Thomas Kirby

I can be just as willfully difficult about this subject as anyone here can. What gets me about this is that too many people default to vengeful thinking, and that this vengeful thinking is directed at one very small subset of the abuse that children face every day. No possible solution is allowed in except those that involve a very narrow set of measures of just exactly how much revenge and control to apply to the situation. Even if someone gets to try a different program, someone else can give it a failing grade and have the program aborted over a single incident. "Jessica's Law" and "Megan's law" my ass. These things use singular cases to justify treating a whole class of people over the conduct of one or two. When you get down to singular cases, there is no more justice in smearing all pedophiles for it than there is in smearing all humans. It also works out that all humans get smeared. We all feel the threats. We all feel the increased anger, the increase of tension, the increase in nitpicking against everyone, the increased chance of false accusations. These things damage society. Since it is such an emotional issue, we set aside thoughts about what we are doing to ourselves at the time when we need to be the most vigilant about these things.

There is only so much I am willing to do to myself over an issue like this. In a halfway sane world it would be adequate that I myself am not likely to have sex with anyone under the age of 30. It's not a fate I would wish on a sweet young thing. Not that I'm all that bad, she just deserves better. Anyway, if someone comes up and gives me jibber-jabber about child molestation and I belt him hard enough to send teeth flying, it's not because I have the slightest interest in anyone who is less than 30 years old. It is because I am tired of his garbage. I am tired of the emotional baggage I already have and I am not willing to carry any more or to multiply society's emotional problems. I am sick of the tricks that people use to get over on me.

This includes anyone who wants to approach me and give me garbage about what I believe about the subject. On the street, if some semi-literate read one of my opinions and approached me, he would probably try to talk with his hands. Considering where I live, I wouldn't know unless he spoke coherently whether he was trying to start a fight or a mating ritual. In this part of the Twilight Zone, date rape is a valid and common method for a couple to conceive their first child. Hating perverts or suspected perverts is a game people play to cover up the forcible rape of their own daughters, which is often condoned or encouraged by the mother. Gang rape of males by males is proof of flaming heterosexuality, as long as it is done to "faggots." I have seen nothing to convince me that the rest of the world is any better.

That's a little over the top, but this society in its treatment of child molesters (to use the vernacular term) acts a lot more like people who have something to hide than it acts like people who seek true justice, safe and worthwhile lives, rationality, or anything but the perpetuation of the cycle of violence. Considering what I've been through, I'm quite willing to yank all of those dirty secrets out into the open, all those things that people hit me to intimidate me into keeping my mouth shut about. It hurts them worse than my fists would, too.

If you mean' date='

 

Depending ONLY on laws and draconian measures already has hurt us in the long run. I prefer that the acts remain illegal, but we can't depend ONLY on that.

 

 

 

Most would agree with that, but to what degree is the question. Unless you have some magic pill that will stop people from becoming pedophiles, I think laws will be the chief response.[/quote']

 

I think we've already seen how well threatening people works. It doesn't work at all in my book. You can't reduce the problem by increasing the threats against people every time there is an "incident." Using the incidents to pass "tougher" laws also exploits children and increases the rewards for false arrests and convictions.

 

If we continue to work the penalty part of this and continue to withdraw mental health services from these people, and continue to do other things that exacerbate the social problems behind child molestation, we are going to get exactly the results that any intelligent person will expect. We will have more child molestors to punish. We will become quite successful at punishing child molestors. We won't be able to do a thing to reduce the sexual molestation of children, but we will be very good at punishing people. It's already slid most of the way down the slope, so we definitely handle the problem by becoming good at punishing people, any people, as long as we punish someone.

 

Since we can't think and act rationally, we can't treat causes. We even make the things that cause child molestation worse and count on being able to threaten them to make up for it. This is really little different from torturing dogs physically and mentally to make them obedient, then torturing and killing the ones that act out.

Nice answer!

 

this counter of mine works at 600Volts dc (low current)' date=' I`ve heard that Over charging them can damage them also, so is it possible that the effect this has when around such a field may damage it eventualy?[/quote']

 

Yes, definitely. The field can induce extremely high voltages in anything nearby. The electrodes can pit and eventually fail if they are hit with enough arcs, especially the one that's like a wire through the center. The sensing electronics are much more vulnerable. The charge from the Tesla coil can jump right across the high voltage capacitor between the tube and the amplifier. It can even fry the high voltage supply.

 

The Velleman kit has the tube right on the circuit board. I just looked it up. All of your electronics gets as close to anything you measure with it as the tube does. The high voltage supply has semiconductors on the high side, too. It uses a chain of diodes and capacitors to multiply the voltage from the transformer. I can't seem to download a manual for it.

