Here’s the Truth: Criminals and Their Groupies Think You’re Stupid
A few weeks ago, a 17-year-old Santa Clarita resident dropped his resume off at a local hobby shop in hopes of finding a job. On his way out he was caught on security video shoplifting a $129 Airsoft gun. When asked why he would steal from a store he was hoping to work at (and that had his full name, address, and phone number), the teen said:
I was actually trying to get a job. And… what can I say? I’m a teenager, that’s stupid.
While most can agree that the reporter was exceptionally generous to add a comma to that last line, what astounds me is how many people accept the premise of this thief’s excuse as an explanation for criminality. Youth and stupidity are what drive teens to knock themselves out doing back flips off vending machines. They are not what drive them to steal from people who have their personal information.
The truth is this that kid assumed that after dropping off his resume the store manager was too busy eating pennies out of the cash drawer to notice what was going on.
All criminals and their groupies think you’re stupid. They don’t just think they’re smarter than you, they assume your intellectual capacity falls somewhere between penny-eating moron on the high end and feces-flinging man monkey on the other. Criminality and support for criminals are driven by the arrogance and contemptuousness of the maladjusted, self-entitled cretins that our society produces through that strange alchemy of bad parenting, urbanization, and sad ’60s nostalgia.
Which brings me to what condescending, over-educated types call the crux of the matter (which we only do to bait commenters into posting links from Wikipedia to prove we’re using the phrase wrong and it’s a meaningless pretense). We then sit in front of our keyboards laughing derisively while yelling “Abusus non tollit usum!” to our long suffering wives. This condescension on the part of criminals and the people who love them (what we usually call liberals) is the driving force behind the moral relativism that seems to be at the root of almost every problem plaguing America.
I’ll provide examples.
” Sure, child molestation is ugly but so is a root canal, flu and dirty diapers. These kids will get over it.
Really? I mean, really? There was a time when the moral relativist at least tried to make some sort of logical argument, but now we have people claiming that childhood sexual abuse is akin to a week with the chicken pox. To say that this argument is contra bonos mores is as charitable as it is pretentious. It is a wicked and depraved justification of evil which this person assumes you’re too distracted to recognize as you stuff your Thanksgiving turkey with copper coin stuffing.”
The basic goal of any therapy is ‘to get over it’ as soon as possible and to get free from the emotional pain those bad memories cause long after physical effects have healed.
For the victim, it makes sense to minimize the catastrophe in their mind, but for potential future victims maximizing the issue for deterrent reasons is as important, but for either party, the medicine for the other is pure poison.
Thought experiment: if we could give victims a drug that wipes only the memory of the sexual abuse, would we administer it? (IIRC we’re close to having such drugs)
And, would that make sexual abuse less bad in people’s understanding? Yes, it would I think and that’s a function of the idea that we can ‘undo/reverse’ the past with future actions and this gives criminals an excuse that unfortunately is accepted because people do not think far enough into the issue to realize the con here — life has no ‘undo’ button, and the tree that falls in the forest does make a sound, even if no-one hears it. And that is why I think you take healthy offense at the quip ‘they’ll get over it’ (even though it’s our fervent hope that they do).
Conservatives simply do not see, or do not accept, that moral relativism allows for no stopping point. To do so would be to accept the fact that there is indeed an absolute. Moral relativism does not say, “All right, we’ve accomplished enough and our work is finished.” Nothing we hold as sacred or true is off limits. We likely will live to see an outspoken member of NAMBLA elected to Congress. If you think I’m exaggerating, try to recall what you thought 30 years ago about what was or was not possible. Now compare that to what is considered normal today. I lot of what was on my “not possible” list is government policy now.
I have previously been a Supervisor running the front desk of a major homeless shelter, so I know these brilliant fellows all too well. You are spot-on, Rob, eight out of ten of them believe they are flipping brilliant compared to everyone else.
One of my biggest delights was noting to them, “hmm, that didn’t work so well for you the last time, now did it?!”
“One of my biggest delights was noting to them, ‘hmm, that didn’t work so well for you the last time, now did it?!’”
That Coach Paterno is Catholic, was Catholic while all this was going on, just a few years after the RCC abuse scandal hit the East Coast, proves Mr Taylor’s point I guess. A billion Catholics worldwide were and are calling for bishops to go to jail for covering up priestly abuse, and it didn’t occur to anyone at Penis State University that maybe there would be some negative reactions when this came out? Because of course Truth always comes out eventually. No, Joe Pa went home from the stadium after a long day at work, read the news about Bernard Law and Marcial Maciel, Angelo Sodano and Franz Rode, then went to Mass on Sunday (where SNAP was protesting maybe?) but it didn’t occur to him that he was going to ever be put on the spot for his own role in the coverup?
