My point was made. I didn’t insult someone on this board, how wikipedia feels about it isn’t my problem, nor is it yours. You are not a “wikipedia” mod. Lighten up, Francis.
“Mentally well” is a red herring, in my opinion. Most people have one problem or another. I think the person you described here might be able to benefit from therapy, in order to possibly reduce their urges and live a happier life, but if this person has not acted on their feelings, and never does, I am ok with them going on without it as well.
I think this person is a criminal. Once again, “mental wellness” does not enter into it. I think this person needs to be locked up for a very long time.
No, but I am a mod here, and you are being a jerk. You did insult someone on this board by posting a link on this board that was insult. So this is a formal warning: smarten up.
The problem is you seem to be under the impression that the only requirement needed to refute mental illness is the perp knowing right from wrong.
If one knows it’s wrong to have sex with teens, he’s not mentally ill, even if his desire would be considered abnormal.
Certainly many of these ‘criminal’ acts would fall more under the umbrella of sociology, but sociology and psychology are just two side of the same coin. One may consider this to be deviance and not ephebophilia. But deviance is just a form of antisocial behavior which would fall under the umbrella of psychology.
I think many criminal/deviant behaviors are the result of mental illness. Many of which aren’t being handled properly in prisons.
At no point in this discussion have I made this claim. There is quite a bit of evidence that the doctor with a wife and family, the rabbi, the police officer, and the numerous fathers who expressed dismay that their marriages and jobs are endangered because they’ve been caught display the hallmarks of typically developed adults capable of differentiating between right and wrong. Their actions prior to the meeting indicate forethought and the possession of resources to facilitate the sexual encounter. The numerous admissions that they knew they could get in trouble: indicate rational thinking. The many excuses offered to Hanson show an attempt to defend what they admit is illegal behavior.
If you are proposing that each and every adult who seeks sexual contact with a person under the age of consent suffers from mental illness then you are opening up a can of worms for the insurance industry as well as our court system. A recorded diagnosis of mental illness for an18 year old who had sex with a 15 year old girl/boyfriend has the potential to negatively affect his/her job search and could prejudice any future medical professionals who have access to his/her records.
Claiming “mental illness” for each and every legal adult who attempts or succeeds in making sexual contact with a 13-18 year old minor could result in deals that trade counseling for reduced or waived jail time, which is a slap on the wrist for what is frequently a serious offense.
I am not comfortable using up mental health resources on typically developed/otherwise well-adjusted citizens who decided to shirk the law for a crack at an appealing teenager when those resources could be better utilized to treat serious mental illness (such as repeat offenders). When you slap a “mentally ill” label on single transgressions, on persons who give into temptation, on a mismatched couple because one falls slighty above and the other falls slightly below the legal age of consent: you trivialize both mental illness and the act of breaking the law.
IAmError403, can you deny that some people misbehave and act out sexually towards persons under the age of consent simply because they are horny and think they won’t get caught? Or is every single person 18 and over who interacts sexually with someone under the age of 17 mentally ill? Simple question.
Ah. So your position is no longer black and white. You’ve been claiming that each of the men depicted in TCAP are mentally ill and deserving of sympathy. Now you admit that “many” behaviors result from mental illness. That fact is indisputable, and renders this sideline discussion moot.
No, you seem to be under the impression that mental illness is a defense against criminal behavior even if the perp knows right from wrong. It isn’t.
Whether or not someone is mentally ill has no bearing on whether or not they are a criminal. Whether or not someone is mentally ill has no bearing on whether or not they are a criminal. Whether or not someone is mentally ill has no bearing on whether or not they are a criminal. Whether or not someone is mentally ill has no bearing on whether or not they are a criminal. Whether or not someone is mentally ill has no bearing on whether or not they are a criminal. **Whether or not someone is mentally ill has no bearing on whether or not they are a criminal. **
DO YOU GET IT NOW???
The parts in bold are both false tomndebb.
-
The quote given on Wikipedia was not paraphrased. It is there word for word written on the MSNBC website itself by the Dateline Anchor himself. Nothing is paraphrased or taken out of context one bit.
-
I did not insist that I had provided the actual chats. I did insist I had provided clear evidence of the fact.
