Australian Politics Forum - Hey Dad: social philosophy.

Ex Dame Pansi

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 24168

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #75 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:54pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

As discussed in more detail below, men sexually abuse children far more frequently than do women (Abel & Harlow 2001)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.aspx

The majority of sex offences reported to Queensland police between 1996 and 1998 were committed against children younger than 16 yrs of age (58%) Most of the offenders were male (71%) and most were known to their victim in some way (60%) many were identified as relatives (26%) (Reported sexual offences in Queensland- Qld Criminal Justice Commission Dec 1999)

http://www.help4kids.com.au/statistics.htm

This is disturbing.
..............................

A new report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows more than 7,000 children, from babies to 14 year olds, were sexually abused last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-23/7000-children-sexually-abused-last-year/27...

Although males clearly constitute the majority of perpetrators, a review of the evidence for female sex abusers (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005), suggests that females do abuse in a small proportion of cases.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

some of that data is old. It is a realtively new discovery of the preonderance of female abusers. The whole study of child sex abuse is quite new as until relatively recently it was ignored in a wholesale manner by pretty much everybody. It is going to take some time for more accurate figures to come in.

And pansi, do not assume I am saying anything different to you in regards to abuse. we are both apalled and disgusted by it. We just have differeing opinions around the edges of it eg statistics and methodologies.

Yeah! I can't think of anyone who would be on the side of people who harm children.

The trouble is, it's such a horrible crime that even stats are hard to get because the majority of victims don't report it.

Back to top

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30094
Gender: male

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #76 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:26pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

As discussed in more detail below, men sexually abuse children far more frequently than do women (Abel & Harlow 2001)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.aspx

The majority of sex offences reported to Queensland police between 1996 and 1998 were committed against children younger than 16 yrs of age (58%) Most of the offenders were male (71%) and most were known to their victim in some way (60%) many were identified as relatives (26%) (Reported sexual offences in Queensland- Qld Criminal Justice Commission Dec 1999)

http://www.help4kids.com.au/statistics.htm

This is disturbing.
..............................

A new report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows more than 7,000 children, from babies to 14 year olds, were sexually abused last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-23/7000-children-sexually-abused-last-year/27...

Although males clearly constitute the majority of perpetrators, a review of the evidence for female sex abusers (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005), suggests that females do abuse in a small proportion of cases.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

some of that data is old. It is a realtively new discovery of the preonderance of female abusers. The whole study of child sex abuse is quite new as until relatively recently it was ignored in a wholesale manner by pretty much everybody. It is going to take some time for more accurate figures to come in.

And pansi, do not assume I am saying anything different to you in regards to abuse. we are both apalled and disgusted by it. We just have differeing opinions around the edges of it eg statistics and methodologies.

BULLSHIT !! You are just trying to deflect blame away from your precious religious institutions which are full of male pedophiles Sad

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #77 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:34pm

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

As discussed in more detail below, men sexually abuse children far more frequently than do women (Abel & Harlow 2001)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.aspx

The majority of sex offences reported to Queensland police between 1996 and 1998 were committed against children younger than 16 yrs of age (58%) Most of the offenders were male (71%) and most were known to their victim in some way (60%) many were identified as relatives (26%) (Reported sexual offences in Queensland- Qld Criminal Justice Commission Dec 1999)

http://www.help4kids.com.au/statistics.htm

This is disturbing.
..............................

A new report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows more than 7,000 children, from babies to 14 year olds, were sexually abused last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-23/7000-children-sexually-abused-last-year/27...

Although males clearly constitute the majority of perpetrators, a review of the evidence for female sex abusers (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005), suggests that females do abuse in a small proportion of cases.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

some of that data is old. It is a realtively new discovery of the preonderance of female abusers. The whole study of child sex abuse is quite new as until relatively recently it was ignored in a wholesale manner by pretty much everybody. It is going to take some time for more accurate figures to come in.

And pansi, do not assume I am saying anything different to you in regards to abuse. we are both apalled and disgusted by it. We just have differeing opinions around the edges of it eg statistics and methodologies.

Yeah! I can't think of anyone who would be on the side of people who harm children.

The trouble is, it's such a horrible crime that even stats are hard to get because the majority of victims don't report it.

that is certainly true but also unlikely to change much because of the inherent issues with children vs adults. Children DO have problems with imagining non-existent events, are easily led and make generally unreliable witnesses. That isnt going to change and as long as we grant assumption of innocence to those suspected of these things it will never change. But I dont think there is any solution to that beyond continual vigilance and and end to the naivete that has plagued society over this. And remember that there are still many cultures that not only tolerate it it but encourage it. A gypsy girl has a baby at 10yo and the community says a colelctive 'so what?'