Disclosure: I am a survivor so I do take this a lot more seriously than most others. I gotta say though, it’s a lot harder to forgive Bp Raymond Gallagher who covered up for Msgr’s abuse, than it is to forgive Msgr. There was something…broken… about Msgr. But those who sanely, evilly, put the cover-up in place, just to save their own sorry reputations? They’re even bigger monsters.
Ooops, that was me.
@Anonymous, you said: But those who sanely, evilly, put the cover-up in place, just to save their own sorry reputations? They’re even bigger monsters.
I so agree with you. To actually witness this happening to a child or even be aware of it happening and then to socialize with the perpetrator is an abomination.
No, they’re both the same monster: Pure Selfishness. One just happens to not also be perverted.
I cannot agree with you more. To worry about nothing but your reputation and job security and allow this type of abuse to go on is a disgrace. The one thing that I cannot get out of my mind is these poor children and what they are going through. They are still as adults stuck in that terrible time of their life and will never truly be able to get beyond it. I pray for them.
Child molesters/rapists should be considered for inclusion into involuntary organ banks. Their useless existences ended to provide a greater good to the greater society. Think of how many perfectly good lungs, kidneys, hearts, eyes, livers, etc are locked up in these walking cadavers. We should use them as the resource to save the tens of thousands who die every year waiting for organ donations.
End their lives promptly for the greater good of the innocent.
Yeah, and along those lines: part of the aforementioned work was dealing with level-III sex-offenders, the clear bulk of them Pedophiles (I have dealt with around 100 or so by this point in time). I do not believe I have ever met a single one who wasn’t ready to re-offend at the drop of a hat.
If you looked at their records, many of them were multiple offenders, in quite a few cases there were many years between offenses. But that means they were always ready to re-offend, just waiting for the next opportunity.
One incident convinced me totally that the level-III designation was justified. A former client has come in to say hello, and brought his 9 year old son with him. As he is talking to me, off on the periphery of the lobby, one of the level-IIIs caught sight of the kid, and he was transfixed. He just stood there watching; he almost drooled, he was so caught.
Frightening. Sickening. Depraved.
Allston, it is clear that a good number of educated, informed and wise people have much to say to on these matters. It would be great to have places to say them, to have them fully heard out.
The near hyper emotionalism that these subjects naturally provoke, will be a constant barrier to such discussion until an honest social communication framework exists to discuss them in less emotional manner. In our time political correctness greatly hampers the development of such a framework.
So, to clarify… are you saying that when we see a level III sex offender ogling a young child, we shouldn’t feel frightened for that child? We shouldn’t feel sickened that this person, who has raped children in the past, seems to be eyeing their next potential victim? We shouldn’t feel that those are the actions of a depraved individual?
So, what, we should just turn a blind eye and pretend we’re not seeing what we’re seeing? Because it’s now more politically correct to side with the baby rapers?
Please, if this is not anything like the point you’re trying to make, feel free to explain. I’m simply on the edge of my seat with anticipation.
sort of a question- so the guys were homeless b/c they were so monstrous that women had thrown them out to protect their kids?
No, all of them were previously incarcerated due to their acts of sexual depravity, some for a decade or more. Because of the law on where a level-III can reside (due to the distance restrictions to schools, day-care, etc.), there aren’t many places they can go to live. Homeless shelters are way up there, because they usually aren’t in close proximity to anything involving the restricted places. There were/are usually about 10-20 residing where I used to work at any given time.
You’re kidding, right? My cousin was 20, looked 12, when she was murdered and raped (yes) by a pedophile. They finally caught the guy because when he was in prison for molesting his girlfriend’s son, he bragged to his cellmate (armed robbery); the guy was so horrified, he didn’t work out much of a deal to testify.
Guess, guess, guess the (not ex-)girlfriend’s reaction?
I wasn’t kidding.
I don’t give money to homeless guys b/c I assume they’ve beaten up a woman and been thrown out of their house. It seems like every time I’ve asked, that’s the story. since I don’t ask often, and mr allston has more experience, I thought I’d ask him. I was kind of hoping that it was a short-term bit, and they were getting back on their feet, or something. I don’t know.
No joke, Ari, I know of several whose stay extended across five years. There was simply nowhere else for them to go, so they got warehoused there.
