Don't these idiots realize that what they do affects the people around them? The obvious victims are the innocent children this pathetic person has scarred for life. But whose name is on the Digg headline? Is it his? No. It's McCain. Because of this man's selfish deeds, he has smeared the name of McCain, and if you read any of the comments to the article, the name of the Republican Party, the name of Conservatism, and the name of Christianity. Because this selfish man decided that his orgasm was the most important thing, thousands of people, by close or remote association to him, are dragged into disrepute.
Why don't more “enlightened” people hail him as a hero? After all, he put into practice a philosophy that has long been touted by the Enlightened--that personal desire, freedom and ambition are the most important things, and that an "enlightened" individual will not restrain himself from acting on them. I find a striking comparison between child molestation and abortion (as angry as I know this will make some of you). Both are products of an individual indulging his desires. Both lead to the harm of an innocent child. Both oftentimes impact numerous people around them. Yet one is rightfully condemned by the Enlightened while the other is championed.
I think I blogged about this earlier, but it is a notion I feel is important and is due repeating. There is nothing wrong with self-restraint. I come from Seattle and have spent a lot of time in San Francisco. In both of these places, self-restraint is not a quality that is highly thought of. In Fremont, Washington there is a yearly parade where unshaven and oftentimes middle aged and lumpy hippies march down the street with their nude bodies painted in a manner reminiscent of the aftermath of a vomiting child. In San Francisco there is a similar parade, called the "Love Parade". Vandalism of private property with paint is seen as personal artistic expression, not a crime. Smoking pot is seen as a harmless if rebellious activity that is encouraged by Hollywood in all its "stoner flicks" like the recent Pineapple Express, and when role models like Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps lose endorsements because of their pot smoking, it leads to anger and confusion from the Enlightened.
The child molester Bartleston has something wrong with him, surely. His desires are sick and depraved, and I am sure psychologists could write whole books on why his behavior stems from one time when he was eight and he saw his brother naked in the shower or something, and how that event froze his sexual maturity and confused him, which explains why he is attracted to young boys, or whatever. But I don't see that helping. Sure, it might be fine and dandy understanding why a depraved individual like Bartleston behaves the way he does. But what needs to stop is the behavior. If people like Bartleston have a deep-rooted respect for the law and other people, and a deep-rooted hatred of his own evil desires, then he would not act on them. That is what we are trying to get at. A man who desires to murder his neighbors because they refuse to shut up their noisy dog, will, if he is a rebel who values his own desires more than he respects other people and the law. If he has self-restraint, he won't. Does this change the twisted mind of the man who would seriously consider murdering his neighbors in the first place? No. But it delivers the results we want.
So yeah, I'll go on record as saying that self-restraint is a great thing that people need more of. Fat people like me need some self-discipline, and need to refrain from eating that extra muffin during the day. Alcoholics need self-restraint to drink in moderation, smokers to smoke in moderation, and cussers to swear in moderation. Angry people need to decide to not be angry, violent people to not be violent, and sexual perverts to not molest children. This doesn't happen by making smoking, booze, cussing and violence illegal. It happens when parents raise their kids to value things like the law, other people, and to practice as children some self-denial. If kids get everything they want as children, they will pursue whatever they want as adults. If they are denied things as children and taught that their desires are not always good, as adults they will have greater self-restraint and respect for others.
I really believe that many of our social ills start in the home. A child needs one mom and one dad, not a dad and a step dad, or a clan of aunts and uncles, or two mommies or two daddies, or an older sibling that acts like a parent, or a babysitter that you know better than your mom, or a public school system that you entrust to raise your child instead of doing so yourself. The "nuclear family" may no longer be normal in America, but it is important and leads to social stability.
References
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11637020
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/man-who-was-led-sen-john-mccains-presid
http://digg.com/politics/John_McCain_s_manager_arrested_for_child_molestation
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965NSIG0&show_article=1
Posts
6 comments:
You might want to read the Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo, the man who organized the infamous Standford Prison Experiment. He attributes evil to three basic things (that you also mentioned):
Bad apples: The individuals doing the evil act. In his case, the prison guards.
Bad barrels: Systems or communities that allow such individuals to operate. In his case, the prison itself, where the guards had no checks and balances.
Bad barrel-makers: People who build or support such systems or communities. In his case, Zimbardo himself.
One of his minor points is that focusing on just one is ineffective at best, and all three need to be dealt with. But his bigger point is that the effect can be reversed, and mentions rehabilitating child soldiers with proper families as an example.
Of course, the problem is that from an outside perspective, the difference between a good barrel and a bad barrel can be vague. Trying to rehabilitate someone can be seen as pandering and even enabling. So the organization who discovers that one of its members has been doing evil is faced with a tough choice: "Cut him loose" and let him descend further into the abyss, or pull him up and take the risk that he'll continue abusing your goodwill and thus taint the organization as a whole?
