Was there some reason given as to why the priest never gave an apology?
I didn’t miss that, CS. I certainly didn’t miss any of your bullshit. Being a victim != Correct in your appraisal of another’s situation, or obviously my comments in this thread to you as my comment had everything to do with your posting. I did not pull anything out of anywhere.
wring: You are 100% correct. CS won’t even bother admitting, most likely, that if HE’S not followed 24/7 then there’s no guarantee he didn’t or won’t commit some other heinous crime either, such as that possible future murder he just alluded to.
They’re registered and monitored because that’s the law and to assure members of the public, like you, that they’re being monitored, that people aren’t just ‘taking their word’ for it that they’re doing ok. You don’t want them not monitored, do you? didn’t think so.
No, I didn’t miss the fact that you were a victim. I am sorry for that, as I am sorry for any victim. But, since any evidence that suggests that molesters don’t always molest again is rejectable by your comment ‘are they followed 24/7’, my statement, that you’re safe and secure in the knowledge that you’re right and the data is wrong, stands.
It is perhaps a subject that you’re too close to, to think about rationally.
However, your statements in the beginning of the thread were unsubstantiated and wrong. Your statements later on, are misleading at best. You have again suggested that unless some one is followed 24/7 you will reject as ‘unproven’ that they’re not molesting again.
And that is an absolutely closed mind. You’ve decided what the truth is, and will/have rejected any evidence to suggest that you’re wrong because it’s “unproven”. You’ve established an impossible threashold for proof that you’re wrong.
I would sincerely suggest that you seek help, it seems that you still have unresolved issues. For that I hope the best for you.
It’s pointless to argue with you further on the issue since the parameters of acceptable ‘proof’ for you is impossible.
You people actually bother to respond to someone who uses NARTH as a source? Please. :rolleyes:
An interesting case all around, no doubt.
Esprix
BTW, you condescending fool, CS; I’m not your “dearie.”
And now my curiosity is piqued: Exactly when was it enacted into law that those who’ve been convicted of sex crimes get monitored upon their release for life? I’m not talking about the usual parole conditions, just the whole “registered sex offender” provision.
depending on the state, people convicted of a sexual assault have to register as sex offenders for varying lengths of time. If I implied ‘life’ for all, that was in error. IIRC, the Sex Offender Mangement link has a link which details the specifics of the so called ‘Megan’s laws’ around the US. they are not universally available to the public, tho’ many states are open.
if you read my post or even bothered to go to the site i posted than you would know that i do not believe those citations. Blonde posted disappointment that he was killed because he was gay not because he was a pedophile. The point i was trying to make was that certain groups of people including his killer do not distiquish between the two
and the other point I was making that the people who believe that or not any different than the people here who post dubious citations, claim pedophile therapy is ineffective without knowing what kind of therapy they are receiving and the worst part is most people here do not even know what a pedophile is
dave, apologies for misinterpreting you, but if you’d posted then what you posted just now people would have understood what point you were trying to make. We’re not mind readers, you know.
Esprix
dave316, I want to start off by saying that I apologize for portraying you as “ignorant”, given that you have now clarified your original post.
However…
I read your post, but I saw no evidence that you didn’t believe the citations. Perhaps you should try to write more clearly, since quite a few people along with me inferred from your post that you were supporting those citations. I went to the site, but saw little relation to this thread in bringing up hate speech against Jews and homosexuals, so I was confused. If the point was the small subsection that “Gays Threaten Children”, I’ll suggest that you should have pointed that out, since I gave up reading the filth that is quoted on that site way before I got to that section.
Cite? I’ve actually seen the definition of “pedophile” get quite a bit of discussion on SDMB.
Again, I no longer will refer to “ignorance” regarding you; however, I do suggest you use fewer unclear "they"s and that you explain what interpretation you are placing on your links rather than just linking them.
Damn, esprix! You snuck in before me and summarized what I was trying to say much more concisely, politely, and with style.
I defer to the gentleman from San Diego. I better go read more Ask the Gay Guy threads and hope he rubs off on me. 
:eek:
Lily, you sure that is what you meant to say?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**I didn’t miss that, CS. I certainly didn’t miss any of your bullshit. Being a victim != Correct in your appraisal of another’s situation, or obviously my comments in this thread to you as my comment had everything to do with your posting. I did not pull anything out of anywhere.
[quote]
I have not ONCE in this post said that my feelings = correct in my appraisal whether or not what happened was right, or wrong. Period. Please cut and paste where I in ANY way state that I think this.
I specifically state exactly the opposite. That is that this is what I feel.
Obviously you didn’t read my response to wring, where I said JUST that, that no, I would NOT in fact trust that he wouldn’t reoffend. As to whether I think he’d commit some other crime?
You just get more and more farfetched and ridiculous, in addition to not reading posts, or responding to them regarding what they actually said, as opposed to making things up and attributing them to the poster.
[
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**I didn’t miss that, CS. I certainly didn’t miss any of your bullshit. Being a victim != Correct in your appraisal of another’s situation, or obviously my comments in this thread to you as my comment had everything to do with your posting. I did not pull anything out of anywhere.
[quote]
I have not ONCE in this post said that my feelings = correct in my appraisal whether or not what happened was right, or wrong. Period. Please cut and paste where I in ANY way state that I think this.