Mr. Taylor,
Would this evil, hideous 17-year-old cretin be considered by you to be a helpless, child rape victim if he “consented” to sex with a woman of, say, 21 years in, say, one of the 40 or so states where that is legal in the United States? And if so, would you recommend death for the evil, hideous 21-year-old female cretin? Or would she in any way be able to redeem herself and seek forgiveness for her beyond-the-pale, second-only-to-murder-in-seriousness crime?
Also, are Rob Lowe and Jerry Seinfeld pedophile child rapists? And are those that watch their movies and buy their DVDs accomplices to their evil crimes?
Also, are Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh and Dennis Prager evil groupies of criminals?
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/50425/
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/43966/
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_21-2008_12_27.shtml#1230229488
Dennis Prager:
“Second, no “children” were involved. A 16-year-old is a minor as far as sexual relations are concerned (though, ironically, not in Washington, D.C., whose Democratic lawmakers have made 16 the age of sexual consent). But minor is not the same as child. Foley had no sexual contact, verbal or physical, with any children to the best of anyone’s, including Patty Wetterling’s, knowledge.
To equate seductive e-mails to a 16-year-old – or even the more explicit instant messages with an 18-year-old (which no Republican knew about) – with “molesting children” – only undermines our efforts to fight the enormous, almost unparalleled, evil of child molestation. What Patty Wetterling has deliberately done for political gain is to cheapen, redefine, and thereby reduce hatred of, child molestation.”
Thanks very much for your opinion.
Sincerely,
Seeking Moral Guidance
Seeking: No, you’re not ‘seeking’. You’re preening.
No respect due you, Rob
Steven:
A) No
B) No
C) Maybe – Prager’s quote there is certainly immoral and promoting innapropriate adult/teen relations
Glad to help with the moral guidance.
Thanks, but there were many questions left unanswered. The 21 year old would be an evil child rapist just like Rob Lowe and Jerry Seinfeld are, right? Do they deserve to die?
The 17-year-old may or may not be a statutory rapist – he is pathologically immature which is why he’s dating someone in high school but in some states it’s legal. That doesn’t make it moral however.
I think Seinfeld died many times, but I’m not a woman so I don’t read gossip mags – is he dating a 17-year-old or something? It would be more immoral for a middle age man to date a teen than a 21-year-old. Certainly even you could see that.
I meant the 21-year-old there obviously.
Yeah, he dated a 17 year old when he was in his 30s. Just trying to see why he doesn’t deserve to die and why those people who watch his show are not evil. I’m glad that you do believe in gradations of evil, however. I assumed you didn’t. I stand corrected.
Ah, ok. So you’d agree that Hugh Hefner dating an 18 or 19 year old is immoral also, right?
If a middle age man is dating a teen he is taking advantage of her. Like I said though I don’t keep track of celebrities. It is also immoral and selfish – which is evil.
Hugh Hefner is disgusting – and it’s evil to take advantage of women who are clearly damaged enough to become part of his harem. But none of this is illegal, just wrong. I do think dating teens is probably evidence of other peculiarities however.
You don’t know how relived I am to find that you’re glad to hear something, and that you stand corrected on the straw-man argument you made up.
According to xkcd (#314), the “creepiness factor” equation is (age)/2 +7, so Seinfeld, Hefner, Thurmond, Maciel all ran afoul of the “creep factor”
huh? rob, regarding seinfeld, don’t you publicize statutory rapists (and call them evil scum) on your blog? why is, say, a 23 year old janitor you know nothing about fair game but jerry seinfeld not?
The (circa 1859) quote: “To truly bring an end to slavery in this country will require the slaying of an entire generation of Sothron manhood.”
Is starting to have a modern corallary regarding Liberal/Progressive/Socialists.
The academy has subverted several generations in America. Not just teenagers.
All Americans under 55 — one might as well say ALL Americans, period — have been taught (propagandized) by teachers from the 60s, who spawned teachers of the 80s, who spawned teachers of the 00s . . . .
The immoral but useful idiots that teachers have created are evident not just in adolescents, but in every parent, in every public official, every societal institution, in every sporting event, in every image/video/theater/publication — such that no opposition can now arise which is capable of even slowing the decline.
Thanks, teachers of America! Thanks a lot!
“To truly bring an end to slavery in this country will require the slaying of an entire generation of Sothron manhood.”
Slavery didn’t die so much as it moved further south.
“Is starting to have a modern corallary regarding Liberal/Progressive/Socialists.”
The only honorable path forward through such atrociously well-connected parasites is either masked vigilantism or angry mobs. Those with the money, training, free time, moral sense, drive, and intellectual capacity to bring the necessary legal cases against such a multiplicity of evil targets are few and far between, and cannot hit enough high-profile targets to reverse the public sense of the invincibility of immmorality.
