24 men sent to prison for raping children
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 04 Apr 17 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I see you reasoning here but the Muslim element is debatable. I would argue that as with the limits on lifestyle placed on Catholic priests and their exposure to the temptation of alter boys, the same applies to the rules relating to the chastity of Muslim women and the availability of vulnerable young white girls. I don't think that plays a factor here. I suspect Muslim women might be less sexually liberated than their western peers, but it doesn't really equate to forcing men to rape children. I'd imagine that that the 'projection of Islamic values of chastity and the reality of it' is about as close as 'Christian Ideals on Chastity and the Reality'. The same about Catholic Priests. Their lifestyle isn't really the issue, the vows don't make a paedophile priest, I suspect that the urges and attraction to young children might very well encourage some to join the church (to resist temptation). I do agree, there is something inherently wrong with the idea of placing a 'spiritual value' on sexuality and sexual expression. Especially, given the Western Religions prudish nature on anything sexual, from masturbation to sodomy.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| hedgehog50 Croydon 04 Apr 17 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its pretty tragic that people seem to live a life defined by their fears and insecurities about things they perceive as different. Rather than actually find out the realities. People who are fearful of multi culture would have been just as unhappy and angry without immigration - Even before terms like multiculturalism were bounded around, the same kind of people acted with disdain, fear and moral object at cultural subgroups in society that weren't ethnic. I don't think 'fearful' is the correct word, or 'unhappy' or 'angry'. Many people see what is happening around them and reject the line peddled by the authorities, and the liberal-left, that multi-culturalism and mass immigration are of great benefit. It is similar to the way the majority of people rejected the line that being in the EU was of great benefit when they could see before their eyes that it is not. As Lincoln said, "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time".
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
  Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 17 2.44pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I don't think that plays a factor here. I suspect Muslim women might be less sexually liberated than their western peers, but it doesn't really equate to forcing men to rape children. I'd imagine that that the 'projection of Islamic values of chastity and the reality of it' is about as close as 'Christian Ideals on Chastity and the Reality'. The same about Catholic Priests. Their lifestyle isn't really the issue, the vows don't make a paedophile priest, I suspect that the urges and attraction to young children might very well encourage some to join the church (to resist temptation). I do agree, there is something inherently wrong with the idea of placing a 'spiritual value' on sexuality and sexual expression. Especially, given the Western Religions prudish nature on anything sexual, from masturbation to sodomy. It is doubtful that all religious types stick to religious teaching as you suggest but I can't believe that being a Catholic priest and the restriction on sex that involves is not a factor in sexual abuse, nor can I see a reason why there would be so many almost identical instances of sexual abuse involving pakistani men in different towns if their ethnicity or religion was not a factor. Surely you are not suggesting it is a coincidence or a statistical anomaly?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 17 3.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It is doubtful that all religious types stick to religious teaching as you suggest but I can't believe that being a Catholic priest and the restriction on sex that involves is not a factor in sexual abuse, nor can I see a reason why there would be so many almost identical instances of sexual abuse involving pakistani men in different towns if their ethnicity or religion was not a factor. Surely you are not suggesting it is a coincidence or a statistical anomaly? I don't think that people who can't have sex become rapists, or sexual offenders. I think they just tend towards masturbating more. I don't abstaining makes you more likely to turn to children as a surrogate. However, I do think that in such a situation, someone might be willing to cross a more blurred line involving age of consent. Especially, if they're paying for it (as they can rationalise it as a transaction). A key thing to remember here, is that the core group of abusers where also pimping these girls out to others, and fairly well organised in their set up. Most organised crime gangs tend to be built on 'lines of trust' typically ethnicity and family. I suspect the instances of sexual abuse involving ethnicity is that these groups probably informed each other and flourished because they were being ignored and that they focused on people they could trust - and that some degree of informal communication exists among these groups (i.e. some guy in Rochdale is involved to some degree, maybe as a punter, likes it and tells a like minded friend in Derby about it, they start doing the same thing). Its odd how these kind of informal criminal networks tend to crop up. Its a bit like drug dealers. A group of kids get into smoking weed. One of them probably ends up being the guy 'who knows the guy', who's getting it for his mates. He gets to know his supplier. He's taking the risk, so why not make some money. So he starts buying in bulkier amounts, as does his supplier, in order to fulfil the orders. The supplier moves 'up a level', and a network of people beneath him, move into dealing. Sadly.