I specifically state exactly the opposite. That is that this is what I feel.
Obviously you didn’t read my response to wring, where I said JUST that, that no, I would NOT in fact trust that he wouldn’t reoffend. As to whether I think he’d commit some other crime?
You just get more and more farfetched and ridiculous, in addition to not reading posts, or responding to them regarding what they actually said, as opposed to making things up and attributing them to the poster.
[quote]
I didn’t miss that, CS. I certainly didn’t miss any of your bullshit. Being a victim != Correct in your appraisal of another’s situation, or obviously my comments in this thread to you as my comment had everything to do with your posting. I did not pull anything out of anywhere.
[/quote[
Please cut and paste where I said that my feelings re: being a victim and this man’s fate (or rather what I wished his fate would have REALLY been) means that I think that it’s the “correct” view. I have REPEATEDLY said that my feelings about this do NOT = I think what happened is morally noble, or whatever.
You obviously didn’t read my post to her then, I said that I absolutely would NOT trust that unless they were either proven cured, OR followed 24/7 that they wouldn’t remolest. PERIOD.
I mentioned nothing about other crimes in any of my posts.
Yes. OF COURSE I want them monitored, I just don’t think it’s good enough protection for the public.
For the FOURTH time, yes, I read your cites and understand that they “don’t always reoffend”. I’m not saying “I’m right”. I’m not a psychologist. I’m saying I don’t trust that any molester, or his “treater” unless and until they have absolute proof positive, beyond a shadow of a doubt positive. “I don’t believe, or trust this, where this is whatever data” is NOT the same thing as saying "this is wrong, and I’m right.
Not to mention, imho, it’s a bit biased that you’ve worked in the past for convicts and that your cites are government cites. Not the most objective viewpoints.
NOOOO??? Ya THINK??? HELL, what the fuck do you think statements like “No, I’m not right, I just don’t care, and I HATE these inhuman monsters” mean?
Incorrect. ONE statement, that of (paraphrased) “molesters can’t be cured” was simply not substantiated by cites. And was later retracted by me. This is the THIRD time I have done so.
The remainder of my statements were my feelings, my opinions. Rants, YOU know?? Like what belong in the pit?
Wrong again, I haven’t “suggested” any such thing. I’ve flat out STATED that I would not trust any molester to not molest again, unless I had proof positive that they were A.) being watched by a reputable authority 24/7, or B.) absolute scientific proof that they were cured.
Stating that you wouldn’t trust, believe, etc is NOT stating a person is “right or wrong” it is stating a person’s feelings, emotions and OPINION. I have not claimed otherwise.
[quote]
And that is an absolutely closed mind. You’ve decided what the truth is, and will/have rejected any evidence to suggest that you’re wrong because it’s “unproven”. You’ve established an impossible threashold for proof that you’re wrong.
[quote]
No, I’ve decided that the chance that danger could come to children from one of these creatures is too great a chance to take on an allegedly “significant” improvement of 8%. I’ve not decided that that is “truth” or “not truth”. I’ve decided that I don’t trust it. Again, that is NOT making a statement of fact, that is OPINION.
I have. And until this thread, and the upcoming movce I’d pretty much put it behind me.
My feelings about this aren’t mere “rage” or “bitterness”. I honest to GOD feel the way I do. Perhaps someone is in this site right now, who IS a molester. Maybe they’ve justified what they’re doing to that little girl is “helping her discover her sexuality” or that “it’s his job to show her the ropes”.
Or maybe someone is out there reading this who suspects that a little girl (or boy) that they know is being molested, but they’re not sure, so they don’t want to “butt in”. BUTT IN!!!
I’m 44 years old, I’m here to say "THIS is what happens to your supposed “Helping” of that little girl. Not everyone becomes murderously angry. Some withdraw. No one escapes in unscarred.
So, I’m being unreasonable, “closeminded” “unfair”. If just ONE person out there thinks twice about either what they’re doing, or about reporting it, then GOOD.
Since 99 and 44/100% of what I was saying was my OPINION, I wasn’t asking you to argue with me in the first place.
Frankly, he should’ve been given a ‘live embalming’ from the biggest ugliest burliest men in the prison… in every orifice of his body.
Over and over again, for the next decade, being held down against his will.
With no lube.
Boy, my first SDMB sexual innuendo post and it’s truly accidental!
I think we can all agree I’m not his type. 
so basically, whenever anyone commits a crime, we should lock them up and never release them? Are you working towards toughening the punishments on all types of crime? Why not? They might re-offend, you know.
it’s as close as you can get really. Even science doesn’t proclaim things as The Truth.
what’s to prevent an exchange of opinions? You’re saying “that’s my opinion: don’t say anything that may cause me to change my mind!”
Look, extrajudicial punishment is completely wrong, for the reason that in 99% of cases, it’s unknown, even by scientific standards, that the person is guilty. I would consent that if a person is found guilty by trial of a breach of ethics or freedom, lock them up for a set amount of time, as statistically it will make society safer. But to condone cruel and unusual punishment such as rape or murder or capital punishment does no one any good and will harm those who do not deserve it: the wrongly convicted.
Ludovic: Wait for it. I can feel it. CanvasShoes is going to say, “But I didn’t condone extrajudicial punishment!”
And it’ll be as much bullshit when he does as it was when he already did!