Faith in a ‘conservative hero’ who’ll legally and morally defeat the enemies of truth according to the laws of the land is even more misplaced than the liberal faith in an army of qualified government bureaucrats who’ll staff their utopian society(with a child care provider for every working mother, of course.
The idols of this age need to burn, and burn publicly.
In 2007 the very idea of a second Civil War in this country was unthinkable.
In 2011 we’re starting to think about it.
Then those who can contemplate a new civil war in 2011 are about 15 years behind my curve.
Wow, Mr. Taylor. Wow.
You have completely *imagined out of you mind* what the replies to your prior article are best summarized as being in temper and content. In fact, begging the reader to verify on the reader’s own time by a visit to that prior article as you linked it, those replies have a temper and content fairly far at a remove from what you would have them to be.
Especially you have mischaracterized the replies of Tom Perkins. In the replies to that prior PJM article one respondent, that one Tom Perkins in fact, wrote “He didn’t say that, did he Rob? From what I’ve read of you here, you’re awful big on putting words in people’s mouths.”
Tom was right Mr. Taylor. And so you continue.
It is a true deficiency of the PJM blog, at least as I am in my own limited ways aware of it, that there is no search by poster responding to articles, or self-search, or way to “subscribe” to the replies to an article or to subscribe to a reply posted on an article.
That deficiency, however, more allows you and other article authors the hubris engendering bubble of protection. So it is you continue, uncorrected yourself in your slacker and misanthropic method of making the worst of your opponents in the idea-space by means of misreport.
I didn’t care for parts of Taylor’s article either, so, I think it’s likely that you’ve got some valid points to make, but I have no clue what they are. Your diction is so jumbled and your punctuation to absent that I couldn’t be bothered finishing any of the sentences that I started reading.
Call me a jerk if you must, but I mean this: If you want to be understood, then you should write more simply. Your problem isn’t that you’ve used so-called “big” words, but that you’ve used them in the wrong order. English is a “distributive”, as opposed to an “inflected”, language. Start by looking up what those two terms mean. It’ll clarify a lot.
Now I Get It,
His strange syntax leads me to think that English is probably not his first language.
bvw, you might want to show your next post to one of your gringo friends, so he can help you successfully express your thoughts.
English is a big language. The rules are there, but they are also flexible. On reading the replies on this article as of 9:09 pm EST I believe my post achieved every objective I wrote it to achieve.
My post was not easy to read by that part of the reader’s mind most prone to making mistakes in interpretation because of mental clouding, bias and agitation. However, it is easily read to deeper understandings by readers of the sixth grade level and above, although most will say they did not understand it or that it was too verbose, or in structure of grammar poorly constructed.
The farmer loves the sod turned by the plow pushed by his own broadened shoulders more than that by the tractor for a tractor is more external to him than his own sweat.
Thank you for your comments. I would answer to the points of “inflective” and “distribution” but why? How do you know what you’ve learned today and didn’t know the day before? What is important to you in a day?
So if we do not comprehend your incoherent gibberish we are uneducated, but if we do then we are farmers? Got it!
Oops! That was me. A bit too fast on the draw…
You do understand it, that’s the thing. One of many measures: If it flew right past you then you would not have been bothered enough to complain about it.
You’ve busted some sod.
A friend of mine is from Belgium… not only is English not his first language, but it’s not even his second, or third (those would be French and German, I think). However, you wouldn’t know it to read his posts or other writings. To talk with him, you’d only know from his accent that English isn’t his first language. His grammar is impeccable. He could easily be an English professor.
If he can get the rules of the language right, and not claim that they’re so bendable, what’s your excuse? Because, really, that was gibberish, nearly impossible to follow. If you want anyone to read your comments in their entirety, let alone to change their opinions on this topic to match yours, you really should work on that. As it is, you come across as not only demanding that people agree with your ill-written gibberish, but you’re calling them stupid for not understanding the full extent of what you think you’re saying. Even if your opinions on this subject weren’t complete BS, the old saying goes “you’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.” You can’t bully people into agreeing with you when you’re clearly wrong, especially when the entire premise of your argument seems to be “you’re stupid.” and is based entirely on your poor grammar.
Say what, is there actually a coherent thought in there somewhere?
Well argued.
The real issue here is an ever growing aversion to public shame. Friends and relatives covering for criminals is not a new phenomena, just a more public one since it is quickly becoming a taboo to publicly shame anyone. Coverups, denial and excuse making have always been with us and always will be.