Are you REALLY going to doubt that the decoys were the first ones to bring up sex after the actual anchor of the show even said they were? That is just… beyond absurd. If it were a police detective or a critic of it that were saying this, then there might be some doubt as to how reliable it is.
If the anchor of the show says something that is highly dubious to their show and it is kept on the MSNBC website for years, then it’s obviously going to be true. He was the anchor of the show at the time he wrote that. It could take a significant amount of time to find it from the logs. It would be like a bank manager admitting to embezeling funds and it being left up on the bank’s website for years and yet you wonder if it’s true. It would be like a film producer admitting that some animals were harmed in the making of his movie and it being kept up on the website, but you want further extra proof of it… they admitted it!
And you know how you say “paraphrased”. I’ve noticed how some here sometimes insert little words or adjectives here and there to try to spin things the way you want them when there is no justification or reason at all to use those words. The word “paraphrased” is incorrect there.
Another example of this sort of thing is where Zeriel said that the Wikipedia entry is “poorly cited” when it is anything but poorly cited, it has many high quality citations. But it’s a Wikipedia page, so let’s pull that card out anyway no matter what, and only a sick person would dare to disagree.
Yes. If Stone Phillips said that, he was wrong. Stone wasn’t on site. He introduced the segments that were directed and produced by someone else. The decoys would be breaking protocol to bring up sex first. Not one chat log shows them bringing up sex first. The chat logs are much better evidence of the issue than the anchor’s musings.
Look at it another way: how would I go about refuting what Stone said?
Has anybody in this thread asserted that you are sick?
You seem to know an awful lot about it. Were you one of the main people on the site? Why would he say it anyway if it weren’t true? That’s not the sort of thing that someone would make a mistake on.
How do you know that they would be “breaking protocol to bring up sex first”? Is there any reason you have to think that or evidence that supports that? There’s no way it would stay up on the MSNBC website, particularly since it also goes to the Wikipedia page so won’t be forgotten, if it were false.
I am not going through any transcripts. You can find it yourself. I wouldn’t be happy with myself for getting the transcripts where they bring up sex first because I know already that they are there.
Or how about we do a deal, you go through 8 random transcripts from that period (preferably where the man came over) and if they’re not in any of them I will admit it’s rare for the decoy to bring it up first and search through the rest.
What is your basis for asserting that MSNBC would go back and edit its own report or take it down?
Sounds like you’re saying you don’t need to do the research because you already know you’re right. That’s not how debates typically work here. If you make an argument, you’re expected to back it up.
Because it would be defamatory to itself.
Is this a serious question? Companies, especially news companies edit or take down an article two minutes if they find it’s defamatory and untrue, they’re legally required to. Your suggestions are laughable. Just laughable. I’d say stupid but…
I already did “the research”. It is 100% confirmed and verified in my eyes. You are objectively wrong to state that I didn’t do research because I just did. Maybe you think I didn’t do enough research, but I did do some research and I am 100% satisfied that it proves beyond the doubt of any reasonable person that I am right and was from the beginning on this.
This is lunatic asylum stuff. Really.
I’m not done, but I’ve read from 4 so far (picked randomly) and in every one the guy brought up sex before the decoy.
ETA: 4 more to go, and if the pattern holds you owe people an apology
Deal.
OK, re-reading, I must agree. You’re right. That was jerkish. My apologies.
Not to mention the fact that he vandalized Wikipedia and proved nothing in any way.
Maybe you knew the wrong girls. My high school girlfriends and I did nothing but talk dirty on IRC, especially when we were bored on a Friday and too young to go out drinking.
And this idea that men are just ‘assuming’ the teens are grown women role playing (for free, apparently)… why aren’t they assuming, just as easily, that they’re speaking to a grown man who’s yanking their chain? And, if so, what the hell are they doing driving two hours to their home with condoms and Bacardi Breezer?
And thank god, you lasses were the only “action” I got when I was a teen. If you were on Dalnet, I salute you personally, in fact.
I predit this will be ignored just as hard as when I said structurally similar things upthread.
It would be an error and harmful to their credibility, but it would not be “defamatory to itself.” That’s a made up concept.
Cite the legal requirement, please. News organizations often update their reporting, but I’m pretty sure you are talking about a piece of video that aired years ago. And no, I would not expect MSNBC to go back and edit that video.
That’s not what you said, but OK.
I am waiting for the cites. You said you wanted Bricker to do the work.