 

There has to be a little bit of gas in the tube for it to work. It's more sensitive to lower energies if that gas is under low pressure. Neon, argon, and krypton are good. If you wanted to improvise a tube again, that's the way to go.

 

You won't have any luck measuring alpha unless you find a tube with an alpha window. Then you have to take very good care of it because that's an extremely thin sheet of mica between your tube and the radiation source. The window has to face that source and you have to be very close to it.

Depending on laws and draconian measures already has hurt us in the long run. I prefer that the acts remain illegal, but we can't depend on that. What's your problem?

I bought a Geiger Counter a few years ago' date=' It was a kit costing about £70.

I`ve had it tested by a friend of mine at Birmingham Uni, and she wrote a rough list of test results, It`s almost deaf at Alpha radiation, better response at Beta and works just fine at Gamma.

that being said, I was wondering WHY it goes absolutely balistic when I put it near my plasma ball or my Tesla Feild generator?

I`ll get counts from over 3 feet away!

anyone have any ideas what may cause this?[/quote']

 

The Geiger-Muller tube works by maintaining electrical charges in its anode and cathode. Different tubes may run from 300-1500 volts. Radiation ionizes gas inside creating a conductive path. This makes the "click" you hear. Being near the Tesla coil increases the charge on the tube, making it more sensitive. It also simply knocks electrons from the tube itself. The counter goes wild for the same reason that fluorescent tubes light up near the coil.

There is nothing like using an unprovable theory to prove something. If the theorist were not so highly respected it might even be called pseudoscience.

They actually robbed refugees at gunpoint:

Story

And when exhausted hurricane victims set up temporary shelters on the highway, Gretna police came back a few hours later, fired shots into the air again, told people to "get the f -- off the bridge" and used a helicopter to blow down all the makeshift shelters, the paramedics said.

 

When the officers had pushed the crowd back far enough, one of them took the group's food and water, dropped it in the trunk of a patrol car and drove away.

There seem to be a chief of police and another police officer who need to spend a few years in jail. Armed robbery under color of law with aggravating circumstances.

No, this is what you don't understand. Nobody understands what you're talking about. The only person it is coherent to is you.[/i'] And yet you still expect us all to nod in agreement and tell you how great your deductive reasoning is.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

Wow, I read this post multiple times and I still can't find any thing relevant to the conversation going on in this thread. Nobody here called you a fagot so stop being a martyr. I'm sorry for your traumatic childhood but simply having a traumatic childhood doesn't give you a license to spit out loads of incoherent crap and whine at everybody when they shy away from it.

Actually, it does. Also, this is not crap and it is not incoherent. Try your kind of rhetoric on someone who is an idiot.

I suspect most of us are not abusing children and are thus not losing any rights. Perhaps if I abused children I might be more interested in child molester's rights.

You might think that. I don't. I am an adult survivor of child abuse. The focus on sex not only takes away from dealing with the abuse that I suffered, it exacerbates the kind of abuse that I suffered. I know this subject from the inside. A lot of the pain and loss that I suffered started with people pretending to suspect that I was a sort of pervert. As I explained in another thread, I was a "faggot." You tell me how a six year old person who doesn't even know what sex is can be a "faggot." This is different from being a homosexual. Instead, the individual is a caricature of a homosexual. The mask is forced onto him and fastened as securely as they know how.

The nature of the weapon that was used to destroy me is such that I cannot trust anyone who uses it. For my own survival, for the survival of decency, I have to destroy that weapon if I can. It is a weapon that destroys the person it is aimed at and the person who uses it.

Why am I working the slippery slope argument into this? Because when these people and this government see a slippery slope, they get snowboards and toboggans and tell everyone that this is the way up.

How are you giving up your freedom? Am i missing something here? So your saying people shouldn't hate people that rape small children? I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's how its coming across. Of course people have an active disdain for those that hurt others. Expecting people not to be angered by an issue like this doesn't seem reasonable. What is wrong with keeping people likely to continue to commit extremely damaging crimes monitored? Im more concerned about the rights of little children not to be abused then the right of their abusers to have total freedom.

It looks like I am not going to make any progress trying to inform people that all of their freedoms are at stake here. It's all right. Go back to sleep. Big Brother will take care of us. He'll get you that bottled water in 7 days, even if it does take only 3 days to die of thirst.

http://www.michaelcrook.com/mikequest.html

 

this guy should be shot

Sure, I have a camera.

looks like you did

Nope. Jessica's law requires convicted sex offenders to wear tracking devices at all times after being released from prison. It doesn't even consist of a law against rape or sexual injury. It applies to those who are convicted of, and so on.

This is one of the things that hacks me off. Just because I support one thing does not mean that I HAVE to support another thing that you think goes with it. There are broader issues about both the labelling and monitoring requirements that you want. People will essentually force me to give up most of my freedoms in order to make it seem easier to deal with the problem of child molestation. They will also force me to give up rational thought and decency. They will wrongly label me for holding a different opinion, too.