Personally, I think we should bring back the pillory… complete with baskets of half-rotted fruits, vegetables, and eggs. >:D
How would we keep the Sanduskys of the world from raping the pilloried? Then we’d have to listen to people saying getting raped wasn’t a big deal, etc. It’s a can of worms I tell ya’!
You know you’ve been on FB and Disqus too long when you automatically look for the “like” button…
It’d be like “prison justice”… only more out in the open.
“…stuff your Thanksgiving turkey with copper coin stuffing.”
Pennies aren’t made of copper; they are copper-plated zinc.
http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts2
Pre-65 are copper I believe. More expensive to get though which is why I save them for special meals.
@Rob Taylor
I’m actually surprised Sandusky, if the accusations are true, still walks the earth. I remember having a discussion with an old friend, who was also involved with law enforcement at the time, regarding a pedophile and one angry fathers reaction in Lousisana. (I wouldn’t doubt if the clip is out on youtube.)
http://us.toluna.com/opinions/821543/Father-Kidnapped-gets-Revenge-1984-Remember.htm
“As the videotape camera recorded, Leon “Gary” Plauché leveled a firearm at Doucet’s head, firing once and scoring a direct hit, killing him almost instantly, at the airport. …Plauché pleaded “no contest” to a reduced charge of manslaughter, was given a suspended prison term and sentenced to five years of probation,”
I would do the same and take my chances with a jury.
More recently in CT a man is doing life for stabbing a man who molested his daughter. Time they are a changing’
do you support 15 years olds killing their fathers if their fathers have hit them very hard ever — i.e, physically abused minors?
No. Though I support all people’s right to defend themselves when attacked even with deadly force if nessecery. Are you equating getting a hard smack with getting a child getting raped?
Are you equating the crime of passion of a man killing his child’s rapist with a murder plot by an abused teen? All people have a right to defend themselves, and some homicides are justifiable.
i wasn’t equating anything. i was asking you a question.
Times or places? I live in Louisiana and I remember the incident. I dare say if it were to happen today the outcome would be the same. The culture here and the culture of CT are very, very different.
That’s a good point. In the south there’s less moral relativism when it comes to men defending their families.
In the South, men aren’t afraid to kill scum.
Also, pedobear doesn’t like prisons; pedobear doesn’t live long once the other inmates find out he is pedobear.
“More recently in CT a man is doing life for stabbing a man who molested his daughter. Time they are a changing’”
Conneticut? Might as well be Canada.
The mid-west and southern states simply have different cultures (and jury pools) than New England .
I lived in a college town called Midlletown, CT for many years. The people there thought they were the height of sophistication and talked incessantly about there vacations in NYC and how alike they were to NYers. Having lived in NYC I told them CT was less like NY and more like Alabama – if Alabama was in Canada and populated by the French. I was not popular.
“Having lived in NYC I told them CT was less like NY and more like Alabama – if Alabama was in Canada and populated by the French. I was not popular.”
Ouch. I’m not clairvoyant, but I can see you moving in the future.
For what it’s worth, my brother’s family are transplants living in NJ and are counting the days the move back to “fly-over-country.”
Yesterday Salon.com ran a piece about wives of pedophiles. Most commenters were rightly disgusted (it was truly a disgusting article, with details I wish I could erase from my brain now) but there were a fair number of “well think about if you were helplessly attracted to children, what would you do, poor guys, what should we do with them?” sort of letters.
The “Megan McArdle” school of thought. I suppose rapists are “helplessly attracted” to women who are struggling and crying as well, poor babies.
During the last decade of Great Eliza’s reign, a man was caught raping an eight-year-old girl. He was tried, convicted, and hanged inside of a week.
…I’m having a hard time believing that people will argue that child abuse, be it sexual or otherwise, isn’t bad. Or is just something “you can get over.”
I swear we are living in Bizzarro world.
What makes it even more bizarre is that some of those people act like those of us with the moral fortitude to stand up and protect children are the bizarre ones… they act like they just can’t understand our thinking process, but I’m convinced that they do know they’re evil and pretty much effed-in-the-heads.
I wish you would write more often Mr. Taylor. Even when I dont wholly agree with you, your writings are thought provoking and clarify many things for me. The comment section invariably contains interesting discussions, even if some of the commenters appear to be from CT.
Thank you. I will pass along your recommendation to the editors who will in then laugh derisively.
I was so horrified by the people described in this article that I read the original article by Rob Taylor, and a number of the comments.
To be frank, though, Taylor’s reading comprehension of some of those comments, when you look at the original threads, is less than sound. In his defense, a number of some comments were confusingly written, but Taylor mischaracterizes some of what he reports here.
