Pedophile?

[Otis_Kat]

Two nights ago the security gaurd for the middle/intermediate school was caught with child pornography at the town firehall where he volunteered.

He is banned for life from the firehall.

He is not from the school because he has no previous record of these charges.

Sick, and all the parents aggre with that. Every parking spot in the entire school district was filled last night with overflow in the streets with people protesting that.





Also some kid got caught jerking off in English class on a bet http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Atayin]

On 2006-09-27 14:15, Otis_Kat wrote:

Also some kid got caught jerking off in English class on a bet http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif



Yeah, pedophiles are disgusting and something should be done abou-...


Wait, WHAT?

[Shadowpawn]

Wait, how is this a rant?

[Otis_Kat]

I hate pedophiles?

[Nogatorr]

I hate Chase, but you don't see me making a rant about my hate. Maybe you should've just posted under "What Grinds YOUR Gears"

[Otis_Kat]

On 2006-09-27 19:40, Nogatorr wrote:
I hate Chase, but you don't see me making a rant about my hate. Maybe you should've just posted under "What Grinds YOUR Gears"



How does capitalizing your make this any different. This is MY topic, not anyone else's. Maybe you should've...I won't say that.


I was just saying how stupid it was to allow this man back on school property.

[Sagasu]

On 2006-09-28 19:40, Otis_Kat wrote:


I was just saying how stupid it was to allow this man back on school property.


Horny humans jerk it off to anything that gets the exitement up, "good" guys and the "bad" guys included. Rape, slavery, sadism, pedophilia, the imagination knows no boundaries.

If we threw people behind bars based purely upon how disturbing their fantasies are, there wouldnt be many left free.

Not to say it is he is a good person, I wouldnt know. But throwing him out merely to save face is a childish thing to do.

[astuarlen]

On 2006-09-28 20:05, Sagasu wrote:
If we threw people behind bars based purely upon how disturbing their fantasies are, there wouldnt be many left free.

Not to say it is he is a good person, I wouldnt know. But throwing him out merely to save face is a childish thing to do.


What about throwing him out to remove a possible predator from a position of trust and easy access to kids? No one in this thread has suggested the guy be incarcerated, but I don't think taking him off security duty at the school would be terribly extreme.

Also, I would contest your first statement, but I don't think I have anything more solid to back up my beliefs--that most people don't have disturbing fantasies, which I can only assume refers to things like rape etc--than you. But that's neither here nor there nor under the chair (crumbs only; I checked).

[Nogatorr]

On 2006-09-28 19:40, Otis_Kat wrote:


On 2006-09-27 19:40, Nogatorr wrote:
I hate Chase, but you don't see me making a rant about my hate. Maybe you should've just posted under "What Grinds YOUR Gears"



How does capitalizing your make this any different. This is MY topic, not anyone else's. Maybe you should've...I won't say that.


I was just saying how stupid it was to allow this man back on school property.






As you have pointed out, capitalizing the your has no point other than to make you realize that it is capitalized for absolutely no reason.

For the record, I agree with you. The man shouldn't be allowed back. Who knows how he got the child porn? That seems like the biggest issue to me. Were the pictures of students who attended the school? Were the pictures from the internet? I think the source of the porn is the biggest issue here.

[Sagasu]

I like your point(astuarlen), and admit that I hadnt thought of it that way. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif

Tho I'm not too sure about your incarcerated statement either, given that- "Every parking spot in the entire school district was filled last night with overflow in the streets with people protesting that."

Since I wasnt there to witness the general ferocity of the public consensus, or the material that he possesed, I too lack solid ground to back up what I said before. Pardon my bias, but for some reason or another I think people tend to act more violently against this kind of situation.

Like since he was caught with "child pornography", its their duty as good civil citizens to smite him for the sudden overwhelming "possibility" he may be a godforsaken pedophiliac child abuser scum of the earth.

