Police smash child prostitution ring. arrest 642 people

[cottmann]

No, not in Thailand - in the USA! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7694791.stm

As a UPenn study estimates there are "nearly 300,000 children in the US are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes," perhaps those Americans working with the Pattaya Police should concentrate their efforts nearer to home?

[Khor tose]

No, not in Thailand - in the USA! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7694791.stm

As a UPenn study estimates there are "nearly 300,000 children in the US are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes," perhaps those Americans working with the Pattaya Police should concentrate their efforts nearer to home?

America (the FBI) just busted 600 people in that child prostitution ring. I would say that strongly suggest that America is doing something about this problem. Gee I hope those Americans working with the Thai police are not causing you any personal inconvenence.

[cottmann]

[.... Gee I hope those Americans working with the Thai police are not causing you any personal inconvenence.

An uncalled for ad hominem comment, Khor tose!

[Khor tose]

[.... Gee I hope those Americans working with the Thai police are not causing you any personal inconvenence.

An uncalled for ad hominem comment, Khor tose!

Maybe, and if so I do apologize, but I guess I do not understand what you are trying to say. To me, you are suggesting it is wrong to work to end pedophila in another country when it exists in your own country. I guess I just don't accept that premise. So help me, tell me what it is you were trying to say.

Maybe, and if so I do apologize, but I guess I do not understand what you are trying to say. To me, you are suggesting it is wrong to work to end pedophila in another country when it exists in your own country. I guess I just don't accept that premise. So help me, tell me what it is you were trying to say.I'd have thought it's obvious that resources are never unlimited. Why expend resources abroad when there's so much to do at home? There's also an element of the colonialist mentality - helping the Thai police because they are incapable of doing the job for themselves

[Khor tose]

Maybe, and if so I do apologize, but I guess I do not understand what you are trying to say. To me, you are suggesting it is wrong to work to end pedophila in another country when it exists in your own country. I guess I just don't accept that premise. So help me, tell me what it is you were trying to say.I'd have thought it's obvious that resources are never unlimited. Why expend resources abroad when there's so much to do at home? There's also an element of the colonialist mentality - helping the Thai police because they are incapable of doing the job for themselves

Okay Homi, I just wrote the IMF and asked them to stop making loans and telling other countries how to spend the money we give them. Resources are limited and I do wish an end to colonialism. I've also told my monk friends at the WAT to quit trying to convert the tourist in the Monk Chat, as we Westerners are quite capable of turning to Buddhism on our own. If the Thais are okay with us dumping some of our sick citizens on them, then why should we care what they do?

Seriously, this time I do not get your logic. I am an American and subject to the laws of America. Both Britain and America have laws in effect that dictate the behavior abroad of their citizens and these countries have every LEGAL right to enforce these laws on their citizens. How? By working with the Thai police. My logic says this is the opposite of colonialism.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

No, not in Thailand - in the USA! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7694791.stm

As a UPenn study estimates there are "nearly 300,000 children in the US are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes," perhaps those Americans working with the Pattaya Police should concentrate their efforts nearer to home?

America (the FBI) just busted 600 people in that child prostitution ring. I would say that strongly suggest that America is doing something about this problem. Gee I hope those Americans working with the Thai police are not causing you any personal inconvenence.

600 arested doesn't mean 600 are guilty although it's sure an indication of the state of the US economy where over 35 million now live in poverty.

There are plenty of foreign police in Thailand , telling the local authorities in a paternalistic fashion how to do their job (if they want the financial handouts but still don't give a stuff about that little 8 year old Vietnamese girl making your $200 pair of Nikes)) but what they actually do is a mystery apart from busting the ocassional pedo which local cops can do on their own.

It sounds like the FBI could do with some help themselves but imagine a few Asian police turning up in the US or UK and telling the local plods how to do their job !!

[Bob]

Having read the British news account, I was puzzled why I hadn't read anything about this alleged major sting in the US papers. I then visited the CNN news website, Newsweek's news website, and a couple of others and found nothing. I ultimately went to the FBI website and did find an article about it.

