Working definition of a nonce
Mar 11 2005
#2
Nonce: a word occurring, used, or made only once or for a special occasion.
Mar 11 2005
#3
paedophile would describe all people who are "sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children".
a nonce is someone who acts on those feelings, nonce stands for Not Of Normal Criminal Ethos, which would be a section of a prison wing.
Mar 11 2005
#4
So nonce = paedo. Gotcha
Mar 11 2005
#5
nonce (noun) (colloq.) One for whom hanging is too good.
Mar 11 2005
#6
phoebe wrote:
So nonce = paedo. Gotcha
Nonce = active paedo. It's an important distinction.
Mar 11 2005
#7
gav wrote:
nonce stands for Not Of Normal Criminal Ethos, which would be a section of a prison wing.
so depending on what "Normal Criminal Ethos" means, political prisoners could arguably be classified as "nonce" too?
interesting... 
i think we should stick to "paedophile" and/or "child abuser"...
Mar 11 2005
#8
Geez. Whilst I'm not pro-nonce, the anti-nonce sentiment seems pretty ridiculous. This is with knowing at least 3 nonce victims, one of whom says they feel sorry for the bastard who did it and whilst it fucked them up a bigger issue was the way they were made to feel about it afterwards by people who knew (ie: they didn't think the guy deserved being treated like he was and they felt the entire thing was a serious overreaction which lead to greater guilt on the part of themselves, the victim, for reporting the guy in the first place).
And a number of other issues are brought up by things like that woman who just married the kid she molested now that he's old enough. Again, I'm not in favour of "child molester's rights" or something. I just think that maybe there should be some sort of reasoned thought on child sexual abuse and perhaps people should cut down on the psychotic hatred a little.
Mar 11 2005
#9
I fully agree with that, phoebe.
What I find particularly disturbing is when the psychotic hatred is extended to paedophiles who don't actually abuse children themselves but just download kiddyporn. I mean they may be sick, and if they pay for porn which involves child abuse then they could arguably be considered accessories to child abuse, but that's hardly the same as if they abused the kids themselves, yet a lot of people (and of course the tabloid press) treat them as if they were out picking up eight-year-olds every day after school and raping and murdering them.
Mar 11 2005
#10
Garner wrote:
I fully agree with that, phoebe.What I find particularly disturbing is when the psychotic hatred is extended to paedophiles who don't actually abuse children themselves but just download kiddyporn. I mean they may be sick, and if they pay for porn which involves child abuse then they could arguably be considered accessories to child abuse, but that's hardly the same as if they abused the kids themselves, yet a lot of people (and of course the tabloid press) treat them as if they were out picking up eight-year-olds every day after school and raping and murdering them.
You think there is absolutely no connection between the two groups, then?
Mar 11 2005
#11
Of course there's a connection, but that doesn't mean we should treat them all the same.
Mar 11 2005
#12
Personally I don't see a lot of difference between people paying for people to abuse kids and abusing kids directly. I'm more worried about the fact that the angry-mob reaction makes active paedophiles more likely to murder the kids they fuck so as not to get caught.
Mar 11 2005
#13
Garner wrote:
Of course there's a connection, but that doesn't mean we should treat them all the same.
a) Why not?
b) How do you think we should treat them?
Mar 11 2005
#14
I would hesitate to use words like "mob." A crowd of middle-class people is a demonstration; a crowd of working-class people is a mob. Look at the News of the World campaign for "Megan's law", when they printed pics of child sex offenders.
Now, we all know there was some bad shit went down as a result (a paediatrician getting his car trashed, for a start), but look at the way the actions of concerned parents were talked about -- "mob-rule" (which expresses anti-working class bias) & "hysteria" (anti-women).
I'm an anarchist, not a liberal. While "string 'em up" might not quite represent my views about active paedophiles and rapists of adult women, I can't see why an anarchist couldn't hold such views. What I object to is the way the State claims the monopoly on the punishment of offenders. Yeah, yeah, capitalism is sick & crime is the symptom, we've all heard it. But rape is rape.
Mar 11 2005
#15
Fozzie wrote:
b) How do you think we should treat them?
I think we should treat according their behaviour, rather than their desires.
If they rape and murder kids, the treatment should be commensurately harsh.
If they manage to find free kiddyporn somewhere and jack off over it, perhaps we should keep an eye on them, but certainly no more than that.
If they're paying for kiddyporn (that involves actual abuse, in case there's any other kind), the treatment should be somewhere in between, since they're an accessory rather than the actual abuser.
Mar 11 2005
#16
the button wrote:
I would hesitate to use words like "mob." A crowd of middle-class people is a demonstration; a crowd of working-class people is a mob. Look at the News of the World campaign for "Megan's law", when they printed pics of child sex offenders.
I don't think using the term "mob mentality" has any sort of class bias. I think it aptly describes a situation where a bunch of people follow a received dogma and act upon it with the mutuality of their actions (the fact that they're part of a big crowd doing it) acting to validate those actions and ignore any further thought about implications. The middle classes are just as (or even more sometimes) prone to being ramped up into hyperbolic bullshit by the press.
Quote:
Now, we all know there was some bad shit went down as a result (a paediatrician getting his car trashed, for a start), but look at the way the actions of concerned parents were talked about -- "mob-rule" (which expresses anti-working class bias) & "hysteria" (anti-women).
I don't think hysteria being used to describe a genderless mass of people is anti-women. That's just ridiculous. It's clear that I'm not suggesting that people who advocate firebombing paedophiles do so because they've got a womb (as quite clearly a lot of those people dont' have wombs in the first place). Accusations of being anti-women are clearly ridiculous in this context.
