with this stuff?...Any orgasm we have is temporary--unless reactionaries have a permanent hard on--which in your case would explain a lot!

[smf]

dear diary,

11pm..'watched some late nite porn'.

1am..'capped the Woodbine turf races & claims'.............

Canuck,

I suppose doctorruthdooshkar is gonna call the porn cops on me. Porn makes me handicap races with short termed intensity, apparently. Maybe that's why I specialize in turf and claims!!!? Oohh if I could just make these handicapping sessions last longer I could cap da whole damn card.

[boxcar]

canuck wrote:

>>
The primary purpose behind pornography is to make money. Period. We are talking about a multi billion $ biz--more money is spent on porn than all the movies coming out of Hollywood.

The poor shleps that need to watch have already succumbed--the tape they are watching just hastens the process.
>>

So is the drug trade a multi-billion $$$ biz. And what does the drug industry rely up more than anything else? (I realize this may be tough for you...so think hard.) Did I hear you mumble something, Canuck? No, guess not. Well, here it is: REPEAT BUSINESS. And from whence does _most_ of this repeat biz come? Uh? Did I hear you say, "A new drug user is born every ten seconds?" Nope. Sorry. Wrong answer, Canuck. Right answer: It comes from existing drug addicts.

>>
Boxcar(Dr Ruth) drones on...
>>

Dr. Ruth should only be so lucky to have my expertise counsel.

>>
Oy vey

Temporary pleasure...so intense...where do you come up with this stuff?...Any orgasm we have is temporary--unless reactionaries have a permanent hard on--which in your case would explain a lot!
>>

"Oy vey" is right, my friend. If you're thinking was any shallower the neuro surgeon wouldn't be able to siphon off sufficient amount of juices from your cerebral cavity to keep a microscopic organism alive for one hour. Orgasms temporary, eh!? Heavy metal thinking, my man. Try wrapping your mind around this one, instead: All human pleasure is temporal!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:

>>
I'm not about to engage in a full-fledged debate when it comes to porn and whether or not the government needs to step in and regulate the sale to sex offenders.....

I will say that I get the heebie jeebies whenever someone suggests that the federal government ought to step in to regulate ANYTHING, let alone something that has serious 1st Amendment implications.
>>

Hmm..."regulate ANYTHING"? So, you're not in favor of government regulating anything at all? How 'bout drugs? How 'bout just criminal background checks on gun buyers to see if any of them are serial killers, etc.?

>>
I will however, add another possible implication of your proposed ban on porno sales to sex offenders....

>>
Let's say Joe SexOffender has had good ol' FedGov come a knockin and tell him he can't buy porn anymore (how this could ever be enforced is beyond me....perhaps they'll paint a big letter 'S' on Joe's chest...or maybe they'll give every non-sex offender a little plastic card authorizing them to buy porn???)
>>

The latter sound eminently more reasonable and it's what I had in mind.

>>
In any event, let's say one night ol' Joe is getting those bad urges again, and he looks around for his porn collection, but remembers that FedGov took it away, and he can't buy anymore. So, ol' Joe, unable to control himself, and unable to release his urges via porn, goes out and finds himself a victim....be it a mother of 2, or an 8-year-old girl...whatever....you get the picture.

Now, wouldn't it have been a whole lot better for everyone involved if ol' Joe SexOffender had been able to purchase a little porn after all????


Just something to think about....
>>

I have, and I was waiting for someone to pose this objection.

When you want to put out a fire, do you douse it with water or do you throw gasoline on it? When you want certain kinds of people to modify their behavior (i.e. exert better control over their sex urges, do you fuel those passions with porn (and therefore reinforce an association), or do you remove the fuel (and therefore break an association)?

All of us have patterns to our behavior. And when you want to modify a behavior (for whatever reason), the last thing you want to do is reniforce the patterns you've developed over the years. Here's a quick, simple example:

The vast majority of smokers love to light up right after a meal. Smoking after a meal has become an integral part of their smoking habit -- in fact it is in essence a sufficient cause for them to smoke. One way to quit a habit like smoking is by breaking (or modifying) certain behaviorial associations connected to the act of smoking itself. Now some wise guy here would say the answer is to quit eating. But the more intellighent and reasonable approach is to quit lighting up after a meal -- maybe for about a half hour to begin with, then a week later, waiting an hour before lighting up, etc.