From what I read, it sounds as if the article overemphasizes the "child" issue here. Apparently they did find and "save" a substantial number of teen prostitutes (for which I applaud them), it appears that 80%+ of this related to adult prostitution. Difficult to tell as some police agencies tend to inflate the rhetoric to make themselves look good.

Anyway, Khor Thos, thanks for the update (by the way, there's still nothing in my local paper today about the topic). As to the issue of using minors in prostitution, I'm all for anybody nailing anybody connected with it and hope that continues.
And I have no problem at all with the western governments prosecuting anybody going abroad for sex with anybody under 18 years of age regardless of the local rules or mores (the US, for example, has a right to make that rule and any US citizen that violates it is an idiot and ought to be prosecuted).

There are plenty of foreign police in Thailand .... but what they actually do is a mystery ....

The American police (as distinct from any other agency) instruct and advise on crowd control and internal security operations.

[Marsilius]

And I have no problem at all with the western governments prosecuting anybody going abroad for sex with anybody under 18 years of age regardless of the local rules or mores...

Well, Bob, you'll be disappointed with most Western governments in that respect. The UK and most western European nations, for instance, have an age of consent of 16 and so won't be launching any prosecutions of their own nationals for having sex abroad with 16 or 17 year olds.

[Khor tose]

[quote="Lunchtime O'Booze
600 arested doesn't mean 600 are guilty although it's sure an indication of the state of the US economy where over 35 million now live in poverty.

There are plenty of foreign police in Thailand , telling the local authorities in a paternalistic fashion how to do their job (if they want the financial handouts but still don't give a stuff about that little 8 year old Vietnamese girl making your $200 pair of Nikes)) but what they actually do is a mystery apart from busting the ocassional pedo which local cops can do on their own.

It sounds like the FBI could do with some help themselves but imagine a few Asian police turning up in the US or UK and telling the local plods how to do their job !![/quote]

Actually if they were in the US to help us arrest people who are breaking their laws (provided they were also laws acceptable to the West--like sex trafficing of minors or drugs) I would be all for it. Their ability to access the community that speaks the language of the criminals would be invaluable.

[Khor tose]

And I have no problem at all with the western governments prosecuting anybody going abroad for sex with anybody under 18 years of age regardless of the local rules or mores...

Well, Bob, you'll be disappointed with most Western governments in that respect. The UK and most western European nations, for instance, have an age of consent of 16 and so won't be launching any prosecutions of their own nationals for having sex abroad with 16 or 17 year olds.

Marsilius, when it comes to the age of consent, I am of the belief that Europe's age of consent is far more practical then the USA's. It is not older teens I have a problem seeing in the sex trade, it is early teens and pre teens. Based on sound psych evidence this is wrong and destructive to children wherever it exists. I also realize enforcement does not stop this practice, but drives it underground. However, that is exactly where it belongs, in some deep dark hole in the ground.

I am an American ...That says it all. Your logic is so muddled it's hard to know where to start - so I won't bother

[ceejay]

And I have no problem at all with the western governments prosecuting anybody going abroad for sex with anybody under 18 years of age regardless of the local rules or mores...

Well, Bob, you'll be disappointed with most Western governments in that respect. The UK and most western European nations, for instance, have an age of consent of 16 and so won't be launching any prosecutions of their own nationals for having sex abroad with 16 or 17 year olds.

Not so for the UK Marsilius, or not if money is involved anyway. An act of prostitution with anyone under 18 is illegal, and carries a prison sentence of up to 7 years for a 16 or 17 year old.

[Bob]

Well, Bob, you'll be disappointed with most Western governments in that respect. The UK and most western European nations, for instance, have an age of consent of 16 and so won't be launching any prosecutions of their own nationals for having sex abroad with 16 or 17 year olds.