Point moreof being towards disliking the general tendacy to overeact to the (questionably)disturbing offences of an individual.(specially when it concerns a public figure)

Disturbing~? I suppose so, but given the context what is considered disturbing is rather clear(to me). Nobody looks at you twice if you say you like girls with big boobs(given your sex), or guys who are clean shaven(again). But openly expressing preference for being bound and whipped is more likely to evoke a negative reaction. (you missed the chewing gum stuck on the far left side, its still good, too!)

[DrizaSiegmund]

On 2006-09-27 14:15, Otis_Kat wrote:
Sick, and all the parents aggre with that. Every parking spot in the entire school district was filled last night with overflow in the streets with people protesting that.


Yes once again, lets isolate someone, point them out and express our utter hatred, instead of giving them the support they need to overcome these urges.

People are pathetic, if people arent looking for an inter-racial relationship to burn their torch at, their looking for a man who loves the same sex (note i did not meantion woman who love the same sex cause apparently they're gods *roll eyes*) to burn their torch at.

It's the natural human need to make someone feel like shit to show your own importance and self purity that really makes no progress.
I'm not saying having child pornography is right, but #1 who are people to hold flags and throw stones when they themselves have their own demons (as expressed outloud at the school) and #2 who offered help? im not saying sympathise because being a parent means living in fear, but you dont ever throw someone into the sea without some direction what-so-ever.
Gosh ppl are scared/cold/scared.

[Daikarin]

Unfortunately, the law can't do a thing about "potential" criminals. It is only after it's too late that they have reasons to do something to the criminal. But who can blame the law? Is there a - rational, logic and scientific - way to blame someone who has done nothing, or nothing yet?

[ABDUR101]

I think taking him out of the situation is best. Afterall, you don't let someone run around with lit matches in an oil refinery, yeah? The guy likes child porn, and thats not cool, but perhaps the porn itself helps him subdue his urges. When it comes to this type of thing, it's hard to really 'get help' for it. You can't just say "Hey, liking kids isn't ok, stop it". It's a working of his mind, and it does take alot to work to solve those types of things.

And who knows, maybe he fights with his urges on a daily basis, maybe thats why he had porn at the firehall he worked at(though it was VERY stupid).

Either way, he needed to be removed from a position of authority where he had the ability to take advantage of children. Being a security guard at a school, he would have access to just about anywhere, as well as being an authority figure that could easily mentally overpower and scare a child into doing what he wanted. "You'll do this or I'll have you/your family/etc arrested and you'll never see each other again" sort of thing could easily happen.

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-29 06:03, Daikarin wrote:
Unfortunately, the law can't do a thing about "potential" criminals. It is only after it's too late that they have reasons to do something to the criminal. But who can blame the law? Is there a - rational, logic and scientific - way to blame someone who has done nothing, or nothing yet?



Aside from the fact that child porn is illegal, I don't think this is about criminal prosecution, but rather if he's suited for guarding children in the intermediate/middle school.


On 2006-09-28 23:54, DrizaSiegmund wrote:
Yes once again, lets isolate someone, point them out and express our utter hatred, instead of giving them the support they need to overcome these urges.

No one was talking about lynching the guy, only removing him from his job as security at the school. Not unreasonable given it's the duty of the school to hire people properly qualified to safeguard the welfare of the student body.


People are pathetic, if people arent looking for an inter-racial relationship to burn their torch at, their looking for a man who loves the same sex (note i did not meantion woman who love the same sex cause apparently they're gods *roll eyes*) to burn their torch at.
First of all it sounds like you're the one holding a torch. Secondly drawing parallels between this situation and racisam and homophobia is absurd.


It's the natural human need to make someone feel like shit to show your own importance and self purity that really makes no progress.
It is human nature to want to protect your children. The parents didn't show up to thow stones, they came because they were worried. Given recient events (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15057589/) I don't find that to be unwarranted.


im not saying sympathise because being a parent means living in fear, but you dont ever throw someone into the sea without some direction what-so-ever.
Gosh ppl are scared/cold/scared.
Again, no one is talking about lynching the guy or even putting him in a cage. It's a discussion on weither or not he's suited to be a security guard at the middle school. That is totally reasonable given the situation. Please take off your ideological blinders and try and view the situation with some judiciousness.

