You say potato and I say tomato. You say tomato and I say potato then when one becomes Republican, add the letter e or not so it can be a fine point of contention. Tomatoe,Potatoe.

A cynic is a veteran skeptic that sees the same signs and knows whats coming. They are looked upon by those optimists as “gloom and doomers” who look for the good in all people even when the cynic tells them the signs of the bad ones and evil ones then ignores him/her or even condemns them for saying such.

Obfuscators and their ilk are a danger to one of the fundamentals of human organization—-communication. Playing fast and loose with language in order to simply ‘win’ at debating is underhanded and essentially cheating. The best we can do is point it out and move on with competent and clear discourse regardless of what others may say.

Oh, I can handle it.  Can you? I’m just getting warmed up… You keep pushing your pedantic sophistry as valid criticism and I keep saying it’s crap because—-IT IS CRAP.

Today to Anarcissie “skeptic” means questioning.  “cynic” means super-skeptic.  But what is a someone who denies all answers without actually having a basis to do that? Not questions, denies.  Why, that should be a “cynic”...but Anarcissie has already STOLEN the meaning of “cynic” to be the same as super-“skeptic”...whatever the fuck that is.

See, being a skeptic is like being pregnant—it’s binary. You are, or you ain’t.  It’s like being male or female.  You’re male or you ain’t. You’re female or you ain’t.  On cannot be a “skeptic” and the next guy be MORE of a “skeptic”.

You cheapen and insult your own language when you use situational ethics to change the meaning of the words to what you want them to be.

It goes further: It’s cheating at arguing.  The FIRST thing debaters must do is agree on a common language and terminology.  You keep changing it to mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean—then think you can nail me with my own words by using your NEW altered meaning.

It’s fundamentally dishonest arguing.  Which is what I’ve said about you all along.  You want to say EVERYTHING in the New York Times can be disbelieved, but you don’t want to admit you are saying that.

As Bruce Wayne said to the guy in the Chinese prison: “You’re not the Devil.  You’re practice!”

Inherit The Wind:
‘You think because you engage in basic sophistry that that means you have “deep thoughts” and that I haven’t thought about it?

What kind of arrogant nonsense is this? ...

If you can’t handle the game, don’t play it.

Anarcissie, July 20 at 4:12 pm #

I wouldn’t say you’re a bad guy at all, but you don’t seem to have thought about the issues we’ve been discussing very much, certainly not critically, and you’re very stubbornly resisting my attempts to get you to do it.  Above, for instance, you’re suggesting that words have intrinsic meaning, a philosophically and scientifically untenable position unless you believe the gods gave mankind language in immutable form.  Now, it would be pretty easy to back you off that position, just as it was easy to back you off the position that the corporate media were reliable.  But why take on that kind of mental baggage in the first place?
*************************************************

You think because you engage in basic sophistry that that means you have “deep thoughts” and that I haven’t thought about it?

What kind of arrogant nonsense is this?  You want to play Ron Ziegler, go ahead, but don’t claim that gives you any insight at all, just a tendency to obfuscate.

Pedantry should not be confused for critical thinking.

I was merely trying to point out…

I guess “You sound like…” made you blank out and becomereflexively defensive.  To repeat, I meant no criticism. I was merely pointing out that on this subject we have to innoculate ourselves with disclaimers like “I’m not defending child molesters” (as if anyone does), much like Cold War liberals had to defend themselves from accusations of being “soft on Communism,” by being defense hawks.  Get it?  If not, then I suggest you read the history of the period.

I notice people here are so touchy (like Scheer himself) that the comments quickly devolve from the articles and issues to silly bickering.

Inherit the Wind:
’…and I’m a bad guy for claiming word definitions mean what they mean. ...’

I wouldn’t say you’re a bad guy at all, but you don’t seem to have thought about the issues we’ve been discussing very much, certainly not critically, and you’re very stubbornly resisting my attempts to get you to do it.  Above, for instance, you’re suggesting that words have intrinsic meaning, a philosophically and scientifically untenable position unless you believe the gods gave mankind language in immutable form.  Now, it would be pretty easy to back you off that position, just as it was easy to back you off the position that the corporate media were reliable.  But why take on that kind of mental baggage in the first place?

Incidentally, Clinton’s remark about the meaning of is was linguistically correct but of course politically a bad move.  A politician must speak to the belly, not to the head.  Clinton should have known that from contemplation of his own defects.

