|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 25, 2018 5:03:37 GMT
Okay fine. But I still say rape fantasies and S&M are indicative of mental illness. And you would be wrong. They are indicative of our basic animal nature. If we explore those darker parts consensually and safely... there's no issue. It's like the instinct for violence; if it's done in a ring with a referee, we tolerate and accept that there is something appealing about it. if we do in the street with a knife to an old lady... we scream about how unnatural it is. But both events stem from the same dark and tempting instincts. I disagree. I have never had any desire to participate in any rape fantasy or even dream about rape. Nor have I ever had any desire or instinct to attack or even threaten an old woman in the street. If I did, I would seek professional help. Anybody who has any attraction to rape, sadism, masochism or violently threatening or attacking old ladies in the street has serious problems. I used to have violent fantasies. And I later figured out my anger and desire to seek violent solutions were a result of my inability to handle things that made me angry, afraid and unfair. In other words, there was something wrong with me. I never committed any crimes. I never sought professional help. But until I learned other ways to deal with anger, fear, and inability, I suffered, my life suffered, and there was a potential for violence that could have hurt or killed others. Something is wrong with people who fantasize about rape, sadism, masochism (S&M) or violently victimizing little old ladies. And if they act on those fantasies, there is something seriously wrong with them. |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Jan 25, 2018 9:44:26 GMT
His remorse smacked of the kind of 'shit I got caught so now I guess I better apologize crap.
I'd give a pass to the victims being dramatic or overly emotional down to the fact they were A) young when it happened B) have been essentially told they were either lying or not remembering it right.
To finally get vindication and to take their allegations seriously must be very cathartic.
|
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Jan 25, 2018 9:48:49 GMT
That'd be great. I'm all for that, though sadly he'll be put in solitary probably to avoid some prison justice. Personally I wish the sentence was castration, and not the soft chemical kind-the kind where you can play hacky sack with his tiny testicles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 12:47:32 GMT
And you would be wrong. They are indicative of our basic animal nature. If we explore those darker parts consensually and safely... there's no issue. It's like the instinct for violence; if it's done in a ring with a referee, we tolerate and accept that there is something appealing about it. if we do in the street with a knife to an old lady... we scream about how unnatural it is. But both events stem from the same dark and tempting instincts. I disagree. I have never had any desire to participate in any rape fantasy or even dream about rape. Nor have I ever had any desire or instinct to attack or even threaten an old woman in the street. If I did, I would seek professional help. Anybody who has any attraction to rape, sadism, masochism or violently threatening or attacking old ladies in the street has serious problems. I used to have violent fantasies. And I later figured out my anger and desire to seek violent solutions were a result of my inability to handle things that made me angry, afraid and unfair. In other words, there was something wrong with me. I never committed any crimes. I never sought professional help. But until I learned other ways to deal with anger, fear, and inability, I suffered, my life suffered, and there was a potential for violence that could have hurt or killed others. Something is wrong with people who fantasize about rape, sadism, masochism (S&M) or violently victimizing little old ladies. And if they act on those fantasies, there is something seriously wrong with them. More gibberish. That you disagree means nothing. And still doesn't stop you from being wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jan 25, 2018 12:52:28 GMT
I disagree. I have never had any desire to participate in any rape fantasy or even dream about rape. Nor have I ever had any desire or instinct to attack or even threaten an old woman in the street. If I did, I would seek professional help. Anybody who has any attraction to rape, sadism, masochism or violently threatening or attacking old ladies in the street has serious problems. I used to have violent fantasies. And I later figured out my anger and desire to seek violent solutions were a result of my inability to handle things that made me angry, afraid and unfair. In other words, there was something wrong with me. I never committed any crimes. I never sought professional help. But until I learned other ways to deal with anger, fear, and inability, I suffered, my life suffered, and there was a potential for violence that could have hurt or killed others. Something is wrong with people who fantasize about rape, sadism, masochism (S&M) or violently victimizing little old ladies. And if they act on those fantasies, there is something seriously wrong with them. More gibberish. That you disagree means nothing. And still doesn't stop you from being wrong. But why do you assume those fantasies are so wide spread you can't take a woman at her word when she says she doesn't have them or engage in them? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 25, 2018 17:38:35 GMT