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 17 3.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I don't think that people who can't have sex become rapists, or sexual offenders. I think they just tend towards masturbating more. I don't abstaining makes you more likely to turn to children as a surrogate. However, I do think that in such a situation, someone might be willing to cross a more blurred line involving age of consent. Especially, if they're paying for it (as they can rationalise it as a transaction). A key thing to remember here, is that the core group of abusers where also pimping these girls out to others, and fairly well organised in their set up. Most organised crime gangs tend to be built on 'lines of trust' typically ethnicity and family. I suspect the instances of sexual abuse involving ethnicity is that these groups probably informed each other and flourished because they were being ignored and that they focused on people they could trust - and that some degree of informal communication exists among these groups (i.e. some guy in Rochdale is involved to some degree, maybe as a punter, likes it and tells a like minded friend in Derby about it, they start doing the same thing). Its odd how these kind of informal criminal networks tend to crop up. Its a bit like drug dealers. A group of kids get into smoking weed. One of them probably ends up being the guy 'who knows the guy', who's getting it for his mates. He gets to know his supplier. He's taking the risk, so why not make some money. So he starts buying in bulkier amounts, as does his supplier, in order to fulfil the orders. The supplier moves 'up a level', and a network of people beneath him, move into dealing. Sadly. All very likely but hardly an advert for multi culture. It just cements the idea that the associations among immigrant communities or religious groups are not beneficial to wider society. You could liken it to the Italian Mafia in the US or any number of other nationality or religion based self serving affiliations, none of which serve the majority but do contribute heavily to criminality.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 17 4.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
All very likely but hardly an advert for multi culture. It just cements the idea that the associations among immigrant communities or religious groups are not beneficial to wider society. You could liken it to the Italian Mafia in the US or any number of other nationality or religion based self serving affiliations, none of which serve the majority but do contribute heavily to criminality. Technically, the American Mafia, I but yes, very much so. Organised crime tends to corrupt along cultural and family lines, as a means of remaining concealed. But they also tend to serve vices within those communities. Most organised crime gangs also tend to avoid 'pissing off' their own community too much, and tend to focus really damaging crimes outside their 'own'. For example, the American Mafia was heavily involved in the heroin trade in the US, but less so in Italian communities. Similarly in prostitution, and this is very relevant, the tendency was to not 'involve good local girls'. I suspect that because many of these girls were white, and 'not good girls', the wider community, including the police and social services, turned a blind eye for reasons of their own convenience, and the only people who really suffered were the girls. The Muslim community, the punters, the pimps, the police, social services, and community benefitted to some extent, and rationalised these crimes against that.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Apr 17 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
All very likely but hardly an advert for multi culture. It just cements the idea that the associations among immigrant communities or religious groups are not beneficial to wider society. I think the problem comes from both 'more extreme' sides of the argument on multi-culturalism. Firstly, the pro side, which presents some very idealised view of the world, where all of societies problems are solved by legislation and who miss the very real impact of large scale immigration, on society and the every day person. But then the opposite polar extreme doesn't see any of the positives that come from the impact of different cultures on society, or how members of different cultural groups contribute to society, and drive it forwards. They also fail to understand that there isn't a singular culture, but a series of cultural groups, imperatives, ideas etc that exist in conflict in any society. But on that extreme, that's not an issue, because in truth, they're not really interested in preserving 'cultures' just enforcing their own views of what is and isn't acceptable in society. The same people would complain about the influence of different cultural groups in society, even if that society was entirely made up of white English men.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 17 5.