Sorry, Marsilius, I'm not disappointed at all. I just recognize the right of any democratic government to make laws regulating the conduct of its citizens and regardless of where the acts occurs. Others disagree with me on that and that's fine....but it doesn't change reality.

I can understand everybody having their own personal view as to what should be the so-called "age of consent." And I can even agree that many 16 and 17-year-olds can probably make a fairly informed choice on the matter. But I also recognize that the laws have to be based on objective criteria and the various democratic governments can choose what they see as the appropriate age limit and its citizens can object if they so desire. The US has chosen the age of 18 and, given that matches Thailand's age of consent (at least when money is involved), I don't see a problem with that at all.

[Khor tose]

I am an American ...That says it all. Your logic is so muddled it's hard to know where to start - so I won't bother

Thats okay Homi, I forgive you,. What with Scotland soon to declare independence, and Wales starting the process to do the same, I can understand why the phrase, "There will always be an England." is becoming so quant. It might make me a tad jealous too. :tongue1:

Since Scotland and England are two separate territories, I fail to see how the establishment of an independent Scotland threatens the existence of England. It's bollock anyway as the Scots aren't about to demand an independent Scotland. Who would govern the UK if they did? We have a duty, of care to the English, to perpetuate the Union.

[Khor tose]

I am not sure the Scots will be able to civilize the English. Remember these are the direct descendents of the Duke of Cumberland, William Augustus Cumberland. for whom the flower stinky Willie is named. I hope whoever is directing this effort keeps his Skean Dubh handy.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

[quote="Lunchtime O'Booze":115poh6n]There are plenty of foreign police in Thailand .... but what they actually do is a mystery ....

The American police (as distinct from any other agency) instruct and advise on crowd control and internal security operations.[/quote:115poh6n]

well there you are..I never knew that !. This isn't uncommon..UK police have helped trained Cyprus police..Aussie & NZ police do likewise in some South Pacific countries..some from the "Coalition" are training Iraq police (and sympathies to the Iraqi police !!).

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Since Scotland and England are two separate territories, I fail to see how the establishment of an independent Scotland threatens the existence of England. It's bollock anyway as the Scots aren't about to demand an independent Scotland. Who would govern the UK if they did? We have a duty, of care to the English, to perpetuate the Union.

Then the UK should send Blair and Brown back to where they came from and let them stuff up Scotland :cheers:

[Marsilius]

And I have no problem at all with the western governments prosecuting anybody going abroad for sex with anybody under 18 years of age regardless of the local rules or mores...

Well, Bob, you'll be disappointed with most Western governments in that respect. The UK and most western European nations, for instance, have an age of consent of 16 and so won't be launching any prosecutions of their own nationals for having sex abroad with 16 or 17 year olds.

Not so for the UK Marsilius, or not if money is involved anyway. An act of prostitution with anyone under 18 is illegal, and carries a prison sentence of up to 7 years for a 16 or 17 year old.

Of course you are correct re. prostitution - but, as you can see above, Bob (whose post I was specifically commenting on) did not mention that and so, like him, I was referring to consensual and non-commercial sex, in which case my point is still valid.

I am not sure the Scots will be able to civilize the English. Remember these are the direct descendents of the Duke of Cumberland, William Augustus Cumberland. for whom the flower stinky Willie is named. I hope whoever is directing this effort keeps his Skean Dubh handy.

"Direct descendants"? I think not - he never married, had no known children, and was only in Scotland for a couple of years.

[Khor tose]

Yes, I was not 100% clear. I was talking more of hereditary attitude rather then genetic descent. However, the last time I looked the House of Hanover (Windsor) still ruled England. I mean you really don't slaughter the wounded and force thousands of people out of their homes to foreign lands when you respect them in any way. Actually, Britain loss of the Scots was America's and Australia's gain. We will take all the Scots you have, along with the Irish and the Welch. America is soon to make one exception, in that we are returning McCain to Ireland, where he will be re-educated by Lunchtime O'Booze. :drunken: McCain will buy, and Lunchtime will re-educate.