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #78 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:35pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

As discussed in more detail below, men sexually abuse children far more frequently than do women (Abel & Harlow 2001)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.aspx

The majority of sex offences reported to Queensland police between 1996 and 1998 were committed against children younger than 16 yrs of age (58%) Most of the offenders were male (71%) and most were known to their victim in some way (60%) many were identified as relatives (26%) (Reported sexual offences in Queensland- Qld Criminal Justice Commission Dec 1999)

http://www.help4kids.com.au/statistics.htm

This is disturbing.
..............................

A new report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows more than 7,000 children, from babies to 14 year olds, were sexually abused last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-23/7000-children-sexually-abused-last-year/27...

Although males clearly constitute the majority of perpetrators, a review of the evidence for female sex abusers (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005), suggests that females do abuse in a small proportion of cases.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

some of that data is old. It is a realtively new discovery of the preonderance of female abusers. The whole study of child sex abuse is quite new as until relatively recently it was ignored in a wholesale manner by pretty much everybody. It is going to take some time for more accurate figures to come in.

And pansi, do not assume I am saying anything different to you in regards to abuse. we are both apalled and disgusted by it. We just have differeing opinions around the edges of it eg statistics and methodologies.

BULLSHIT !! You are just trying to deflect blame away from your precious religious institutions which are full of male pedophiles Sad

and a return to the fact-free zone yet again. You just resort to your non-thinking emotive positions on almost any topic. Your opinions on anything are worthless.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #79 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:45pm

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

As discussed in more detail below, men sexually abuse children far more frequently than do women (Abel & Harlow 2001)

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.aspx

The majority of sex offences reported to Queensland police between 1996 and 1998 were committed against children younger than 16 yrs of age (58%) Most of the offenders were male (71%) and most were known to their victim in some way (60%) many were identified as relatives (26%) (Reported sexual offences in Queensland- Qld Criminal Justice Commission Dec 1999)

http://www.help4kids.com.au/statistics.htm

This is disturbing.
..............................

A new report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows more than 7,000 children, from babies to 14 year olds, were sexually abused last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-23/7000-children-sexually-abused-last-year/27...

Although males clearly constitute the majority of perpetrators, a review of the evidence for female sex abusers (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005), suggests that females do abuse in a small proportion of cases.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

some of that data is old. It is a realtively new discovery of the preonderance of female abusers. The whole study of child sex abuse is quite new as until relatively recently it was ignored in a wholesale manner by pretty much everybody. It is going to take some time for more accurate figures to come in.

And pansi, do not assume I am saying anything different to you in regards to abuse. we are both apalled and disgusted by it. We just have differeing opinions around the edges of it eg statistics and methodologies.

Yeah! I can't think of anyone who would be on the side of people who harm children.

The trouble is, it's such a horrible crime that even stats are hard to get because the majority of victims don't report it.

LOTS OF PEOPLE END UP IN WHEELCHAIRS FOR CIRCUMSPECT REASONS THO!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49278
At my desk.

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #80 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:27pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:29am:

freediver wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:22pm:

I am violent towards animals on a regular basis. But only the defenceless ones. That's how nature intended it.

I hope someone reports you for animal abuse. U hope you stay away from your neighbours pets . . .

SOB

I actually caught a couple of the stray neighbourhood cats recently and delievered them to the pound so they could find a loving home for them.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49278
At my desk.

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #81 - Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:29pm

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:31am:

You are trivialising sexual abuse. I am pretty sure that by the time it gets to a court everyone knows what happened and it wasnt that.

I am just shocked that it's so common, based on what someone said in this thread. I find it shocking that so many people would be touched inappropriately. I find it shocking that people would grow up to be apparently reputable members of society like teachers, politicians, church leaders and then touch a girl's breasts or masturbate against them. Maybe these people were suffering from mental illness and don't understand why they did these things but for some reason felt the urge.

They could have bought raggy dolls and teddy bears if they couldn't help themselves and not do it to living human beings. I was just trying to find an alternative explanation, that maybe it wasn't that bad. For example, maybe there was no physical contact but just verbal abuse and innuendo.

You should check the statistics for what actually qualifies as abuse.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:05pm:

Braveheart have some stats on this. Only 5% of offenders are female. I thought women are traditionally the protectors of children. Some of the stats are hard to believe, so not sure how reliable they are.
...........................................................

Females do sexually abuse in a small proportion of cases, approximately 5% of
female victims and 20% of male victims experience sexual abuse perpetrated by a
female.