How exactly do you mischaracterize the sentence “Sure, child molestation is ugly but so is a root canal, flu and dirty diapers. These kids will get over it.” Are you saying there’s a way to read that so it doesn’t minimize child rape?
You kind of prove what I just said by assuming I was saying anything about that particular (and despicable) quote.
Here’s an example of where, in my opinion, you do mischaracterize:
“Predictably, defenders of various players in that drama weighed in with nonsense like this…”
And you go on to quote a commenter named Tom Perkins. Perkins’ position seemed to be wanting more information, rather than defending various players.
Here is a second example:
“In his many comments, this person made the case that “moral preening” was in some way as equally outrageous as allowing children to be sodomized. Think about that argument for a second.”
Again the commenter Perkins, and I view that as a dubious reading of his posts.
Explain how Tom Perkins’ point if I’ve misstated it – because he wasn’t “just asking question” but he made several points. The quote from him that I use does present a world view does it not? The moral preening quote literally says it’s possible to witness a child being sodomized and not know it’s abuse. He goes on to claim he knows 12-year-olds who can pass for adults (which is BS) and other things. Tell me what his point is that I missed when he said:
It’s moral preening to claim that in any case of child rape anyone might ever encounter, that it is always immediately obvious that that is what is happening.
Are you saying he isn’t claiming it’s “moral preening’ to know immediately that a grown man sodomizing a child is child rape?
I meant what Tom Perkins’ point is. Excuse the grammer I just got finished working out.
“Are you saying he isn’t claiming it’s “moral preening’ to know immediately that a grown man sodomizing a child is child rape?”
I can’t put words in Perkins’ mouth, but he doesn’t seem to say it is moral preening to ever know immediately, or even know immediately most of the time. He says it is moral preening to claim someone can know immediately in every last circumstance.
Isn’t it plausible that a few 15 or 16 year-old minors could look like an adult (18+) in passing, or at least not be immediately, obviously not an adult?
Second, and more fundamentally, even if you’re correct there are no circumstances in which someone could fail to immediately recognize a statutory child rape (and with a 12 year-old, it does become difficult to imagine otherwise), Perkins’ desire for more information before judging is naive, rather than a “defense” of the Penn State actors.
Here is something he said: “We don’t know what McQueary saw, and no it is not as simple as saying the boy was 10 years old, so he–McQueary–should have immediately and violently intervened. We don’t even know what we don’t know. We don’t know what he saw or thought he saw.” A (perhaps naive) call for info, not a defense.
Third, you also accuse Perkins of equating moral preening to child rape, which is an inaccurate reading of his comments.
By the way, my initial disagreement with you was meant to be frank but not untactful, so my apologies for that.
You cannot seriously argue that an adult can mistake a 10-year-old boy or a 12-yer-old for another adult and you cannot seriously argue that child molestation is subjective. This is the point of my piece. It’s nonsense that you expect me to accept as if I’ve never seen 10 or 12 year olds. I’ve worked in child and teen programs for years – I’ve come across plenty of early puberty cases and none could pass for an adult, period. Perkins’ various comments claiming there are excuses for adults having sex with children are all ridiculous and normal, moral people should react that way.
And you’re misstating me. The point of the last piece was that decent people don’t leave children to be raped. We know Mcquery saw a grown man sodomizing a child – what more clarification do you need to understand that by not intervening (and that need not be violently) McQuery gives up the right to be considered a good person?
The world is not a internet comment section. In real life adults don’t need clarification to know that sodomizing children is evil and that good people don’t let it happen. Perkins wasn’t “questioning” he was arguing against that view.
So again, how else do you read that sentence but that he is thinks you’re too stupid to know that you can’t mistake a child being sodomized for adults having consensual sex?
“Perkins’ various comments claiming there are excuses for adults having sex with children are all ridiculous.”
Where was Perkins excusing adults having sex with children? He wasn’t.
Compare what you say just above:
“We know Mcquery saw a grown man sodomizing a child.”
To what Perkins says in the quote I provide above that:
“We don’t know what McQueary saw…”
“We don’t even know what we don’t know.”
“We don’t know what he saw or thought he saw.”
You two disagree about what the public accurately knows about the case. You two don’t disagree about whether child rape is wrong. You two don’t disagree about whether failure to intervene in a known child rape is wrong. (If Perkins disagrees on sentence 2 or 3, he hasn’t shared it.)
Personally, I believe enough has leaked that the story McQueary saw a child rape and failed to intervene – which is outrageous and immoral – will likely be confirmed by any more info.