We have strayed off topic here into another slanging match about nationalities. The real issue is that the US government believes it should police the activities of its citizens worldwide. If the local cops won't prosecute, then America will do it for them. As homintern says, that's imperialism.

[Bob]

We have strayed off topic here into another slanging match about nationalities. The real issue is that the US government believes it should police the activities of its citizens worldwide. If the local cops won't prosecute, then America will do it for them. As homintern says, that's imperialism.

Agreed regarding the straying and slanging. Don't agree about the rest.

Any government has the right to do what the US has done in this regard and, guess what, there's been no upset here in the states about it (and what the Kenyans, for example only, think about it is irrelevant to me). A government, in my view, has the right to make rules governing its citizens' conduct both here and abroad (and, arguably, whether it's sex with minors or engaging in combat for another country, it may be just as important to control the conduct outside one's borders as the impact finds a way of returning to the home country); besides, laws to some degree attempt to set a society's view of what is "moral" or correct conduct and the idea that one country doesn't care about what another country does or doesn't do to its children is rather goofy to me. This whole concept isn't much different philosophically from the notion that a government has the right to tax the earnings of its citizens even though the income was solely earned in another country.

And the child-prostitution issue, at least to me, is of more paramount importance than many other mundane matters. A person does that in an outside country and isn't expected to engage in similar conduct upon return to his home country? Not likely according to the studies I've read. While I can understand disagreement as to what the exact "age of consent" should be, it seems to me that all the societies of the world ought to agree on the concept of trying to prevent adult/child sexual activity wherever it occurs.

[Khor tose]

Thanks fats, for the corrections and yes most American do identify themselves from where we or our ancestors came from. However, that we all came from somewhere else IS part of our identity.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Yes, I was not 100% clear. I was talking more of hereditary attitude rather then genetic descent. However, the last time I looked the House of Hanover (Windsor) still ruled England. I mean you really don't slaughter the wounded and force thousands of people out of their homes to foreign lands when you respect them in any way. Actually, Britain loss of the Scots was America's and Australia's gain. We will take all the Scots you have, along with the Irish and the Welch. America is soon to make one exception, in that we are returning McCain to Ireland, where he will be re-educated by Lunchtime O'Booze. :drunken: McCain will buy, and Lunchtime will re-educate.

I'd be happy to but at our ages, how long will we both last ?.

This "immigration" debate and who comes from where reminds me of the story in an Australian film ( whose name escapes me at present) where a fairly uncouth Australian visitor to London is at a Belgravia party and is approached by a pompous Hoorah Henry who disparagingly asks our hero :

"is it true Australia is full of homosexuals ?"....
our hero replies..
"no that's just the publicity we put out to attract the Pommy migrants" :cheers:

Any government has the right to do what the US has done in this regardI do so agree Bob, and guess what, I was talking to a friend over at State today and this is what he told me. The State Department is proposing a new Bill for the next Congress. State already asks applicants for a Green Card whether they've ever paid for sex. That principle is to be extended. A new crime - paying for sex while abroad - is proposed. State is frustrated by foreign governments, such as Thailand, who have prostitution as a criminal offence on the books but are not prosecuting anyone. It is perceived that by the US creating this new offence they will be able to take on the law enforcement activities of a foreign country where they perceive them to be deficient. The principle has already been established by laws that prosecute Child Sex Tourism, and in denying condoms to the Kenyans (I'm also pleased you mentioned them too, Bob) as a prevention for AIDS as that would merely encourage promiscuity. Thank god for all those clear-thinkers over at State, I say

I'm completely in favour of this proposal - it will keep all those damn Americans away from our beloved Thailand

I'm completely in favour of this proposal - it will keep all those damn Americans away from our beloved Thailand

I hope you are not including any Head of State in that statement.

[Aunty]

A new crime - paying for sex while abroad - is proposed. State is frustrated by foreign governments, such as Thailand, who have prostitution as a criminal offence on the books but are not prosecuting anyone. It is perceived that by the US creating this new offence they will be able to take on the law enforcement activities of a foreign country where they perceive them to be deficient.

