Winnipeg Priest Pleads Guilty to Sex Abuse
(08-10-2015, 06:51 PM)richgr Wrote:
(08-09-2015, 12:15 PM)xandratax Wrote:
(08-09-2015, 01:25 AM)richgr Wrote: I never thought specifically that my teacher was into child pornography (that would be a pretty chilling ability to have), but I knew that he was unbalanced psychologically and for that reason I never was very trusting of him, so that when we heard the news, it was no surprise to me. Perhaps it's a bit hard to describe these things over the internet, but when you develop some experience from working with such people and in psychology and counseling, you see it enough to recognize it pretty quickly even if you might not know what the specific problem is.

Now you see Rich, I would say exactly the opposite: 'It's always the quiet ones....'!  :LOL: Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but obvious I'm a more 'idiosyncratic' type, and you're a more quiet type, so perhaps that's why we think the way that we do about this matter? Seriously, I doubt that something like this can ever really be detected just by looking. Now if the priest has a tendency to pat someone's backside every now and then, that's a different matter. But just like there are thousands of many ways to be an alcoholic, perversion is also very diverse.
It's not always the quiet ones!

You would be surprised what you can detect through proper training in reading body language. I can tell if someone is going to become extremely violent based on a single facial twitch that lasts a quarter of a second. Many of these things are very subtle and require extensive training. One can learn enough about body language and mental loops as in hypnosis that can make a person come across as a mind reader to the untrained eye. I was driving with a friend, and I was coming up quick upon a stop sign but stopped. After we passed the intersection, I remarked, "Don't worry, you didn't need to remind me," even though to an untrained observer, my friend hadn't made any movement or said anything, but I saw enough from the body language through peripheral vision to make an educated guess about what was going through my friend's mind.

I can't explain it simply over the internet though. It's a combination of behavior, context, phrasing, expression, patterns, boundaries, etc. You can't say specifically what a person does most of the time, but you can get a sense for tendencies and make educated guesses based on what's probable.

That sure is a dangerous road that leads to rash judgment.

Frankly, I hate that every little quirk is supposedly a sign of some disease, frustration or whatever. That's simply non-sense of the first degree (and I could even put my tin foil hat and speculate its a way for psychologists or other groups to grab power, criminalizing the opposition, so to speak).

Rash judgment: believing someone has a moral defect without evidence (were you assuming I was working with a simple vague notion? That's rather rash). Now, I may not know about body language and whatnot, but it does seem far fetched to know that someone has a moral defect (like being a pedophile) by looking at the person.
In any case, I don't think avoiding sin against the ten commandments by putting a “probably” in front is much charitable. “He's probably a pedophile, so its alright”.

And I don't really take appeals to “science says” seriously, so don't even bother with the praise of precision.

(08-10-2015, 01:46 PM)xandratax Wrote:
(08-10-2015, 11:36 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: Miracles can and do happen, but I think with pedophilia, it becomes a condition to be managed not unlike drug or alcohol addiction. Unfortunately, management is dependent on the person and the environment in which they live.

I mean, a person who is alcoholic can abstain from alcohol. But a pedophile... children are everywhere. Short of locking themselves in their house for the rest of their lives, what are they to do?

As horrendous as what pedophiles do, I feel bad for them on some levels because they really don't have a chance. Once the cycle starts, it's pretty hopeless. And they are the bad of the bad if and when they end up in jail - even among thieves there is honour, and they are often brutalized in prison, which makes them that much more dysfunctional once released.

Alcohol isn't that easy to avoid, in fact. It's socially accepted and ubiquitous, even abuse to a certain level. It's just accepted that some people are 'bar flys.' Whether that makes it harder or easier to stop I don't know, but it certainly makes a big difference vis-a-vis pedophilia. Alcoholism also has a physical tolerance as obstacle that all sexual addiction does not have. You can even die from alcohol/drug withdrawal.

Anyway, an article that I read at First Things recently changed my way of thinking about this particular issue and the way that it is dealt with legally:

You, of course, are right about alcohol. It's not "that simple", and I didn't intend to make it sound like a cakewalk. But it *is* possible to create circles around yourself that mostly insulates you from it. I don't drink for medical reasons, and the people I have surrounded myself with tend to also not drink, or drink very little. I don't have cable, I have filters on my internet to block ads, etc. Children, on the other hand, you can bump into while out buying a pack of smokes or a gallon of milk.

But wow... thank-you for sharing that article! I gives me lots to think about!
Alright Rich, I'll admit that you didn't just read through everything that was just said, but I get the gist. And it still seems problematic to me.

If what you are saying is true, it most certainly can't be true of everyone. In other words, those who are really able to read body language in as much as it can deter harm to others would only be trained professionals. So what's the solutions then? That these trained professionals be placed in every social milieu to act as a kind of psychological police? How would this work? And then if such a person spotted a suspicious priest or teacher, then what? Would the suspect be forced to wear body cams and/or take lie detector tests? You can't force people do that, or anything based on pure suspicion, unless it were to become law. Then there's the legal element to be dealt with. I suppose you could argue that any person who has nothing to hide shouldn't be afraid to face questioning, but seems a bit surveillancy.


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)