Leefeller, July 20 at 2:13 pm #

Appreciate the refresher definitions, sometimes one looses sight of things as they were.  If cynics do not question their assumptions, they may also be absolutists?
*******************************************

Yup.

Despite Anarcissie’s best efforts it’s really NOT rocket science.  It’s very straight-forward.

His games with language and meaning are merely Carollian Humpty-Dumpty Jabberwocky.  Words mean exactly what he wants them to mean, at that moment, no more, no less.  And if he wants them to mean something else a minute later, then they mean something else.

So Anarcissie’s word games are like saying “he” and “she” mean the same thing and you can interchange them and mix them up…and I’m a bad guy for claiming word definitions mean what they mean.

Otherwise it’s…“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

Leefeller:
‘Appreciate the refresher definitions, sometimes one looses sight of things as they were.  If cynics do not question their assumptions, they may also be absolutists?’

Cynics are bad.  Absolutists are bad.  Therefore, cynics are absolutists.

Skeptics are good.  Absolutists are bad.  Therefore, skeptics are not absolutists.

Night Guant—Yes. The case I talked about, I had to go and testify against my friend—I had been her maid of honor, but couldnt believe that she was trying to keep Jennifer from her father, just because they had had a bad relationship. It wasnt fair.

He also had a daughter with the person he was getting ready to marry—if found guilty what would the courts do about that? I just couldnt let it go, even though I didnt really like him..lol..but I’m positive I did the right thing.

ITW,

“Skepticism is based on doubt and questioning. A skeptic questions.”

“Cynicism is based on ASSUMPTIONS of the worst. A cynic ASSUMES the answers and doesn’t bother questioning.”

Appreciate the refresher definitions, sometimes one looses sight of things as they were.  If cynics do not question their assumptions, they may also be absolutists?

KDelphi divorces are where the most ugly side of humans come out. Every possible means is used to sabotage each other. That is where the gun play in courts come from, not from drug dealers and Mafia types but divorce court. That includes lying and impuning the former spouse with charges of child rape. Such accusations must be investigated but can’t be trusted on their face.

jmr—I was merely trying to point out , to Night Guant, that I think it is odd that we get postcards about “sex offenders” and not about any other violent offender. If the system trusts them that little, maybe they should stay in jail.

I dont get the Cold War liberal stuff…what does that mean?

I did know a man who was accused of sexually abusing his daughter, just as he was divorcing his wife. I thought it odd, and, had a talk with the little girl and she seemed to be “speaking out of her age”—I finally got her mother (a former friend of mine) to admit that she wanted to keep her from her father because she was so angry that he was getting re-married so quickly.

It does happen.

To me a cynic sees the worst and does expect it more often than not and are proven correct more often than not, but are considered a “negative” influence. They can also be called realists.

To me it is skeptics vs de-bunkers. De-bunkers already know that ghosts/cryptids/etc do not exist and so they are there to say so and to find any reason to make sure it stays that way. Skeptics say proof, or enough such proof hasn’t been given so it isn’t ‘real’ as of now. They continue to search for that truth. That is how I operate.

Mass hysteria is acmeme gone viral that seems to activate not just the amygdala to go wild, but to shut down the neo-cortex and self induce hallucinations to support that. False memories and all. I would be interested in what psychiatrists and neuro scientists say on this phenomena?

You’re saying, I guess, that a cynic is a believer.  However, people are often said to be “cynical” if they are merely skeptical, when the thing to be believed in is widely held to be worthy of reverence.  That’s the way people use the language.  Regardless, I don’t think you can determine whether someone is cynical (a believer) or skeptical (a disbeliever) until you examine the evidence that person is presenting, or provide different evidence of your own.  So if you find my experiences of the media to be atypical, misunderstood, or falsely reported, it seems only reasonable to ask what the contrary positive experiences you have had which cause you to doubt mine (or those of any other “cynic”).  Otherwise it will seem as if you are the believer (bad) instead of the skeptic (good).

Now, it seems, you’ve decided that Folktruther and I are not wrong to be skeptical; your criticism is that we’re “cynical”, which I take it means “excessively skeptical”.  Can you say just how skeptical a person ought to be?
******************************************

Are you being deliberately dense? 

Skepticism is based on doubt and questioning. A skeptic questions.

Cynicism is based on ASSUMPTIONS of the worst. A cynic ASSUMES the answers and doesn’t bother questioning.

They are NOT the same thing at all. 
They are not related things of different degrees.
They are opposites.

I cannot make it any simpler.  I just cannot.  You either understand the English language or you don’t.