“And you’re misstating me.”
You’re the person misstating others. Look, it isn’t my job to defend some random internet commenter. It is your job, however, to have better, logical evidence that clearly supports the contentions (and accusations, really) in your article. You failed to meet that standard.
Rich said:
Read the grand jury report. McQueary clearly states that he saw what he believed to be a ten year old boy being subjected to anal penetration by Sandusky. Nothing else matters, really, does it. He believed he saw a child being raped, and he did nothing. He only told two people what he saw, and neither of them were involved with LE. That is the point that Perkins is trying to downplay, to make people question, when McQueary clearly stated to the grand jury what he believed he saw.
Sorry, but if you see what you believe to be a 10 year old child being sodomized and you don’t call LE immediately, you’re an immoral person. Anyone who would defend such a person is also immoral.
DodiaFae,
Why are you recommending to me that I read the grand jury report? I already believe the available story is likely true and awful.
Maybe Perkins is foolish to believe grand jury reports are not adequately reliable, and foolish to believe we need to hear from regular trials, but you and author Taylor fail to prove he has some nefarious motive.
Read the following claims by Taylor:
1. Perkins “made the case that “moral preening” was in some way as equally outrageous as allowing children to be sodomized.”
2. “Perkins’ various comments claiming there are excuses for adults having sex with children are all ridiculous.”
Like I said before, it isn’t my job to defend Perkins. It is Taylor’s job to prove those two specific allegations. Good luck if you want to help him with that, rather than repeating the terrible details of the Penn State scandal.
Rich, If the grand jury report wasn’t reliable, if that were not the statement that McQueary made, then we’d have heard about it in the media. McQueary himself would likely make a public statement to cover his ass, if for no other reason. Considering how many people are completely disgusted with him at the moment, the fact that he hasn’t made such a statement would mean that he did, in fact, see what he believed to be a 10 year old child being sodomized by Sandusky. Even Perkins isn’t stupid enough to really believe otherwise.
What he’s doing is making a sort of passive-aggressive argument that is designed to make people question what they already know, without actually coming out and saying what people like Drew have said, “These kids will get over it.”); or MikeT, who said “As a rule of thumb, if they don’t appear to be perfect strangers, don’t get involved.”
Oh, wait… he did come right out and claim that child rape is a rare occurrence, citing only men’s rights blogs that say only that rape of adult women is rare (it’s not) and lawyers sites that seem to cater to men’s rights movement sissies. Never mind that NCMEC and others who actually research and specialize in not only protecting children, but treating victims of child sexual abuse, show vastly different statistics.
Actually, I don’t think they believe they are smarter than we are. I don’t believe it’s condescension.
When my son was 10, he concocted the most interesting story about how the vase got broken. It’s not that he thought I would believe it because he thought I was stupid. He thought I would believe it because it sounded pretty good to him. I think that is universally true of youth. It’s not until they reach a certain level of intellectual development do they become consciously aware that some people are smarter/more aware/more experienced than others.
My theory is that criminals – and apparently liberals too – suffer from a stunted level of intellectual development that prevents them from being aware that we see through their cockamamy stories.
Thank you for the article. As an old person who was sexually abused as a child, I have a particular loathing for those who would rape children, and even moreso for those who knowlingly permit it to happen without stopping it. If it hasn’t happened to you, you have no idea how horribly it affects the child’s life. Forever.
It is simply true that for most of humanities existence women did marry at ages that would imply pederasty in the last hundred years.
That is simply true no matter how conservative one is. And saying that is true does not make me want to hunt down twelve year old girls, even if someone chants something in Latin. That is also simply true. Because I would assume I have absorbed my current culture and to me someone who is 13 is a child.
But that was not always so. Telling the truth is at least as important as being able to recite in Latin.
What was in the past should have no bearing on what is today, except that it has led to the knowledge that adult/child sex can have serious consequences, medically, emotionally, and psychologically, for the children involved.
We now know that a child being penetrated by an adult can cause lasting physical damage. Girls being impregnated can have all manner of medical problems that are far less prevalent in adult pregnancy, not to mention child birth.
Sure, it’s true that it was accepted as normal in the past, but it’s illegal now and should remain so. Anyone breaking those laws should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for doing so.
Roman law allowed marriage of 12 year old girls, but Christianity looked down on it because of the physical and emotional damage. (Even Roman physicians warned that adult men having sex with girls that young was damaged them.) Christianity encouraged delaying marriage until late teens. This was the pattern throughout European history since–marriage was typically mid to late teens. (Keep in mind that puberty arrived later because of poor nutrition.) In Colonial America, women usually married at 17 or 18, men 21 or 22.