It's times like this when I'm really, really grateful to my parents . . .
It always shocks (and, I admit, annoys me) when people say things like, "It's not my fault I'm this way," and "I couldn't help it; I can't stop my desires." But just because one has desires doesn't mean one must act on them!
And yet I'd be a hypocrite to believe that *I* don't act on desires I shouldn't.
And it makes me wonder: what can I, as an individual, do? I could teach my (theoretical, potential, currently non-existant) children morals and self-restraint, but this seems so limited. I could just wait for the oscillations of time to roll my way again. I could . . . what? I don't know.
To Shalkis: I know the experiment of which you speak. I also know that, in that situation, were I unknowing, despite my upbringing, I would probably have done much the same as the others -- and oh, I am not pleased to say that! However, familiar as I am with the experiment, and with experiments like it, I believe that in a similar situation, I would be able to avoid most of the evil. In this case, then, the strongest defense would be knowledge! I know of the experiment, and how such situations make people act, and about how easy it is to follow authority, and therefore I can stop and ask myself what I'm doing, and cease inappropriate activity.
So what then? I suppose one must know one's potential for evil at the top of one's mind so that when faced with a situation, one can stop oneself. If one is prone to anger, one must know so that when one is getting angry, one may stop oneself.
On the other hand, in some situations, it seems better to deny not the situation, but the existance of potential. As in: steal the necklace? That would never even occur to me.
If there were an easy answer, I suppose we wouldn't have self-restraint issues at all.
Just a few thoughts.
one thing i don't agree with, is that "A child needs one mom and one dad, not a dad and a step dad, or a clan of aunts and uncles, or two mommies or two daddies, or an older sibling that acts like a parent, or a babysitter that you know better than your mom, or a public school system that you entrust to raise your child instead of doing so yourself."
a friend of mine was molested 3 times by 3 different people at the age of 3, two of them grew up in normal, as in they lived with biological parent, and was her family members. the other was her pre school teacher. anyone can molest a child even if they have no prior record or bad childhood.
also i myself was born out of wedlock and my mom and dad never ended up getting married and i turned out fine living with my mom and step dad. i mean look at churched a ton of preists molested kids. hell a female preacher raped a minor not to long ago in a town near mine. i don;t think such a thing can be reduced if we grow up in the " nuclear family" is us giving a dang to those children and increasing pentitlies of such offences. all you get is a slap on the wrist and are put on the sex offender list, like that really means something (is don't as alot of ppl fall through the cracks)
I said reduced, not abolished, for a reason. As long as people are evil, evil deeds will be done, regardless of ones upbringing.
For every person who was molested as a child, ten others were never molested. For every person who was molested by a mother or father, ten others were molested by siblings, aunts, uncles, neighbors or strangers.
I don't think it is outrageous to suggest that a person raised in a stable family is less likely to suffer from emotional problems as an adult--all studies demonstrate this. This logically follows that child molesters come less from stable families than broken ones--thus the nuclear family reduces child molestation.
This idea hinges, of course, on the notion that child molesters have emotional or mental problems. Could it be that they are just as "normal" as the rest of us? I'd hate to think so.
There's another factor that shouldn't be ignored. Genetics.
People are born with a predisposition to have certain characterístics. Some people, for instance, have a genetic predisposition to be psychotic. This isn't to say that everyone who has this pre-disposition will become psychotic, or that people who don't have it can't become psychotic. But it is a pretty good indicator.
The rest is, of course, the experiences that the person has as they grow.
Neither of these is under their control. And that is why I defend correctional/preventive imprisonment (which is what we tend to have in modern societies) rather than mere revenge.
As for self-control... yeah, people can control themselves. I'm sure a great number of people with deviant sexual desires aimed at children don't act on it. But you never realise this because you never hear about them. And they are probably too afraid to tell anyone.
The ones you hear about are precisely those that have less self-control.
Self control is a great thing. It's important. The "enlightened" people, as you sarcasticaly called them, don't defend a lack of them. People like the Marquis de Sade did. He was just insane. The real question is -where- does the self control start and end. And I think that's called Morality/Ethics.
As for the family, I have no idea if it's better to have the traditional one or not. And I refuse to speculate on it without access to scientificaly gathered, peer reviewed information. You mention that studies support that it's generaly better, but you neglected to direct us to them.
"Could it be that they are just as "normal" as the rest of us? I'd hate to think so."
Are rapists "normal"? If not, then neither are child molesters. If so, then perhaps they are.
I see little distinction between the two.
Post a Comment