Inherit The Wind:
‘Anarcissie:

I’m getting bored with your mixing up phrases and ideas so let me see if I can put a few concepts in simple terms.

1) I can’t PROVE the NYTimes is never wrong—can’t prove a negative. ...’

Oh, I thought distrust of the New York Times was one of those things which were “patently factually false and absurd”—in other words, your were saying the Times was patently trustworthy.  I guess not—if the Times was patently trustworthy, anyone could observe it.  That’s what patent means.

Now, it seems, you’ve decided that Folktruther and I are not wrong to be skeptical; your criticism is that we’re “cynical”, which I take it means “excessively skeptical”.  Can you say just how skeptical a person ought to be?

I guess I have to point out that the Times claims to print the truth (almost) all the time, so to be skeptical of it is to doubt it in its entirety.  It’s like doubting something in the Bible for a literalist fundie—if you doubt one thing, you’ve got to doubt it all.  It looks like you’re taking the cynical position yourself—although you’re welcome to say how you distinguish between your skepticism (the right kind) and mine (the wrong kind).

Incidentally, I have not said the mass media lie 100% of the time.  My personal experience (as I think I said) has been more variegated: whenever I have had knowledge of some situation or event in such as the Times, the report has been somewhere between half wrong and all wrong.  That could be due to lying, but it could also be due to ignorance, stupidity, inattention, negligence, sycophancy, or other unintentional defects.  It is the Times‘s claim to print absolute objective truth which is the central lie.

Anyway, even liars have to tell the truth sometimes.  Take the Katyn massacre.  The Nazis, who made a practice of lying, said the Soviets did it.  The Soviets, who made a practice of lying, said the Nazis did it.  One of them was forced to tell the truth, contrary to their most fundamental principles.  It can happen.  Just so, a cruel fate sometimes compels the corporate media to speak the truth against their best intentions.

Kdelphi, you remind me of the Cold War liberal who, in order to be progressive on social issues, had to be a defense hawk, so no one would accuse him of being “soft on Communism”.  Likewise, in bringing perspective to this discussion, you feel constrained to say, “I’m not defending child molesters.”  This is no criticism of you but of the sorry state of the public discourse, that we must make these disclaimers.

This is for real.  Any attempt to promote an objective view of the issue is risky, to wit, Truth Versus Political Correctness

Anarcissie:

I’m getting bored with your mixing up phrases and ideas so let me see if I can put a few concepts in simple terms.

1) I can’t PROVE the NYTimes is never wrong—can’t prove a negative.
2) You need to learn the difference between skepticism and cynicism.  You and FT are cynics. I am a skeptic.
3) “It’s in the MSM. I need to question it and not take it at face-value.”  That’s skepticism.
4) “It’s in the MSM. Therefore I can and will assume it’s automatically false and I can dispense with giving it any consideration”.  That’s cynicism.
5) I have NOTHING against acting as in 3).  I’m in favor of it.
6) I’m against acting as in 4).
7) Except when it involves Fox Noise…. .

Have I finally put it in clear enough and simple enough terms for you?

Ok, even simpler.  3 words:

Skepticism versus cynicism.

Inherit The Wind:
’... I can’t tell you all the members of “TC”, but obviously they include FolkTruther, Ed Harges, Robert (Mr. Xerox), TruthDigger3 and Patrick Henry as some of its “leading lights”.  They ALL follow a particular set of political axioms, from which they do not deviate, even when shown they are patently factually false and absurd. ...’

You’re right, I painted with too broad a brush.  It seems to be only Marxisty types you assign to this contingent.  I guess.  And people who don’t trust the mainstream media, but that is now a majority position in the U.S. (according to polls I read about in the mainstream media, anyway.)

Speaking of which, when are you going to show that distrusting the corporate media is patently factually false and absurd?  I think that’s what we were going on about a little while ago and I was looking forward to your defense of the New York Times and its kind.

jmr—Yes, it seems that the parents of a boy, sold their son’s “innocence” to M. Jackson for , what was it $20 million? There were more, I think….

Night Guant—I wondered that too…postcards of sex offenders (with no mention of the OFFENSE—I mean, a 19 boy having sex with a 16 yr old girl that he may have been dating may be “illegal” but it is certainly different than sex with a 10 yr old), but not of violent offenders…I am NOT defending child molesters..

Anarcisse,

Disagreement is not the issue, it is the absolutism’s which seem, to permeate from certain posters. ITW described the contingent clearly enough, I actually cannot remember all the names nor are they important to me, knowing the names could save much wasted time in one sided discussion. 