The same behavioral modification principle applies to sex offenders who may be porn addicts. Furthermore, we can't make any real scientifically-grounded statements about what deprivation of porn to a convicted sex offender will do because we've never gone this route previously. We only know, from statistical studies, what effect porn can have on many people -- that it is a sufficient causal link for many sex offenders. Therefore, my proposal is based on what we do know about the negative effects of porn and behavior modification. If it were implemented and it was found that there were "unintended consequences", the law could be changed. However, I doubt seriously there would be an increase in crimes. To my way of thing if the law, annually, saved just a few lives or even saved a few women or children from the horrors of sexual abuse, it would be worth the effort.

Boxcar (who, unlike Liberals, is kind, caring and compassionate.)

[boxcar]

smf wrote:

>>
11pm..'watched some late nite porn'.

1am..'capped the Woodbine turf races & claims'.............

Canuck,

I suppose doctorruthdooshkar is gonna call the porn cops on me. Porn makes me handicap races with short termed intensity, apparently. Maybe that's why I specialize in turf and claims!!!? Oohh if I could just make these handicapping sessions last longer I could cap da whole damn card.
>>

SMF, I detect the beginnings of a serious problem. Perhaps you can't focus on handicpping because of your growing amorous feelings toward equines -- right after watching the Playboy Bunnies Channel? I understand beastiality is on the rise...just a word of caution to ya. Wouldn't want you to fall into anything from which you wouldn't be able to extricate yourself...know what I mean?

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

Rite On Dudes .. hehe ... "dear diary" made me howl ...
yeah all this porn talk makes me hungry ... it's a Big, Big
business w/ lobbyists on CapHill 2 .... Of course, in truth
I would most definitely injure any of these sex creeps who inflict
pain, but there isn't, nor could there ever be, any simple 1to1
connection between any amount of porn & freaky behavior.
It's far better to deal with issues head on then go around & around & around: if someone does freaky, bad things then
(1) try to help/restrain/punish/whatever AND (2) make sure
he doesn't physically hurt anyone else. I would first look to
science & reason & stop all the BS moral stuff. I see all these
society problems largely because we got 2 many politicoes/
moralists/lawyers/corporate freaks making/passing/ dumb
laws & precedents and we lack scientists/ethicists/common sense
peeps in Congress. And, since I'm on my lectern, what we should
all do is help ALL peeps vote in Every Election & maybe we can
ger rid of these boring 18th century freaks who keep on
controlling us instead of making this world happy/pain free etc etc.

[Lefty]

Concerning federal laws for child murders and kidnappings I say no. We have them already. Murder and kidnapping is against the law. Prosecute to the full extent of the law. And when it comes to these small children wouldn't it be helpful as hell if parents would make sure all the damn windows and doors were locked at night.
And during the day WATCH THEM. It amazes me on my 8 block walk to the racebook everyday how many unattended 4-5 yr old kids I see playing on the sidewalks totaly unattended.
When you attempt to say anything to the parents youi just get cussed out. Yet if anyt=hing bad would happen these irresponsible parents would be all over the tv crying their eyes out.
Whether it's kids or fast foods noone wants to take responsibility for anything.
Sledding toward socialism.
Beam me up.

[penguinfan]

Lefty

I agree with the post above completely, parents are much to blame for the indiference they exhibit until something goes wrong. My wife accuses me of being over-protective of our children, well thats the look I am going for.

Boxcar

I could go on and on, but I will just go ahead and take sides on this forum board now and say you may be the most intelligent poster I have ever seen. Your posts are well thought out and written equally as well, while I won't say I agree with every exact thing you say, I would rather take all your advice as opposed to none of it. You have my vote in 2004!