[DrizaSiegmund]

On 2006-09-28 23:54, DrizaSiegmund wrote:
Yes once again, lets isolate someone, point them out and express our utter hatred, instead of giving them the support they need to overcome these urges.

No one was talking about lynching the guy, only removing him from his job as security at the school. Not unreasonable given it's the duty of the school to hire people properly qualified to safeguard the welfare of the student body.


That was very sugar coated im sure that's not how the protest went at all :>




First of all it sounds like you're the one holding a torch.


XD




im not saying sympathise because being a parent means living in fear, but you dont ever throw someone into the sea without some direction what-so-ever.
Gosh ppl are scared/cold/scared.
Again, no one is talking about lynching the guy or even putting him in a cage. It's a discussion on weither or not he's suited to be a security guard at the middle school. That is totally reasonable given the situation. Please take off your ideological blinders and try and view the situation with some judiciousness.


Trust me there isn't anything blinding me, I just know there are other ways of dealing with situations like these rather than protests.. but forgiv me for speaking for the person who wont be heard. But i think again my point was missed.

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-29 11:30, DrizaSiegmund wrote:
That was very sugar coated im sure that's not how the protest went at all.

How do you imagine it went? I imagine a group of concerened and flustraited parents going before the schoolboard and demanding why someone who was caught looking at picutures of children engaging in sex acts was still working as a security guard for the intermediate/middle school. That epitomizes an appropriate and measured civilized response to a precived threat to their children.



Trust me there isn't anything blinding me, I just know there are other ways of dealing with situations like these rather than protests..

How would you suggest it be dealt with? Maybe go over to the offenders house for a group hug? Send him get well soon cards? What do you suggest is a better way? A non-violent meeting is not a lynch mob.


but forgiv me for speaking for the person who wont be heard.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/225190/0_62_sjodin_dru.jpg
This is a picture of Drew Sjodin, she was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a convicted repeat sex offender who was turned loose after being "givin the the support he needed to overcome his urges." What about her voice?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.findagrave.com/photos/2003/193/7571986_1058141676.jpg
This is a picture of Katie Poirier. She was kidnaped and murdered by a FIVE TIME convicted repeat sex offender who time and time again was released by people more concerened with his voice, than the voice of his victims.


Now to put it into prespective, I understand this man was caught with child porn, and didn't attack anyone, but the point is we need to keep our priorities straight.

[washuguy]

Pedophiles suck ass!!!

[Sagasu]

We could always kill him.


..you know, just to be safe. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/avatar/hiko16.gif
This is a picture of Danger_Girl, she was kidnapped, tickled mercilessly, and played audience to bad puns for the better part of an hour to remind her not to blow things out of porportion.

The priorities of the parents(and the children, obviously) over what may or may not be going through the man's head are quite valid. Assuming he looses his job, a potential threat is "removed" that way.. but what does it really solve?

Removing him doesnt help the core issue(the possibility of his desire manifesting), it just makes it so somebody else has to deal with it instead,that the more and more he is punished the more and more likely he is to rebel? More than likely aginst where his troubles origionated from?

Should the priority be taking into consideration what happens long run of things, or immediate action?

[ABDUR101]

...do you honestly think he's not going to be offered, or even mandated to goto a psychologist to get this shit figured out? I imagine he's going to be put through the wringer to some degree over this. I'm sure he'll be given more than enough options to seek counselling to help resolve his issue, but in the end it's up to him to help himself through this. He has to follow through just as much as anyone else.

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-29 14:17, Sagasu wrote:
We could always kill him.


..you know, just to be safe. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

Or they can have him find another job other than watching over kids in the school...you know, just to be safe.


http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/avatar/hiko16.gif
This is a picture of Danger_Girl, she was kidnapped, tickled mercilessly, and played audience to bad puns for the better part of an hour to remind her not to blow things out of porportion.