Changing ones mind could be construed in some circles like politics as flip flopping, possibly absolutists cannot except change or differences, so they attack ideas and opinions other then their own, instead of allowing for open discussion. 

Does not reason require a possibility to accept change in opinion? Sadly some do not seem to have the ability to use reason for their entrenched concepts are locked in, such as some religious or bigot]s as examples, once fanatics have their agendas no allowance are given for other ideas or even the truth. 

Seems to me, enlightenment as growth, must be capable of accepting new ideas and concepts of opinion.

stcfarms,

At first I was going to criticize your posted article for lack of sources, but links were provided as only can be done on the web. One can accept the article at face value and perceive it as sadly true, seems it would have been more likely as true in Texas or the south and I thought Maryland was in the north?

Inequities seem to have increased with the extra scrutiny of the web and the post burning Bush. 

Sounds like they hate dogs in that neck of the woods.  a very slipshod and possibly corrupt County, I must say, law suites fly were I live when this kind of abuses and mistakes happen. What is with the head of the country, sounds more like a king, we have 5 supervisors and a employed county manager who answers to the sups, supposedly the supers answer to the people we elect them anyway.

When ItW mentioned “the contingent” I assumed I assumed he was talking about people who disagree with him ideologically.  They, clearly, are ipso facto bad; therefore, their rhetorical practice must be bad, for example, adhering to their beliefs rather than seeing the error of their ways and adopting other beliefs closer to ItW’s.  It is my impression, however, that this is common practice among people of almost all beliefs.
***********************************************

I’m not surprised you would think that.  A little disappointed, but not surprised.

There are lots of people here I disagree with on one or more issues who are not in “The Contingent” ranging from Ozark and Nefesh to Shingo and TheBeerDoctor and Tony Wicher.  Plus my favorite to laugh with and rant at: Cyrena (where IS my pal, anyway?)

I can’t tell you all the members of “TC”, but obviously they include FolkTruther, Ed Harges, Robert (Mr. Xerox), TruthDigger3 and Patrick Henry as some of its “leading lights”.  They ALL follow a particular set of political axioms, from which they do not deviate, even when shown they are patently factually false and absurd.

It’s an attitude: All the failures of the West are due to inherent corruption of Western society.  All the failures of Marxist, Arab and Islamic societies are based on…the inherent corruption of Western society.  They (like you) believe NOTHING in the mainstream media, but are all to eager to believe anything posted on the Internet regardless of the source.

Nothing bad ever happens in the world that isn’t instigated by the CIA/NSA and Mossad, in league with AIPAC.  Anyone who counters their arguments is a raving zionist akin to, and no different from Avigdor Lieberman.

Now, Anarcissie: Is THAT a clear enough definition of “The Contingent”?

Leefeller:
‘Anarcisse commented:
“I am surprised you find this characteristic confined to a category of participants in one particular electronic forum.”

Never said it was confined to TD nor to a category of participants, my reference was to the absolutists who appear on TD, where disagreement becomes a shouting match or posting from the ancient goat herders manual and then their is always the contingent as ITW mentioned.’

When ItW mentioned “the contingent” I assumed I assumed he was talking about people who disagree with him ideologically.  They, clearly, are ipso facto bad; therefore, their rhetorical practice must be bad, for example, adhering to their beliefs rather than seeing the error of their ways and adopting other beliefs closer to ItW’s.  It is my impression, however, that this is common practice among people of almost all beliefs.

I want you to know, though, that I’m different.  In the last 20 years I’ve changed my mind about something twice.  Maybe even three times.

On the other hand

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Here is a verifiable list of Republican office holders, party officials, prosecutors,  and even one rape hotline volunteer who also worked in a paid position for the GOP (Ted Bundy) who have all been convicted of some serious crimes against children, or murder, including torture-murders. When you get past those types, the next in line ARE the scoutmasters, ministers, deacons and priests. Fundamentalist religion seems to create some fairly dangerous characters, and all of them, hypocritically preach family values, moral majoritarianism, and so on.

One day, when my man and I were going through the town of Ventura, California, we saw a small boy - practically a toddler - alone in a city parking lot, which was mostly empty. I got out of the truck to help if I could, but he had been well trained to fear strangers and screamed in terror. He began running down the alley toward a boulevard, so I followed him on foot and my friend followed me in the truck. He stopped and became paralyzed with fear, shrieking and I passed him while the truck stayed along side him, hopefully to prevent his running out into the street or something. I got to the sidewalk and noticed that a tall man and a woman appeared to be frantically looking for something. The man was closer, so I went to him and reached up and tapped him and said, are you looking for a little boy?