Quote:
I'm an anarchist, not a liberal. While "string 'em up" might not quite represent my views about active paedophiles and rapists of adult women, I can't see why an anarchist couldn't hold such views. What I object to is the way the State claims the monopoly on the punishment of offenders. Yeah, yeah, capitalism is sick & crime is the symptom, we've all heard it. But rape is rape.
Good for you. I'm not supporting state monopoly on justice. I'm trying to bring up some sort of reasoned debate on how to respond to paedophiles in society (given that there is some very strong evidence counter to popular opinion).
Mar 11 2005
#17
Another thing is you know what the difference between a lynch mob of offended locals and a demonstration is. A mob of offended locals who've found out there's a paedophile (active non-active or ex) in their midst and aren't really going to consider shit, most of them haven't had anything done to them, most of them won't give a fuck what the victim thinks, their senses are just offended by the paedophile and they've got a number of other people with them who agree and that's enough justification for them to go ahead and do whatever they want. At least in a demo (at least in theory, but mostly in the case of strikes and shit like that) a number of the people involved are there because they're fighting for their own rights and have some understanding of the situation.
Mar 11 2005
#18
phoebe wrote:
I don't think hysteria being used to describe a genderless mass of people is anti-women.
Neither do I. However, in the case I am talking about (the NoTW campaign for "Megan's law"), it was used consistently to describe the actions of a group of working class women on a housing estate in Plymouth (or was it Portsmouth?).
Mar 11 2005
#19
the button wrote:
phoebe wrote:
I don't think hysteria being used to describe a genderless mass of people is anti-women.Neither do I. However, in the case I am talking about (the NoTW campaign for "Megan's law"), it was used consistently to describe the actions of a group of working class women on a housing estate in Plymouth (or was it Portsmouth?).
Haven't read it. And that does sound rather suspect.
Mar 11 2005
#20
phoebe wrote:
Good for you.
Thanks 8) 
Mar 11 2005
#21
Have a look online for an article by Vikki Bell about the NoTW campaign for Megan's law. I had it electronically once, but I think I lost it. Will have a look now (I'm at work, it's Friday afternoon, I'm doing fuck-all )
Edited..... some moments later....
Quote:
Vikki Bell - The Vigilant(e) Parent and the Paedophile: The News of the World Campaign 2000 and the Contemporary Governmentality of Child Sexual Abuse
It's in Feminist Theory, but don't let put you off. Some kind-hearted student on here could use their college's journal subscription & post a copy up here.
Mar 11 2005
#22
I can't find it in JSTOR
Mar 11 2005
#23
i think pedos (whether they act on it or not) should be either killed, castrated or exiled to an otherwise uninhabited island - we don't want these sick fucks in our communities, it's too much risk
those who are "just" downloading pics are directly encouraging the abuse of children often in the thirdworld/eastern europe where they have less protection
the thing is these people often refuse to except they are doing anything wrong - they have no understanding of basic human rights (the rights of children)
Mar 11 2005
#24
kalabine wrote:
i think pedos (whether they act on it or not) should be either killed, castrated or exiled to an otherwise uninhabited island - we don't want these sick fucks in our communities, it's too much risk
I think that's a bit much, I mean it is "thoughtcrime". If someone never acts on something then it's doing no harm. So would you have anyone who were made to feel a bit weird about jodie foster in Taxi Driver or natalie portman in Leon killed? Cos that'd be a significant proportion of the population...
Can't paedophilia be controlled by libido-suppressant drugs? If so (and taking them is enforced) that seems like the most humane option...
Mar 11 2005
#25
kalabine wrote:
those who are "just" downloading pics are directly encouraging the abuse of children often in the thirdworld/eastern europe where they have less protection
So do you think there are people producing child porn who wouldn't otherwise be abusing kids?
Quote:
the thing is these people often refuse to except they are doing anything wrong - they have no understanding of basic human rights (the rights of children)
In which case they need to be taught why they are doing something wrong.
In a lot of cases they know perfectly well that it's wrong, but they can't stop themselves doing it, which is much more worrying, I think.
Mar 11 2005
#26
kalabine wrote:
i think pedos (whether they act on it or not) should be either killed, castrated or exiled to an otherwise uninhabited island - we don't want these sick fucks in our communities, it's too much risk
And in the knowledge that other people think that, the paedos are more likely to kill their victims. How many people who have violent anti-paedophile beliefs think or care about how victims feel in any of it. I doubt many even take a thought for how the victim really feels (beyond just thinking "ooh, that's horrible"). How much of this is just hijacking the victim's pain in a fit of moral panic?
Mar 11 2005
#27
The nastiest posts ever to appear on enrager imo are paedophile apologist posts.
Mar 11 2005
#28
Am I being accused of being a paedophile apologist?
Mar 11 2005
#29
(a) I didnt read the thread cos it was likely to distress me
(b) Why do you assume that, did you make excuses for some paedophiles?
Mar 11 2005
#30
3rdseason wrote:
(a) I didnt read the thread cos it was likely to distress me(b) Why do you assume that, did you make excuses for some paedophiles?
Ok. You made a comment about paedophile apologists. As far as I could figure out I'd kinda started the thread and was generally coming from a "psychotic hatred of paedophiles probably isn't a good way to deal with them and surely we can take a slightly saner approach than that" perspective in response to people's "death is too good for nonces" stuff. So I figured that since I clearly wasn't in the group of people who think all nonces should be drawn and quartered that that made me a paedophile apologist (as you were clearly referring to someone making paeophile apologist posts and I haven't seen anyone else really touching the subject around here recently). I don't make any excuses for paedophiles. I feel a little sorry for them and think they should be kept where they can't hurt anyone.
Fuck this shit anyway. I'm out of this thread. Anyone who wants to feel free to delete it.
*waits for redyred to see this thread
*
But seriously, a paedo would be someone who's sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, no? Simple enough