This column was rather difficult to read, but the point seems to be that “criminals think we’re stupid”. In the case of the bankers, they were right!
One of the strong internal drives for the majority of humans is the need to feel just, righteous, or superior. There are a lot of subtle variations to the many internal needs that drive us, but this need for a self-perception as a “good” or superior person often results in very predictable behavior patterns.
The Prosecutor: Establishes his own righteousness by aggressively exposing the flaws and unlawful behavior of others. They tend to be inflexible and unyielding in their prosecution of others while counting their own shortcomings as understandably forgivable.
The Defender: Establishes moral superiority by declaring that all humanity is flawed and therefore no man should judge another; often claiming that it is unnatural and harmful to repress any of ones desires or emotions.
The Compensator: Tries to offset ignoble behavior with acts of kindness, charity or other “noble” efforts. More than 99% of humanity engages in this behavior to some extent, very often without regard to what the long term consequences of their efforts have been and continue to be.
The Entitled: The extreme form of compensator who works full time at a “noble” profession and therefore feels entitled to self-indulgent practices that are illegal, immoral, or socially unacceptable.
I cannot say that I do not have such a drive or desire, or that I do not deceive myself through one or more of these methods at times. As destructive and undesirable as of these behaviors first look in print, some are in fact necessary for humanity to get along with each other, and over time help us to improve our codes of conduct and justice. External judgement is absolutely necessary but can we ever achieve a better means of self judgment, comparing ourselves not to others, but rather to what we are and what we could be if we tried harder?
Nyahh, not this crazy old hermit, and certainly not our current crop of Geniuses.
Soon you will learn that words, morals, ethics and history are a useless defense against the left. This article is a proof.
Evil only responds to one tool in the human arsenal; force, physical force. Hence the left’s zero tolerance policy against it in the schools where children instinctively know evil will not yield any other way.
We confuse ourselves when we construct beautiful, impreggnable arguments against evil only to see them ignored.
Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky, Parallel Pedophiles
I don’t know or care who Jerry Sandusky’s lawyers are but they should either dump him as a client or he should ask them what he should be saying to the press, if anything.
From the point of view of a non-attorney, I would be aghast at a client accused of serial homosexual child-molestation over decades giving interviews to the media. Granted, the interviewers didn’t dare suggest Sandusky was a homosexual pedophile but, still, allowing him to admit to “liking” young children was tantamount to permitting him to concede he was a Michael Jacksonite with similar preferences.
As with Michael Jackson, Jerry Sandusky liked young boys, although the MSM played down that predilection in both instances, preferring in Jackson’s case to present him as a lover of everyone, in Sandusky’s case as paternally affectionate toward boys and girls. Despite Jackson’s universal love and Sandusky’s fatherliness, neither was ever accused of paying inappropriate attention to females.
In both instances, the mainstreamers were engaged in a cover-up of the truth, that the King of Pop and the PSU assistant coach were gay pedophiles. The chief differences between the two seems to be that Jackson was never indicted and had smarter lawyers–but dumb doctors.
The main similarities are that both were delusional.
To the end, Michael Jackson maintained his innocence of molesting young boys while admitting he slept with them and, in at least one instance, made one young boy rich by paying for his silence.
Even after his arrest on 40 counts of sexual abuse of 8 children over 15 years, Jerry Sandusky insisted his bizarre behavior was totally innocent and that his work on their behalf with his Second Mile Foundation was not grooming them as victims but benefitting them.
There are a number of remarkable parallels between Jackson’s and Sandusky’s delusions.
In Martin Bashir’s disturbing 2003 documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson,” the pop star proudly admitted to activities at his 3000 acre Neverland ranch that would shame normal people. “It’s what the whole world should do,” he told Bashir, among other things.
Jackson also said, ”I tuck them in and put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book and we go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know. We have cookies. It’s very charming. It’s very sweet.” He asked Bashir, “Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
Sweet, if you’re the child’s parent. Loving, if the bed-sharer is a consenting adult.
One 12 year old boy said he asked Jackson if he could stay in his bedroom and Jackson replied, “Look, if you love me you’ll sleep in the bed.” Jackson believed children like to be touched and he would kill himself if he could not be close to young boys: “If there were no children on this earth, if someone announced all kids were dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately.”
In his defense, Jacksonphiles always bought into Michael’s persona as a man-child who saw nothing but innocence in his personal idiosyncrasies, a view that would absolve many pedophiles of any guilt whatsoever, even Jerry Sandusky. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8910.)