He turned on me, a 5’ tall middle aged woman with the best of intentions, and with a complete look of rage on his face, cocked his fist at me. I was not afraid of him, but I was shocked. I pointed at the alley and he ran to find his son, without a word of thanks or apology, although I believe his son was in a dangerous situation vis a vis traffic when we found him.

Shaken, I got in the truck and we left, me feeling bruised and abused and half wondering whether we should even have ‘interfered.’

And I bet more kids are killed in traffic than by abduction.

You cannot change the police state but you can still leave it. In the 1930’s millions of German citizens chose to leave rather than participate in the nazi madness. My girlfriend and I intend to leave as soon as I finish our self sufficient, ocean going raft. I feel bad about those that choose to stay and fight the beast but in the final analysis survival must come before altruism. Perhaps this article http://www.reason.com/news/show/134734.html will show just how crazy the government really is.

KDelphi, you’re right on target.  With most parents it’s a matter of, “Keep your hands off my stuff!”

Of course kids aren’t property, but they are a responsibility, and parents rightly feel at least morally accountable for what happens to them.  That a kid was having sex with an adult is, in a perverse way, almost welcome, because it allows parents to shift the onus of responsibility to an interloper.  Problem is, the bigger deal they make of it the worse it is for the kid.

Consider Chris Hedges’s The Man in the Mirror.  It’s horrible to contemplate, but is our society so depraved that we would trade on our children’s misadventures for our fifteen minutes of fame?  Past history—from McMartin to the priest scandals—seems to suggest that we would.

the mass hysteria is promoted to conduct surveillance operations.

Yes you get card warnings when a convicted “sex offender*” moves into your neighborhood but not necessarily a child rapist. Also you have no idea how many murders, con artists, adult rapists and robbers have moved in—-no reason to tell you that. Now why is that?

*Public nudity of any kind including urination will get you slapped with that red letter. You might as well kill yourself before someone else does with that red mark on your life.

I agree with those here who talk about our society’s sexualization of children, and, the fact that most cases of pedophilia are incestuous.

There are certainly molesters out here, (I get cards that one is moving up the street every few weeks lately)but, I think that the MSM finds it titillating, so they report it with more enthusiasm than murders, or, even, the “wars”!

The US also seems to extend the “ownership of kids” by their parent to extremes—-the entire society has a vested interest in what happens to children and we have a right to protect them and see that they are not abused or neglected and are taught the lessons necessary to survive in society.(ie “Its my child, I will punish them as I see fit” or the constant MSM prnouncements that “parents know what is best for their own child”—well, one would hope so, but we know damn well that that is often not true)Far too many see their kids are possessions, theirs alone. If that parent is not fit, we have a time bomb on our hands.

And, yes, Anarcissie, we do know who those 90% are, perhaps the most incidious of all.

I’ve said I was wrong about something, on here, a few times. It seemed to be met with almost amazement (that I would admit it, not that I was “wrong” lol) I always thought that that was the way to behave….oh, well…

Where I live in Hoot Owl, most people admit they have gone the wrong way on occasion, in my case most of the time, though it may be because in the next town Soggybits, they have more than one street named “wrong way”.

If one person is right and finds another disagreeing, this must mean they are both right?

Anarcisse commented:

“I am surprised you find this characteristic confined to a category of participants in one particular electronic forum.”

Never said it was confined to TD nor to a category of participants, my reference was to the absolutists who appear on TD, where disagreement becomes a shouting match or posting from the ancient goat herders manual and then their is always the contingent as ITW mentioned.

Leefeller:
‘Your ex sister in law sounds like some posters on TD, several names come to mind, talking mostly about the disagreeing part and of course never ever being wrong!’

I seldom see anyone anywhere admit to being wrong about anything, not if they can possibly avoid it.  I am surprised you find this characteristic confined to a category of participants in one particular electronic forum.

Disagreeing, though, is what makes conversation interesting.  If we all agreed, there would be no need to say anything.  However, some disagreements are more interesting than others.

I love the commentary about this subject. Being gay and also involved in activities once illegal in California, always made me fear what society might do to me, but I am attracted to adults, not children, so I never considered how innocent nurturing behavior could be criminalized.