I might actually enjoy that. Well, maybe not the bad puns. Seriously though, I don't think I was blowing it out of proportion. There was a another school shooting today in Wisconsin, and a 16 year old was sexually assulted and gunned down in a classroom earlier in the week. Those two examples I sited both occured not all that far from where I live. It seems reasonable to take at the very least a mimimum number of precautions in order to protect our children from potential preditors. I'm not trying to say being caught with child porn is on the same level as actual rape and murder, but it certainly can be interpreted as a red flag.


The priorities of the parents(and the children, obviously) over what may or may not be going through the man's head are quite valid. Assuming he looses his job, a potential threat is "removed" that way.. but what does it really solve?

It gets a possible sex offender out of the school.


Removing him doesnt help the core issue(the possibility of his desire manifesting), it just makes it so somebody else has to deal with it instead,that the more and more he is punished the more and more likely he is to rebel? More than likely aginst where his troubles origionated from?

Should the priority be taking into consideration what happens long run of things, or immediate action?


I have nothing to add to what ABDUR101 said. That's a seperate issue that will be addressed by the court.

[Solstis]

I suppose that electro-shock therapy could be in order. You really can't get rid of something as basic as an attraction without some crazy-ass therapy.

Being attracted to younger people is natural (otherwise, it wouldn't happen. People don't put chips in their heards to do it), but it is disruptive to society. It was really stupid of him to have that porn on a public computer, though. I mean, if you know that you have an attraction that is illegal to act out, don't doo it. Really now.

It does make sense to remove him from the situation, but labelling him as a sexual predator is overreacting. They probably will anyway. Er, it is a bit suspicious for him to be a school security guard, though.

As I was trying to say, there is no real issue to resolve. You can mandate laws all you want, but actually changing people's mental profiles is inane. This is like, one or two steps from becoming a very scary situation. When you fabricate justice, it's easy for it to get out of hand.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2006-09-29 18:49 ]</font>

[astuarlen]

Solly maketh the good points.
However...


On 2006-09-29 18:47, Solstis wrote:
Being attracted to younger people is natural (otherwise, it wouldn't happen. People don't put chips in their heards to do it), but it is disruptive to society.

I'll agree that people tend to be attracted to those that appear youthful and healthy, but I also think that folks typically aren't attracted to children and that the latter is completely unnatural (I'm not sure what exactly you meant by "younger" so there's a good possibility my post is pointless, but I like to hear my Internet voice, rite?). From a biological/evolutionary standpoint there's no reason to be attracted to individuals too young to successfully reproduce (and, beyond that, raise their offspring), hence its unnaturalness. Not to mention ideas about respect, responsibility, power disparities, etc, but I couldn't say how natural/innate concepts about that stuff are. But then again, all this assumes that the only reason to desire someone is for procreation... so, hmm. Still, anyway, whatever, ohlookasquirrel. :e

[Danger_Girl]

Child porn also has a pretty broad definition. It could mean 17 year olds in sexy poses, or it could be eight year olds engaging in hard core.

[astuarlen]

True. I guess I automatically assume the latter. :<

[Solstis]

Well, I tend to assume the whole "capable of sexual reproduction" bit. Still really young by that age (what, 14 for males or so?), so even if you feel an attraction to what is another sexually capable being, you still shouldn't doo eet.

But, yeah, when you're talking 8 year olds, hum... er... hm.

[Scejntjynahl]

The basis of how we as people interact with each other depends on the level of tolerance that we have for self taught/learned/exposed/etc temptations. In situations like this is an early warning, it is best to avoid the possible atrocity than to endanger children/anyone to possible harm. Same reason as to why some schools have metal detectors... we are tryin to minimize acts of violence. Child porn falls into those taboo things that people get a "rush" on because of it is taboo. So many reasons as to why it happens... but we should consider in trying not to let it happen. Hence why this person was removed.

I also have many qualms against a system that lets out "REPEAT" offenders. I mean, granted, they should have a chance... but that is it ONE chance not several. Seriously this is way out of control.

I remember once my mother said those offenders should be castrated. To which the idea was amusing... yet in reality it would be pointless. They would use what ever is at their disposal. for their "pleasure" People generally think its the genetalia the focus of pleasure for these people. It is not. It is the IDEA of it, it is their minds. Not to mention that there are female offenders as well.