Depending on laws and draconian measures to prevent child molestation will only hurt us in the long run, the short run, or anything in between.

FYI it DOES exist.

 

Here is the website for the biggest organization for this movement.

 

The people who take advantage of developing youth to satisfy sexual desires is selfish and extremely self centered. Perhaps they are attractive because they are nubile' date=' but mentally they are [b']not[/b] ready for sexual encounters, no matter how you reason it.

"Nubile" means "marriagable" and "old enough to breed." Not ready for sexual encounters? Who is?

I have a warning here. The side that is able to maintain rationality the best is the side that is going to get what it wants eventually. The people who orchestrated the McMartin preschool case badly took down the credibility of law enforcement efforts against child molestation, and the effectiveness. The thing that most needs to be done to remove the credibility of legislation against child molesters is what is being done right now in the name of the children. Decent people who have their feet on the ground, who think with their brains don't participate in witch-hunts. Even if the ends are just, the means can drive decent people away from a program. Keep hurting decent people and they will shut you down. I got tired of being hurt, bullied, and lied to early. Some people will put up with it forever. I won't.

(shrug) That's all I was looking for.

 

Congratulations' date=' you've just endorsed Jessica's Law.[/quote']

 

Have not.

i meant some children take disobediancy to the extreme and deliberately do the opposite of anything they are told to do.

Fair enough.

it depends on the upbringing of the child whether they are obidient or disobediant to the extreme

It isn't particularly extreme for a child to refuse to do something "gross." That taxes anyone's obedience. Total easy compliance is a myth, but when it's "gross" it's like trying to make them take uncoated aspirin.

In spite of Doctor Pangloss's spin here, I am all for laws that say you aren't allowed to rape or sexually injure prepubescent children. Why anyone thinks it has to be outlawed for most people, I don't know. It seems to me to take something wrong with someone before they will do it, something a little bit beyond "perversion." There is nothing sexy about small children. Understanding it may give us the power to overcome it. Fighting it the way the fighting is being done seems to exacerbate the problem, or at least it increases the unthinking hysteria. I'm not even sure that there is that much of a problem when you cut out the hoo-hah. There is so little real information from the haters that you don't know what the devil is actually going on anyway. Dishonest people keep secrets. Dishonest people divert honest inquiries. There is something there that someone doesn't want us to know, and that someone doesn't want us to do. You tell me what the something is that inspires a mother to threaten her child with death and to make him believe that she will kill him. This puts no act of sheer domineering madness past or beneath that person. I think most of it is the addiction to violence, an addiction that is contagious.

A lot of people promote agendas that are without understanding, and that even destroy knowledge and understanding. It's too bad that this is one of them, because we need all of our faculties to deal with raising the next generation. I know too many people who have volunteered for a living death and slow suicide over trying to live their lives because of the way they were raised. Or maybe it wasn't voluntary. There is a lot of programmed behavior involved. There is a lot of conditioning that makes people feel that they cannot ever do anything with their lives. Anti-sexuality agendas are a huge part of why they are this way. Being treated as if you are some sort of sexual deviant is a very depressing experience. That's why people still use the term "faggot" to bully others. Sex sells.

And in defense of that you said earlier that offenders can be charged with other crimes (assault' date=' attempted murder, etc). But in fact most children below a certain age (which varies) tend to do [b']exactly what adults tell them to do[/b]. So there's no violent event for authorities to charge the offender with. It's a sexual offense or nothing.

 

How would address this problem?

 

Do you want to live in a world where any adult can find the nearest four-year-old, shove a lollipop in her mouth, and bend her over a rail? So long as she's happy, no laws are broken in Thomas's world.

 

You say that you find such people dispicable, and then you turn around and propose that we legalize what they do. Doesn't sound to me like you find them dispicable at all. But hey, you keep spinning. You can fool some of the people some of the time....

Pangloss, you asked a very specific question for a very specific reason, and I knew you were going to act this way about the answer. You're the one who spins, on several different subject. You accuse me and others of doing that to try to divert attention from your own spin.

You asked if I favor sexual predator laws. The answer is that I don't. When you say that this means that I favor legalization of sex with four-year-old people, you insult my intelligence, your intelligence, and that of the audience. I also think that you are deliberately being dishonest. The truth is that America was quite capable of heavily punishing pedophiles long before the godlost term "sexual predator" was coined. I object to the term because it is a buzzword that, as has become all too clear the last few years, helps people turn off the cognitive functions of their brains and unleash mindless fury against any target. This wouldn't be good even if people could stay with the appropriate targets, which they can't. These days you're a pedophile if you wipe from back to front instead of from front to back.