The majority of perpetrators are male (in excess of 95 per cent) against male and
female children.

http://www.bravehearts.org.au/docs/facts_and_stats.pdf

ID Mnemonic, the braveheart site seems to have some information re reasons for etc

http://www.bravehearts.org.au/docs/facts_and_stats.pdf

Hetty's intentions are good but she is a hysteric, seeing problems everywher she looks and very conveniently saying it is only men. She loses credibility with som of her nonsense. If she' dial it back some and show a litle rational balance occassionally she might be credible, but for now, she sounds more like a lunatic than an activist.

And like it or not... MANY women sexually abuse children or have the media reports totally skipped by you? Just think about it a minute... Do the numbers you read about look anything like a 20:1 ration in favour of men as Hetty claims?

The reason so many women pedophiles got away with it for decades as it was considered IMPOSSIBLE and hetty just continues on with this fiction.

Rosemary West anyone???
Moors murderess???

and notable both were deeply violent to go with it.

Female perpetrators may get more press because it is more interesting and sells more newspapers. No-one wants to read about priests raping little boys. A recent female graduate from teachers college getting it on with year 12 boys is a very different matter. What you read in the press in no way reflects the prevalence, only the interest.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:34pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #82 - Aug 14^th, 2012 at 6:42am

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:29am:

freediver wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:22pm:

I am violent towards animals on a regular basis. But only the defenceless ones. That's how nature intended it.

I hope someone reports you for animal abuse. U hope you stay away from your neighbours pets . . .

SOB

I actually caught a couple of the stray neighbourhood cats recently and delievered them to the pound so they could find a loving home for them.

Well unfortunately thats not what the pound does. . . . they keep them 2 weeks (the lucky ones) then put them down.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49278 At my desk.	Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy. Reply #83 - Aug 14^th, 2012 at 8:48am I've often wondered whether they should give the meat to Chinese takeaway shops rather than wasting it.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

GoneWest

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 123
Toowoomba

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #84 - Aug 14^th, 2012 at 2:40pm

Thanks to all who responded to this. As I said in the OP, it was intended as an experiment in social psychology, provocation and all. Allow me to clarify a few points.

I'd never even HEARD of "Hey, Dad!" until a few weeks ago. I was living O/S at the time of its airing. More to the point, I purchased the first TV (almost said "TV set") I've ever owned about three years ago. As a lifelong traveller, I've lived in places for a time where a TV was available, but what I saw convinced me that most programming was trash, and I only relented back in 2008. I've heard of such things as Home and Away, Number 96, Neighbours and Big Brother, but never actually seen any of them. However, since the MSM news media was forcing HD on me, I decided to "test the waters". The only episodes I've "seen" are the two video clips above, and they're parodies.

Let me put it to you this way. The Thespian tradition is an old one, and presupposes that actors and actresses are skilled at portraying archetypal characters as exemplars of inherent, and usually fallible human traits. Competently executed, this is undoubtedly a worthy avocation. The debasing of this into the role of "movie actors and actresses" turned the acting "profession" into the semi-skilled portrayal of vulgar situations and emotions, mostly for commercial reward, in spite of protestations of artistic worth and moral obligation. The further debasing into "sitcoms" of the most plebian persuasion raises the question as to whether the "actors and actresses" are truly able to present a personality very different from their own, or are merely acting out their own reactions to scripted situations. Given my very limited exposure to the medium, my comments are of limited scope; but I'd nomate Zhang Ziyi as an actress capable of the former, and Nicole Kidman as one limited to the latter.

The question then arises; is/was "Hey, Dad!" a production of artistic worth, or merely a long-running video documentary of the intimate interactions between a successful paedophile and a group of equally successful child prostitutes. In Australia's current economic environment, the validity of the latter would suggest that there's a ready market for those wanting to achieve the same "success".

Back to top

Illegitimi non carborudum.

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #85 - Aug 14^th, 2012 at 10:57pm

GoneWest wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 2:40pm:

Thanks to all who responded to this. As I said in the OP, it was intended as an experiment in social psychology, provocation and all. Allow me to clarify a few points.

I'd never even HEARD of "Hey, Dad!" until a few weeks ago. I was living O/S at the time of its airing. More to the point, I purchased the first TV (almost said "TV set") I've ever owned about three years ago. As a lifelong traveller, I've lived in places for a time where a TV was available, but what I saw convinced me that most programming was trash, and I only relented back in 2008. I've heard of such things as Home and Away, Number 96, Neighbours and Big Brother, but never actually seen any of them. However, since the MSM news media was forcing HD on me, I decided to "test the waters". The only episodes I've "seen" are the two video clips above, and they're parodies.