I believe child molestation peaked in the nineteenth century. Families lived in one room; beds were expensive so an entire family might sleep in one. Yes, opportunity; also alcoholism was rampant among the working poor. Read Engels on “The Working Class of England”—it’s an illuminating read and perhaps prophetic of our own near future. The vast majority of people were shockingly ignorant, ill-fed, ill-shod, ill-clothed, ill treated. Many were functioning just above an animal sensibility, and it was normal for men to beat their wives for any “reason” and their children as well. They, by the way, were not even counted as human beings!

A nineteenth century child might find the experience of molestation strange, too intimate, but would be grateful to escape the lash, fist or boot. As for the Sheeple of the United States of Amnesia, what can one say? That there are costs for being stupid?

herewegoagain:
’... What you call a “media fetish” I call a public safety announcement. ...’

You can call it what you like.  Its purpose is to make money.  If they were interested in public safety they would focus on the actual site of 90% or more of all child abuse, sexual and otherwise, and on the actual perpetrators of it, who are very seldom your shadowy scoutmaster or assistant vice principal and very often some other category of person whom I’ll bet I don’t have to name.

Leefeller, July 17 at 5:53 pm #

In the long run, the word doomed comes to mind.
*********************************************

Oh, that word….“EX-”....is just so delicious!!!

VERY few TDers fall as low as my ex-SIL, not even “The Contingent”. The few true nazis that post here…they are as low as she is.

I look at my brother, shrug and say: “You were in love, man. You were blind.”

ITW,

Your ex sister in law sounds like some posters on TD, several names come to mind, talking mostly about the disagreeing part and of course never ever being wrong!

In the long run, the word doomed comes to mind.

To be a youth baseball coach in our sick society is to witness firsthand the actions of the “new dumb”. To be on the mound talking to an 11 year old who has just walked 3 batters in a row, and is considering hari-cari as a way out, and to hear from the crowd an audible gasp as you smack the kid on the butt and try to convince him that he is only one pitch away from finishing this inning, is to know how truely depraved people have become in america.

However, the cup is still half full, because for every parent that looks at me like I have a pile of kiddie porn in my garage, there are far more who congratulate me for treating their kids in an “old school” manner.

Russian Paul, July 17 at 2:18 pm #

Does anyone know any accurate figures about how many kids go missing every year in the US? I’ve found different numbers ranging from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands…it’s supposed to be a ridiculously high number. Creating draconian laws and overreacting are bad responses, sure, but I’m not convinced that a huge percentage of our kids aren’t going missing, and perhaps not for the reasons we think they are.
******************************************

I said pretty much the same thing.  Without hard numbers all these discussions are just pissin’ in the wind.

Still, accusations of spousal abuse and pederasty and incest are now nuclear options of divorce cases. My brother’s ex-, a lazy, good-for-nothing piece of trailer-trash whose ONLY talent is pissing other people’s money away, claimed he “mentally” and “emotionally” abused her.  Of course, her definition of “abuse” was….anybody disagreeing with her or correcting her on ANYTHING, no matter how idiotic it was.  She was never, EVER wrong.  And she never earned a nickle.  Wasn’t much of a house-keeper either.  She came with kids and my brother took care of them too, paying for their college ed and all. She wants him to support her for the rest of her life and, being a consummate liar and con artist (who scammed my wife and me), she will do or say ANYTHING to achieve her goals—which is to have someone ELSE pay her way.  So claiming “abuse” is just another way.

At least the kids, now grown, know the score.

When I was a teen we (usually guys but sometimes couples) used to hang out at the house of a D.O.M. (Dirty Old Man).  He was a funny, interesting old letch.  His fridge had beer, and joints were passed. We might be sleeping off a hangover, and maybe he’d come in to gawk or even paw, and some lucky stiff (so to speak) might even get a b.j.  Big effing deal—we could take care of ourselves! 

Later I read where the D.O.M., who taught us how to treat others and provided a safe place to test our limits, had received a long prison term for “contributing to the delinquency of minors”.  Decades later, when I think back on the gross injustice done this kind, gentle man, I’m filled with rage.

The lesson:  there is something sick about the way we react to the thought, if not the reality, of young people and sex.  Of course, violence or force, and molesting the very young, are beyond the pale and rightly regarded as the worst of crimes.  But to conflate these with the above situation is absurd and says more about our pathological views about sex than it does about “protecting” our children.

A while ago, Michael Kinsley brought rare perspective to the priest hysteria:
http://jmr.dk/mk.htm

I also recommend the marvelous movie, Doubt, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. In an Oscar-winning scene, Viola Davis shames all those who would rather be right than kind.