Great thread guys
penguinfan

[boxcar]

penguinfan wrote:

>>
while I won't say I agree with every exact thing you say, I would rather take all your advice as opposed to none of it. You have my vote in 2004!
>>

Thank you for you gracious remarks. I was just thinking a while ago that my ratings probably have plummeted this week, but you've saved the day for me - and possibly the entire week.

As for as 2004 goes, I was thinking more of someone of the caliber of D2U in the WH. Observing someone of his stature would be funnier than watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest again. Let's face it: D2U makes Forest Gump look brilliant enough to be nominated and sponsored for Mensa. In one breath D2U dismisses scientific studies done on pornography and sex crimes, as well as all the statistical evidence that has been collected, collated and analyzed. Then in the next breath wants to shoot all the outmoded "moralists" and ethicists like myself, and looks to "science" and "reason" as his twin saviors - to some of the very kinds of scientists he just totally dismissed and who are incapable of establishing any kind of correlation (one-on-one or otherwise) between porn and sex crimes. I think a guy like D2U could actually embarrass the Gump's of the world. Reading and hearing about D2U's antics in the WH would indeed by a side-splitting experience.

Then we have our Wannabe Anarchist on the forum with his deep love for Freedom. He loves Lady Freedom so much, he begs and pleads with her to break all his chains -- to free him from any and all Responsibility so that he can be free to make a Fool out of himself anytime he chooses.

And what about SMF's great achievements on this forum? This is the character who wanted the death penalty dumped because some gal sitting on death row allegedly got a raw deal by crooked cops. Why anyone can easily see the causal link between the death penalty and crooks in law enforcement, right?

And how can we forget our friend from the Land of the North - a Naïve Rose-Colored-Glasses-Wearing Born Again Atheist? So, we know coming right out of the chute that a guy like this isn't going to be too familiar with things like Inductive Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning, Logic and Rational Thought, since the philosophy of Atheism is so intellectually bankrupt that even the Gump's of the world are smart enough to not subscribe to it. And let's not forget that our fine northern "enlightened" neighbor is the one who proclaimed that homosexuality is volition-free, genetically-driven behavior in one breath, but then in the next one condemned the immoral conduct of the predatory homosexuals in the Catholic Church scandal. Go figure! (On second thought: Don't waste your time on this kind of sophistry.)

In case you're wondering the reason for this brief review, Penquinfan, it's because the level of the competition isn't all that great around here, which could account for why I often appear to be this most unusual hybrid possessing the combined mental prowess of an Alan Keyes, William Armstrong, Anne Coulter and King Solomon. (Although, I have pondered the possibility of having talents on loan directly from God, also.) :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The NY Times today reported on guy in his early twenties in S.A. who _raped_ a 9-month old baby.
The story did't say the baby died, so if she's still alive it's a miracle!

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

BoxCar ... I'm sorry if my posting, which did not mention you,
led you to think I was referring to you in any way or manner.
It did not and I never had you in mind, consciously, when I typed my post. Yet, because you did think you were being referred to, let me make that posting even clearer. Yes, I beleive in science/ethics/morals and Yes, I think our Congress has too few scientists/ethicists and way too many lawyers. The first
problem we then encounter is someone like yourself who thinks
that "behavior modification" is science to begin with; or worse,
that any of your ramblings reflects scientific reasoning that even
matters. From your posts -- which are now presenting PA with
a disposal problem I'm sure -- I've concluded mainly 2 things:
#1, Your probably as old as alchemy itself and #2, You lace
your posts with so many issues that only someone called
Penguin comments favorably. You amuse me because you take
your issues so seriously.

[Tom]

Home run, buddy. Nice post.
HAND.

[boxcar]

Derek2U wrote:

>>
BoxCar ... I'm sorry
>>

You won't get an argument from me, D2U. You are indeed one sorry…er…dude.