If you actually believe that most 4 year old people do exactly what any adult tells them, you don't know children. This is one of the reasons I don't believe the rhetoric. Thinking that children are that obedient borders on the asinine. Pushing that belief on someone else is deliberately trying to get over on them. But you get to do that because it is "for the children"? There seems to be nothing too stupid for people to do "for the children" and they still think it isn't stupid.

So your saying we shouldn't have sex before we're 30? in the stoneage people were lucky to live till 30.

 

 

 

you must think i'm disgusting then.

Mildly disgusting. Of course, if I mind my own business, I won't react to it, will I? I'm all in favor of minding my own business. The punishment for poking my nose into other people's business is that I have my nose in other people's business and I know what they are doing. Knowing what they are doing has never been to my liking.

You didn't actually answer the question' date=' though.

 

Would you, or would you not, allow for ANY sexual predator laws to be in place for children ages 12 and under?[/quote']

 

Telling me that I didn't actually answer the question is an outright lie, Pangloss. Could you at least try to keep it believable?

 

No, no sexual predator laws. They allow a sexually repressive and very violent group of humans to predate on everyone who does not agree with them. The idea that it is for the children is another outright lie. It is for the benefit of people who continually undermine all human rights.

So are you still refusing to break that down into age specifics' date=' Thomas?

 

I hope you all are getting that message behind his spin. Not all children are sexually-curious fourteen year olds.[/quote']

 

No kidding, Sherlock? Speaking of spin, no one asked me to break it down into age specifics. Do you want some age specifics?

 

With anyone below the age of 30, I think sex is likely to be very mildly disgusting.

 

With anyone below the age of 21, fairly disgusting especially if they use it to try to get me to buy them alcohol.

 

Between the ages of 16 and 18, at least moderately disgusting even where legal.

 

Between the ages of 13 and 16, very disgusting legal or illegal.

 

12 and under, extremely disgusting.

 

Anyone of any age who acts like a five year old: Just as disgusting as if their bodies were five years old. This includes people I have known who have graduated college.

 

On the other hand I think the age of consent should be 13 or 14. It's not so much that I think they have the judgement for it. I think that if they don't by then they probably never will. Mostly I'm sick of the rhetoric and the screwing around. Like I said before in another thread, I don't think these anti people know how to play like adults so we should take away their toys before they hurt anyone else.

That's pretty much it, j_p. The "Lock 'n Load" solution is off my list of solutions to anything, which is just as well. I don't know which part is worse, and many parts are related. It may because it's uncreative. It forces all solutions to the worst possible, and it makes the problem appear worse than it is, since when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. It's the lowest common denominator solution and encourages lowest common demoninator behavior. It makes people into morons. I don't want to be a moron, I'm already stupid enough. It's also because pedophiles and the people who hate pedophiles and most of sexuality are part of the same problem. Pedophiles are a poor solution to the people who hate sexuality. They generate problems and poorly solve the ones they do solve. The people who hate sexuality are no solution to anything. They generate problems and solve none.

This is the problem with a false dichotomy. There are people who strip away a child's sense of decency and wonder, who damage their sexuality by driving them mad with physical and emotional pain. They are not much different from people who hurt children by having sex with them. They are both driven to extremes that involve very much the same imagery. The latter, oops, the first, "non-sexual" (edit) group is worse because they never leave you alone. They never achieve satisfaction, just like anyone who keeps at the sex act and cannot achieve orgasm, may everyone pardon me for being that explicit. They can't stop.

We should be concerned with the causes. The domineering group that usually does not have sex with children causes the group that does have sex with children. That's not all they do, but they definitely do this. The very group that hates them so much brings them into existence. A lot of them do it unconsciously, but like a FEMA member turning back vitally needed aid from New Orleans, they do it nonetheless.

Children are caught between people who "sexually abuse" them and are otherwise not violent, and people who allegedly don't "sexually abuse" them but are violent and do things that are mentally damaging.

The Wikipedia link from the beginning of this thread included a hand-waving dismissal of the fact that a lot of the psychological damage is caused after the fact by parents, therapists, and the legal process. If I go to someone and ask them how they feel about what happened to them, do I get their feelings or the feelings that were forced on them by a third party? Personal experience tells me that these third parties will do the damage to people even if they are not molested. It just gets worse then there is another handle to yank them around by and more buttons to push.

I've really been divided between two groups that I can label as disgusting and even more disgusting. One has to be worse than the other or they are equal. I cannot accept sex as the determining factor. I especially cannot accept is as the one thing that outweighs all other things when it comes to abuse. To do so is blindness. I have had to decide that pedophiles are disgusting. Their opposite group, pedo-haters you might call them, are even more disgusting. There are far too few who are simply people.

Sometimes it's because they hand you a straight line that's just too much to resist.