Let me put it to you this way. The Thespian tradition is an old one, and presupposes that actors and actresses are skilled at portraying archetypal characters as exemplars of inherent, and usually fallible human traits. Competently executed, this is undoubtedly a worthy avocation. The debasing of this into the role of "movie actors and actresses" turned the acting "profession" into the semi-skilled portrayal of vulgar situations and emotions, mostly for commercial reward, in spite of protestations of artistic worth and moral obligation. The further debasing into "sitcoms" of the most plebian persuasion raises the question as to whether the "actors and actresses" are truly able to present a personality very different from their own, or are merely acting out their own reactions to scripted situations. Given my very limited exposure to the medium, my comments are of limited scope; but I'd nomate Zhang Ziyi as an actress capable of the former, and Nicole Kidman as one limited to the latter.

The question then arises; is/was "Hey, Dad!" a production of artistic worth, or merely a long-running video documentary of the intimate interactions between a successful paedophile and a group of equally successful child prostitutes. In Australia's current economic environment, the validity of the latter would suggest that there's a ready market for those wanting to achieve the same "success".

That is close to the biggest pile of drivel this thread has brought up.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30094
Gender: male

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #86 - Aug 15^th, 2012 at 12:52am

gold_medal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 10:57pm:

GoneWest wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 2:40pm:

Thanks to all who responded to this. As I said in the OP, it was intended as an experiment in social psychology, provocation and all. Allow me to clarify a few points.

I'd never even HEARD of "Hey, Dad!" until a few weeks ago. I was living O/S at the time of its airing. More to the point, I purchased the first TV (almost said "TV set") I've ever owned about three years ago. As a lifelong traveller, I've lived in places for a time where a TV was available, but what I saw convinced me that most programming was trash, and I only relented back in 2008. I've heard of such things as Home and Away, Number 96, Neighbours and Big Brother, but never actually seen any of them. However, since the MSM news media was forcing HD on me, I decided to "test the waters". The only episodes I've "seen" are the two video clips above, and they're parodies.

Let me put it to you this way. The Thespian tradition is an old one, and presupposes that actors and actresses are skilled at portraying archetypal characters as exemplars of inherent, and usually fallible human traits. Competently executed, this is undoubtedly a worthy avocation. The debasing of this into the role of "movie actors and actresses" turned the acting "profession" into the semi-skilled portrayal of vulgar situations and emotions, mostly for commercial reward, in spite of protestations of artistic worth and moral obligation. The further debasing into "sitcoms" of the most plebian persuasion raises the question as to whether the "actors and actresses" are truly able to present a personality very different from their own, or are merely acting out their own reactions to scripted situations. Given my very limited exposure to the medium, my comments are of limited scope; but I'd nomate Zhang Ziyi as an actress capable of the former, and Nicole Kidman as one limited to the latter.

The question then arises; is/was "Hey, Dad!" a production of artistic worth, or merely a long-running video documentary of the intimate interactions between a successful paedophile and a group of equally successful child prostitutes. In Australia's current economic environment, the validity of the latter would suggest that there's a ready market for those wanting to achieve the same "success".

That is close to the biggest pile of drivel this thread has brought up.

you should know all about drivel gold_pedal Sad

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 15^th, 2012 at 11:11am by Sir lastnail »

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

GoneWest

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 123
Toowoomba

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #87 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:08pm

Since back-flipping and consensus seem to be flavour of the month, perhaps the best solution would be to adopt a solution with the best FINANCIAL return, since money's where it's at these days.

The series could be renamed The Paedo Files with a scary alien in the logo, and remarketed to all those who enjoyed it before. I suggest this because Ozns are all aliens, so far as I'm concerned.

Back to top

Illegitimi non carborudum.

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #88 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:27pm

GoneWest wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

Since back-flipping and consensus seem to be flavour of the month, perhaps the best solution would be to adopt a solution with the best FINANCIAL return, since money's where it's at these days.

The series could be renamed The Paedo Files with a scary alien in the logo, and remarketed to all those who enjoyed it before. I suggest this because Ozns are all aliens, so far as I'm concerned.

still more drivel... At least you are consistent.

Back to top

IP Logged

GoneWest

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 123
Toowoomba

Re: Hey Dad: social philosophy.
Reply #89 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:00pm

> still more drivel... At least you are consistent.

Well, let's see. The X Factor. Master Chef. The Farmer wants a Wife. The Price is Right. Criminal Minds. Puberty Blues. The Big Bang Theory. Gene Simmons Family Jewels. How I met your Mother. Master Chef All-Stars. LA Hardhats. The Glee Project. Snog, Marry Avoid. Danoz Direct. Law & Order. America's next Top Model.

These are taken from this week's TV programming, all high-quality productions of surpassing artisitic merit by gold_medal's standards, I suppose. Unfortunately, most exceed the intellectual capabilities of Australians, so few will understand my point.

Back to top

Illegitimi non carborudum.

IP Logged