Because we have such extensive media coverage all over the world people can get a misproportion of just how prevalent something is. Like child rape and yet such things are a part of human culture from the dim past to today. However the such ideas of it being bad are recent, starting in the late 19th century. Rev. Charles Lutwig Dodgeson aka “Lewis Carol” found that out during his life. He liked to photograph children, some of them in various states of undress. Early on it was considered okay, nothing bad about it. But later the kind of sensitivity we see today in that area first manifested itself then. Only now it is in the hypersensitive range of reactions as others have attested on this forum. [I too have felt that apprehension about whether I am looked upon, as a stranger, and possible child abductor by worried parents which could make me do something that appears scary out of shear nervousness.]

You had better be careful how you take pictures of your kids in the bath and running around naked. You could be charged with child pornography. 14 year olds sending nude pictures of themselves to boy friends have found themselves charged with child pornography of themselves! Only in America. [How do they deal with Naturist (nude) colonies where everyone from toddler to grandparent are au natural?]

We have the disparity caused by the anti-human purient haters of nudity and at the same time Madison Avenue’s sexualization of advertisement creating a confluent confusion of reactions. Many of them contradictory. This while at the same time sexual education in neutered by those same anti-human forces who promote abstinence only ‘education’ and even ‘Virginity Balls’ attended by fathers and daughters. Such contradictions can render a society asunder if not fixed.

The fix could be draconian Puritanical laws under penalty of imprisonment or death if the theocrats win for their black/white world of yes or no.

Does anyone know any accurate figures about how many kids go missing every year in the US? I’ve found different numbers ranging from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands…it’s supposed to be a ridiculously high number. Creating draconian laws and overreacting are bad responses, sure, but I’m not convinced that a huge percentage of our kids aren’t going missing, and perhaps not for the reasons we think they are.

People should be as concerned about granting access to their middle and high school age children by the military recruiters.

herewegoagain:
‘Sorry, I disagree with most of the comments on this page and the article’s premise.

You cannot open a newspaper these days without reading about some twisted freak molesting and brutalizing a child, or an Internet kiddie porn ring being busted. ...’

That’s the whole point here, isn’t it?  “You cannot open a newspaper,” etc.—child molestation has become a media fetish.

No doubt there is a lot of abuse of children, but most of it takes place in the sacred precincts of the family; and the media don’t want to offend the family-values people.  So there is a tremendous emphasis on career child molesters and sexual offender databases.  And as I said before all this takes place in the context of the infantilization of adults and the sexualization of children, not in some child-molester’s basement, but in front of every TV.  It’s like the car wrecks on TV—the audience is a remote, passive enabler of the supposed disaster.  They’re digging it.

Accused of pederasty, once done you cannot escape the dreaded accusation. Many non-custodial parents are accused of this very crime by the custodial parent for the simple fact that the custodial parent does not want you, the non-custodial parent to have any contact with your children.
Having gone through the process of the witch-hunt, I am now branded for life. I cannot work around children all because of the unfounded accusation of my ex-wife, she was going to lose custody of the children and made that accusation so that I would not gain custody and have to have her pay me for the care of the twins.
It is highly likely that any child abduction is really a custodial battle, but the law is such that any time you are late returning your children, this is custodial interference and parental neglect.
I cannot understand the hysteria surrounding the need of the type of draconian laws that now exist and have branded unnecessarily someone who, should be working with children but because of unfounded and negative reports can no longer interact with them.

derfed:
‘What really drives me insane is the fact that the same media and populace scream about the supposed dangers to our children are the same media and the same populace who have promoted and acquiesced to the almost three decades of never ending sexualization of our children.’

The sexualization of children (which the panic and frenzy about pederasty and abduction intensifies) is the inevitable result of the infantilization of the population in general.  For example, the raising of the age of consent to 18, or the drinking age to 21, or the ever-expanding requirements for educational credentials.  When adults become indistinguishable from children, children become indistinguishable from adults.

Lets see, we go to war at the drop of a hat, from people having been killed or not. It is against the law to partake in drugs, not profitable to certain entities and so outlawed by the government. Seems a number of Americans believe the world was made in 7 days 6000 years ago and things turned to shit, because a naked couple talked to a snake.  Now some believe the world will end in 2012, which is supposed to be an improvement?  So why not pedophiles, and Witches? Pedophiles have been personified with by the Catholic Church and of course the accused past Michale Jackson.