>>
if my posting, which did not mention you, led you to think I was referring to you in any way or manner. It did not and I never had you in mind, consciously, when I typed my post.
>>

Your universe must be very tiny. Evidently you think everyone's IQ on this forum is right down at toilet bowl level with yours, eh? Here are the first words you keystroked in the post to which you're alluding:

>>
...yeah all this porn talk makes me hungry ... but there isn't, nor could there ever be, any simple 1to1 connection between any amount of porn & freaky behavior.
>>

Now I have but two *VERY SIMPLE* questions for you (the operative phrase here being "very simple"):

First, who was the first one to bring up the topic of porn on this thread? And secondly, who was the only one who made the correlation between porn and sex crimes? Given the likelihood that you will experience difficulty getting 1 plus 1 to add up correctly, your first 25 guesses are on the house and won't be held against you.

Be sure to respond to this post with your answer and how you couldn't possibly have had this writer in mind. All of us (except for your lone groupie) will be waiting for your answer with bated breath.

>>
#1, Your probably as old as alchemy itself and #2,
>>

It's clear from this post and others you have written that you have a big hang up with age. I bet you had a real problem with authority figures growing up, such as with your mom and dad --, assuming you really aren't a scientific laboratory experiment gone horribly wrong. Are you at least on talking terms with your folks these days?

Further to your hang up, on 7/26 you wrote, directing your remarks to yours truly:

>>
Besides most of you old timers don't get enough action anyways
>>

And then on 7/27 you wrote:

>>
& maybe we can can get rid of these boring 18th century freaks who keep on controlling us instead of making this world happy/pain free etc etc.
>>

Hmm…"old timers" and "18th century freaks" - no possible connection here to moi, right? This would really be stretching things, wouldn't it?

>>
…let me make that posting even clearer.
>>

Uh, oh. Here is where the waters become even muddier, folks. I guarantee it! But go ahead, D2U, and lay it on us, bro. Try clarifying things for us.

>>
Yes, I beleive in science/ethics/morals and Yes, I think our Congress has too few scientists/ethicists and way too many lawyers.
>>

Are you sure you believe in "…/ethics/morals"? Your memory is as short as your cerebral power is weak. Have you so soon forgotten what you just wrote earlier on the 27th?

>>
I would first look to science & reason & stop all the BS moral stuff.
>>

Oh, yeah. Everything about you is crystal clear now. How many times a week are you seeing your shrink to get your schizophrenia treated? Have you tried shock treatments, yet?

And you know what is really, really sad _and_ scary about fellas like D2U, folks? He believes in his heart of hearts that people like himself -- people in his "enlightened" and "progressive" generation -- are the world's brightest hope for the planet's future. This is such a scary thought that I would have been willing to trade places with one of those trapped Pennsylvania miners just to obtain some horror relief.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
Home run, buddy. Nice post. HAND.
>>

First you applauded a knee-jerk reactionary like SMF, who would probably have problems connecting dots, even if there were only two of them on the page.

Now more recently you're all ga ga over a severely mentally-challenged schizophrenic.

Nice baseball team you're putting together. What do you intend to call yourselves? Badly Misguided Misfits?

Boxcar

P.S. Better cut back on all that porn, Tom. It's evident to me it's already made mush out your gray matter.

[Tom]

And what gets the Boxcar off?
Being just plain rude and snide to everyone?
Pretty good at it.
Have at it, BC.
Serial babblers are so far harmless.

[ranchwest]

Boxcar,

So much anger, man. Where does it come from? How long have you been this way?

[boxcar]

ranchwest wrote:

>>
Boxcar,

So much anger, man. Where does it come from? How long have you been this way?
>>

You're way off base, RW. I'm just jousting with Wannabe Wiseguys. Lighten up, dude.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Tom wrote:

>>
And what gets the Boxcar off? Being just plain rude and snide to everyone?
>>

Everyone!? How 'bout to just the resident meatheads who are incapable of making intelligent and coherent contributions to this forum?

>>
Pretty good at it.
>>

Yeah, you wanna know why? Because the world has a lot more horses' asses in it than horses. So I get a lot of practice keeping the former group in check.