I disagree. I have never had any desire to participate in any rape fantasy or even dream about rape. Nor have I ever had any desire or instinct to attack or even threaten an old woman in the street. If I did, I would seek professional help. Anybody who has any attraction to rape, sadism, masochism or violently threatening or attacking old ladies in the street has serious problems. I used to have violent fantasies. And I later figured out my anger and desire to seek violent solutions were a result of my inability to handle things that made me angry, afraid and unfair. In other words, there was something wrong with me. I never committed any crimes. I never sought professional help. But until I learned other ways to deal with anger, fear, and inability, I suffered, my life suffered, and there was a potential for violence that could have hurt or killed others. Something is wrong with people who fantasize about rape, sadism, masochism (S&M) or violently victimizing little old ladies. And if they act on those fantasies, there is something seriously wrong with them. More gibberish. That you disagree means nothing. And still doesn't stop you from being wrong. All it means is that is my opinion. That is all it ever meant. You have your opinion. I have mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Jan 26, 2018 3:10:48 GMT
Is it allowed to have a real conversation about this? Or should I just shut up and nod with a tear in my eye?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 26, 2018 18:47:36 GMT
Is it allowed to have a real conversation about this? Or should I just shut up and nod with a tear in my eye? No, you are not allowed to have a real conversation about this. At least not on these boards. But what you can have --- like all of us here --- is a virtual conversation. We cannot talk face to face. But we can communicate by way of social media --- virtual world. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Jan 26, 2018 21:15:40 GMT
Is it allowed to have a real conversation about this? Or should I just shut up and nod with a tear in my eye? No, you are not allowed to have a real conversation about this. At least not on these boards. But what you can have --- like all of us here --- is a virtual conversation. We cannot talk face to face. But we can communicate by way of social media --- virtual world. Haha, yes, very good. Good one. But what I mean is, are my options limited to agreeing with the mindless platitudes or else be branded a predator-defending monster? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 26, 2018 23:00:36 GMT
No, you are not allowed to have a real conversation about this. At least not on these boards. But what you can have --- like all of us here --- is a virtual conversation. We cannot talk face to face. But we can communicate by way of social media --- virtual world. Haha, yes, very good. Good one. But what I mean is, are my options limited to agreeing with the mindless platitudes or else be branded a predator-defending monster? No, you are welcome to say whatever you want --- agree, disagree, have a different opinion, etc. You --- being a member --- even have the options of talking about a different unrelated subject. Or even trolling for childish pleasure. But I would request you don't engage in the last two even though you are able. Quite frankly, you are even free to break board rules if you choose to. But, once again, I would advise you don't do that either, unless you want to take a chance on getting kicked off these boards. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Jan 26, 2018 23:27:58 GMT
No, you are welcome to say whatever you want --- agree, disagree, have a different opinion, etc. Uh, okay, cool. Thanks. This story has seemed very weird to me. I get most of my news on the radio. I have heard several recordings of the judge speaking to the convicted perp - she sounded almost unhinged. I really don't want judges who are ruled by emotion; as a society I think we are far better served by judges who can set aside their emotions, not unleash their quivering outrage against the defendents. I have also noticed an extreme lack of detail on what exactly Nasser did to all these girls. I think this is a relevant question in terms of justice, not just an exercise in titillation. What was the nature of his felonious contact with his 'patients'? 1) Did he put his genitals in contact with the girls in any way? (Copulation, sodomy, rubbing against, etc.) 2) Did he penetrate them vaginally or anally? (Fingers, objects, etc.) 3) Did he expose himself, masturbate, or otherwise take sexual actions that did not involve contact? 4) Or were his crimes limited to non-penetrative touching with his hands? ('Copping a feel' on private areas) I note that in a statement he made to the court, Nasser made reference to his "treatment", which seems to imply some sort of hands-on therapy, either bogus or real. Is that what he is being accused of doing as a molester, some sort of sham chiropractic that he used as an excuse to fondle the trunk areas of hundreds of girls, girls who each and every one have multiple orthopedic injuries to severely overtaxed young bodies? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 27, 2018 0:36:38 GMT
No, you are welcome to say whatever you want --- agree, disagree, have a different opinion, etc. Uh, okay, cool. Thanks. This story has seemed very weird to me. I get most of my news on the radio. I have heard several recordings of the judge speaking to the convicted perp - she sounded almost unhinged. I really don't want judges who are ruled by emotion; as a society I think we are far better served by judges who can set aside their emotions, not unleash their quivering outrage against the defendents. I have also noticed an extreme lack of detail on what exactly Nasser did to all these girls. I think this is a relevant question in terms of justice, not just an exercise in titillation. What was the nature of his felonious contact with his 'patients'? 1) Did he put his genitals in contact with the girls in any way? (Copulation, sodomy, rubbing against, etc.) 2) Did he penetrate them vaginally or anally? (Fingers, objects, etc.) 3) Did he expose himself, masturbate, or otherwise take sexual actions that did not involve contact? 