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think the problem comes from both 'more extreme' sides of the argument on multi-culturalism. Firstly, the pro side, which presents some very idealised view of the world, where all of societies problems are solved by legislation and who miss the very real impact of large scale immigration, on society and the every day person. But then the opposite polar extreme doesn't see any of the positives that come from the impact of different cultures on society, or how members of different cultural groups contribute to society, and drive it forwards. They also fail to understand that there isn't a singular culture, but a series of cultural groups, imperatives, ideas etc that exist in conflict in any society. But on that extreme, that's not an issue, because in truth, they're not really interested in preserving 'cultures' just enforcing their own views of what is and isn't acceptable in society. The same people would complain about the influence of different cultural groups in society, even if that society was entirely made up of white English men. We are a tribal species and we find ways to divide. We also encourage what benefits us and reject what is detrimental. In a complex society those lines are sometimes blurred or exaggerated by a barrage of information and are often seen differently depending on existing prejudices and perceptions. They are not necessarily determined by any one factor but nationality,class,wealth,religion,football team, it's all fair game in the game of division for the benefit of perceived self interest.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Apr 17 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
We are a tribal species and we find ways to divide. But humans, and human tribes, also find ways to align themselves with others. its not that clear cut, because quite clearly, there are people who identify with people across ethnic and national identity. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
We also encourage what benefits us and reject what is detrimental. What we believe may benefit us, or we believe to be detrimental, rather than what is and is not. And that changes, and contains contradictions in real life. I know people who are racist, but have friends who they regarded as 'not one of them really'. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
They are not necessarily determined by any one factor but nationality,class,wealth,religion,football team, it's all fair game in the game of division for the benefit of perceived self interest. I think they tend to be determined by one factor as a generalisation, and then other factors to rationalise contradictions in specific cases. Its why we tend to 'move the goal posts' when we're wrong, rather than just admit that we were wrong - How we generalise about people is very different than how we view specific individuals. Simply because, from an evolutionary perspective, that's better suited to flourishing, than either approach individually. Its even seen in chimps. Young Male chimps will leave their tribe, and join other tribes, but those new tribes will effectively 'test them' until they're accepted or the new chimp wanders off to find another tribe - and at the point of acceptance, the chimp becomes a fully accepted member of the new tribe. The problem is that people tend to think of humans as either / or, rather than hypocritical, in that they hold directly conflicting ideals and views of the world, that vary according to scale.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 05 Apr 17 11.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think they tend to be determined by one factor as a generalisation, and then other factors to rationalise contradictions in specific cases. Its why we tend to 'move the goal posts' when we're wrong, rather than just admit that we were wrong - How we generalise about people is very different than how we view specific individuals. Simply because, from an evolutionary perspective, that's better suited to flourishing, than either approach individually. Its even seen in chimps. Young Male chimps will leave their tribe, and join other tribes, but those new tribes will effectively 'test them' until they're accepted or the new chimp wanders off to find another tribe - and at the point of acceptance, the chimp becomes a fully accepted member of the new tribe. The problem is that people tend to think of humans as either / or, rather than hypocritical, in that they hold directly conflicting ideals and views of the world, that vary according to scale. Well certainly what benefits us can appear counter intuitive and that is not surprising given the complexity of our existence. One assumes that we are driven toward what is beneficial but if one accepts the Dawkinsian view, our genes are what matter and we are just the vehicle. Whether it is possible to reason what is best for our genes or if we simply are driven by instinct to protect them or if both are one and the same is an interesting question.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 12 Apr 17 11.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
More "enrichment". They keep mentioning "asian", but I've yet to encounter a Vietnamese name among these gangs. Nor Chinese. Nor Thai.... The flippant contempt from [presumably] one of their barristers (in another video) on leaving court was fairly surprising.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 13 Apr 17 8.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
More "enrichment". They keep mentioning "asian", but I've yet to encounter a Vietnamese name among these gangs. Nor Chinese. Nor Thai.... The flippant contempt from [presumably] one of their barristers (in another video) on leaving court was fairly surprising. Never seems to be any non-Muslim "Asians" from India either - I expect they are too busy working hard, being law-abiding, integrating well and making their welcome contribution to society. Edited by hedgehog50 (13 Apr 2017 8.13am)
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.