>>Have at it, BC.
Serial babblers are so far harmless.
>>

Yeah, compared to the Wannabe Anarchists, HIV-positive haters and Pro-genocidal maniacs who desire to kill an entire race of people, I am indeed harmless and innocent as a lamb.

Boxcar

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by boxcar
ranchwest wrote:

>>
Boxcar,

So much anger, man. Where does it come from? How long have you been this way?
>>

You're way off base, RW. I'm just jousting with Wannabe Wiseguys. Lighten up, dude.

Boxcar

I'm sure glad you clarified your attitude. There for a minute I thought every message I read from you was filled with vile comments on the world, messages where you enlighten and straighten out everyone else, all horses asses. Thanks for that clarification. It is meaningful.

[boxcar]

ranchwest wrote:

>>
I'm sure glad you clarified your attitude. There for a minute I thought every message I read from you was filled with vile comments on the world, messages where you enlighten and straighten out everyone else, all horses asses.
>>

Yeah, well...there a lot of people out there who need some enlightenment. Haven't you read?:

"What the American public doesn't know is exactly what makes them the American public." --Dan Akroyd in _Tommy Boy_

And I love "your vile comments about the world" take. Why don't you supply us with a few examples of what you speak? But are you sure you're not confusing me with Tom? He's the one who wants to kill all Arabs, and wouldn't be caught dead in Madison Square Garden with an HIV-positive person, and aspires to be one mean anarchist because he wants to be free from all moral responsibility so he can be free to do anything he wants.

>>
Thanks for that clarification. It is meaningful.
>>

No problema. Glad to have been of some help. And here's some more wisdom for you: Dump the hyperbolae in your posts designed to misrepresent my true positions. Honesty is really the best policy. Try it some time; you might actually wear it well.

Boxcar

[superfecta]

Originally posted by boxcar
The NY Times today reported on guy in his early twenties in S.A. who _raped_ a 9-month old baby.
The story did't say the baby died, so if she's still alive it's a miracle!

Boxcar Big deal-we got a 8-month old raped today in Henrietta, Okla.Sickies overseas can't beat the sickies here in the USA.

[ranchwest]

Henrietta, OK, home of the Super Bowl.

[boxcar]

As stated earlier on this thread, a big part of the sex crimes problem is the judicial system. A jurist, who must be dead from the neck up, lets what appears to be a serial rapist, charged with 28 counts of rape, out on 26K bail. He is accused of raping 9 girls ranging in age from 11 thru 19.

Boxcar

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAI4XGLB4D.html

[boxcar]

superfecta wrote:

>>
Big deal-we got a 8-month old raped today in Henrietta, Okla. Sickies overseas can't beat the sickies here in the USA.
>>

I'd challenge you to top this story, but you'd have to find a lowlife that is off the Scum of the Earth Meter. However, I will say that as bad as our judicial system can be, I think our conviction rate is a better than 9%.

From the story, events like this are pretty common in S.A.

Boxcar

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/07/31/33496.html

[Derek2U]

Maybe you two should move to SA because both of you
are totally outta base with USA culture. Both of you seem
to be proud of your irrelevance.

[Lefty]

Derek, instead of these ad homynym attacks, please explain. You once accuse me of ad homynym attacks,
, though, I've never made one, but you've made at least two against me in 3 days. I welcome debate but need to know what i'm debating. So, how is it, in your mind, that Boxcar and I are irrelevent?
Thanks, so much.

[boxcar]

Jurists, in particular, need to learn this lesson.

Boxcar

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/2/52022.shtml

[boxcar]

Fox News just gave out a few stats on abductions,which they received from the FBI.

Supposedly, kidnappings were down in 2001 from 2000. In 2001, there were 90 reported cases of abductions. So far this year, there have been 66 abductions, which if this current rate continues would put the number of abductions ahead of last year's stat.

But here is another staggering figure: there are over 57,000 missing children reports still "open" (translate: unsolved!), however Fox didn't report on what period of time this huge figure covers.

Unsolved or unreported crimes are the two major elements that necessarily make it impossible to compile accurate criminal statistics.

Boxcar