4) Or were his crimes limited to non-penetrative touching with his hands? ('Copping a feel' on private areas) I note that in a statement he made to the court, Nasser made reference to his "treatment", which seems to imply some sort of hands-on therapy, either bogus or real. Is that what he is being accused of doing as a molester, some sort of sham chiropractic that he used as an excuse to fondle the trunk areas of hundreds of girls, girls who each and every one have multiple orthopedic injuries to severely overtaxed young bodies? All great points in my opinion. I had the same reaction as you did. If you note, in my opening post, I said, "It seemed a bit dramatic for me." I think that is because you and I are males. Females are generally more emotional, and more attracted to drama as is evidenced by their entertainment choices. But I agree. I am more impressed with people who handle emotional issues logically, smartly and unemotionally. I feel emotions can affect judgement. And with a predator, an emotional reaction gives them some victory as in they were hoping to affect others. I also agree there was no specific mention of what he supposedly did exactly. I assumed he used his hands to touch them inappropriately. But since you asked, I found an article that specifically said he inserted his fingers inside their vaginas and anuses. And fondled their breasts. In some cases he inserted his whole hand. www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/01/25/heres-what-larry-nassar-actually-did-his-patients/1065165001/And, this seems important to me, all his victims were under 16. Which I think makes it easier to accept them not taking more effective action. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 2:35:09 GMT
This one really hits home. This girl wasn't even angry like most of the other ones. This was all genuine. I feel for her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 2:42:32 GMT
No, you are welcome to say whatever you want --- agree, disagree, have a different opinion, etc. Uh, okay, cool. Thanks. This story has seemed very weird to me. I get most of my news on the radio. I have heard several recordings of the judge speaking to the convicted perp - she sounded almost unhinged. I really don't want judges who are ruled by emotion; as a society I think we are far better served by judges who can set aside their emotions, not unleash their quivering outrage against the defendents. I have also noticed an extreme lack of detail on what exactly Nasser did to all these girls. I think this is a relevant question in terms of justice, not just an exercise in titillation. What was the nature of his felonious contact with his 'patients'? 1) Did he put his genitals in contact with the girls in any way? (Copulation, sodomy, rubbing against, etc.) 2) Did he penetrate them vaginally or anally? (Fingers, objects, etc.) 3) Did he expose himself, masturbate, or otherwise take sexual actions that did not involve contact? 4) Or were his crimes limited to non-penetrative touching with his hands? ('Copping a feel' on private areas) I note that in a statement he made to the court, Nasser made reference to his "treatment", which seems to imply some sort of hands-on therapy, either bogus or real. Is that what he is being accused of doing as a molester, some sort of sham chiropractic that he used as an excuse to fondle the trunk areas of hundreds of girls, girls who each and every one have multiple orthopedic injuries to severely overtaxed young bodies? This would help be a compelling defense for him, but he wasn't FOUND guilty. He ADMITTED guilt. He admitted it was molestation and his procedures had no legitimate medical reason. There was no jury at his trial. So it's irrelevant to consider his innocence. (He did some strange things like touching their vaginas ungloved, and regardless if the patient went in with a sore knee, he'd always include a vaginal examination.) |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Jan 27, 2018 3:41:36 GMT
All great points in my opinion. I had the same reaction as you did. If you note, in my opening post, I said, "It seemed a bit dramatic for me." I think that is because you and I are males. Females are generally more emotional, and more attracted to drama as is evidenced by their entertainment choices. But I agree. I am more impressed with people who handle emotional issues logically, smartly and unemotionally. I feel emotions can affect judgement. And with a predator, an emotional reaction gives them some victory as in they were hoping to affect others. I also agree there was no specific mention of what he supposedly did exactly. I assumed he used his hands to touch them inappropriately. But since you asked, I found an article that specifically said he inserted his fingers inside their vaginas and anuses. And fondled their breasts. In some cases he inserted his whole hand. www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/01/25/heres-what-larry-nassar-actually-did-his-patients/1065165001/And, this seems important to me, all his victims were under 16. Which I think makes it easier to accept them not taking more effective action. Thanks for the link; that provided some illuminating information. There are still some elements to this which give me pause, the most troubling of which is this: he was convicted (plead guilty) on seven counts, so why in the blue hell was his sentencing hearing a parade of 156 victims? What is the point, here? To make a legal decision about his sentence? Clearly not. Catharsis? Okay, but is that catharsis show worth pulling a few seams out of the fabric of our justice system? Not to me, it's not. Ten years from now, will we be putting people in the stocks and letting the public throw shit at them? Just MF-ing convict the guy on whichever cases you can process under legal standards (or get him to plea on), sentence him based on the nature of his actions in the cases you have fully adjudicated, and save the catharsis and the "bravest people I have ever seen" bullshit for Nancy Grace or Megyn Kelly or Oprah or some candlelight vigils. That's not what courtrooms are for. I'm with you on this, movieliker. We should ease up on the drama in our justice system. |
|