Living in fear is a noble motivator for morons. Afraid of the Gays, the Muslims, the Jews the left or right and of course the truth and reality are not necessary,  so why not be afraid of Catholic elders and Harry Potter just add it to the growing list.

Since I am afraid of clowns, my phobias include the Republicans.

It’s a sad world we live in today. I blame a lot of this on the so-called talk radio “Child Psychology Experts,” many of whom (themselves childless) have now effectively convinced mothers that it’s wrong to warmly hug their own sons, and made fathers afraid to affectionately kiss their own daughters. And all for what? For fear that “it won’t look right” to somebody or other who might observe such behaviors and draw a wrong conclusion on the spot.

This lunacy has got to stop.

A few years ago I spotted a beautiful old GTO in a parking lot and was looking it over. A hysterical man came up to me screaming “stay away from my kid” (I had not even noticed the kid in the car). When he pushed me (I had not even touched the car) and dialed 911 I figured the situation was out of control so I broke his nose and left. It is a sad fact that now I would not even try to save his kid if the car was on fire for fear of arrest as a pedophile.

And for this, folks, we must thank the Religious Right (which is neither).  Let’s applaud just one more of their faith-based initiative…

I live in N.Central NJ and “Megan’s Law” happened because of Megan Kanka, who didn’t live too far from here.  A couple of years ago another child was murdered by an immigrant over in Morristown, also very close.  I don’t know how many other cases there have been close at hand either.

Of course, one of the victims of the UniBomber wasn’t far from here either.

And, of course, the 3,000 victims in the WTC was only 25 miles away as well.

So….the REAL question which is NOT answered in this article is exactly HOW prevalent is pederasty? That’s a number that can be measured.
How many crimes are committed?
What % are sex crimes? 
What % pedophilic crimes? 
How many children in a population of 100,000 have a chance of being molested by an adult?
How many abducted?
How many murdered?

Until these questions are answered this article is just a journalist pissing in the wind.  His point is unproven.  A careful parent is a vigilant parent.

Journalistic porn disguised as alarum, sordid entertainment raised to high dudgeon.

The media prey on our fear and pander to our appetite for the lurid, and we play right along.  Our hysteria, like that of the “bewitched” Salem girls, is feigned.  “They’re everywhere!” because we want them to be.

Thanks for this article. The hysteria about the extremely rare child abductions and child molestations is so great here in the US that at my job at a public art gallery and art school, new categories have been added to our warning alarm system. For years, the alarm would go off whenever a thunderstorm, flash flood, or tornado was eminent (helpful to have that in central Texas). Within recent months, it has also been set to go off if a “suspected child molester” is thought to be “in the area” and if a possible “child abduction” is reported to have occurred “in the area”. Imagine a piercing siren going off in closed quarters whenever a divorced parent makes a vengeful call to the police because the ex-spouse and non-custodial parent of the children isn’t exactly on time getting them back to the custodial parent after having the children for their allotted visitation with the ex-spouse. I also have paranoid relatives who call the police whenever their teenage kids aren’t back exactly on time from being down the street visiting friends. Insane.

You may also have heard environmental writers talk about how parents’ fear of child abduction is contributing to children’s increasing alienation from nature, since they’re not allowed to go outside much anymore. A related phenomenon is paranoid neighbors making official complaints of “child neglect” against parents who do allow their kids to play unchaperoned in parks or natural areas, all because danger of abduction and molestation is thought to exist everywhere. As with so much else, things have gotten just ridiculous, beyond anything I ever could have imagined 30 or 40 years ago.

The kidnappers we have to watch out for are the ones we’re supposed to trust. The judges, the cops, child services; these guys make good money sending kids to various private facilities. The recent infamous case in Pennsylvania is only the tip of the iceberg.

And it’s not just private facilities; we have a juvenile-detention-industrial complex in this country. Kids who get caught up for the most minor offenses find themselves stuck in the revolving door of juvenile hall/probation.

I feel there is not any more crime today than 20 years or 50 or 500 years ago the difference is the media hype and the control of the fascist police state. There was never a Razor blade in the apple at halloween. It is a documented lie. When we hear of EVERY crime in a country of 300 million people and no one puts it in context we scare the pathetic helicopter moms to death. The shouts of MORE Law and Order ring out from every couch in the country!! Our local and state governments are being slowly bled to death from the excess of public safety. It is ALL HYPE!!! Buy locally and only what you need. STARVE THE BEAST