Sounds perfectly resonable to me. Why should Americans be able to engage in activities abroad that are completly illegal back home? The same standards should apply to them wherever they are!

[Khor tose]

I do so agree Bob, and guess what, I was talking to a friend over at State today and this is what he told me. The State Department is proposing a new Bill for the next Congress. State already asks applicants for a Green Card whether they've ever paid for sex. That principle is to be extended. A new crime - paying for sex while abroad - is proposed. State is frustrated by foreign governments, such as Thailand, who have prostitution as a criminal offence on the books but are not prosecuting anyone. It is perceived that by the US creating this new offence they will be able to take on the law enforcement activities of a foreign country where they perceive them to be deficient. The principle has already been established by laws that prosecute Child Sex Tourism, and in denying condoms to the Kenyans (I'm also pleased you mentioned them too, Bob) as a prevention for AIDS as that would merely encourage promiscuity. Thank god for all those clear-thinkers over at State, I say

I'm completely in favour of this proposal - it will keep all those damn Americans away from our beloved Thailand

Homi, I am really disappointed in you. All this time on this board and I have never seen you lie, and yet you are very close to it now by leaving out a lot of information. This came up on Ting and Tong and I answered it then, and I am not going to dig it out of my files again. All you need to do is google it as you so often tell others to do. The law is about SEX TRAFFICKING , and it is a rewrite of a law that has been on the books for 20 years. Any one who knowingly pays or hires a prostitute that he has reason to know is engaging in sex against his or her will is subject to arrest. The law is mainly aimed at trafficking in children, but it can and does apply to adults. FYI there are gangs that force Asian, Eastern European, and African women and children into being prostitutes to pay off debts owed by their families or to pay off a debt for smuggling them into America or Europe. So next time you pay your boy, and I bet you have to pay an awful lot, be careful not to ask if he was trafficked by anyone.

The bottom line of this whole thread, which I allowed to turn into country bashing after Homi's retort, is that some of you think that America and the UK are wrong to prosecute their citizens who molest children in foreign countries. I've heard colonialist, imperialist, do gooders, etc. from some of you and frankly I just don't give a flying fuck what any of you think on this subject. The science that says sex with children is harmful to the child is irrefutable, and I will never, I repeat never look the other way if I see this happening. I will do whatever is possible and reasonable to stop it. If it steps on someoneтАЩs toes, so be it, and if any of you wish to criticize America, the UK or its citizens who go along with this, then you damn well better come up with some kind of science that says we are wrong to do so. I will not condemn or call anyone names that does not agree with me on this, as I always give people the benefit of a doubt; that they are staying true to their moral compass, even if it differs from mine. I expect the same from some of you. Remember what started this was someone saying basically "deal with the problem at home and ignore it here". NO I WONтАЩT, and I am not part of a moral wave, I am part of the wave of the future that relies on science and not some holy book.

... frankly I just don't give a flying fuck what any of you think on this subjectAnd yet you are condescending that I can't be bothered answering you previously. I've never found posters frothing at the mouth on any topic at all amusing, and as I keep reminding people, I'm only here for the laughs. The end never justifies the means, but that seems to be the mind-set of so many of the anally-retentive here. Sadly, another one for the {Ignore} button

[Marsilius]

The science that says sex with children is harmful to the child is irrefutable, and I will never, I repeat never look the other way if I see this happening. I will do whatever is possible and reasonable to stop it. If it steps on someoneтАЩs toes, so be it, and if any of you wish to criticize America, the UK or its citizens who go along with this, then you damn well better come up with some kind of science that says we are wrong to do so... I am part of the wave of the future that relies on science and not some holy book.

Oh, dear. Relying on "science" as the basis for their laws was exactly what the race theorists of Nazi Germany did, I seem to recall, and look where that led to.

Far better to recognise that all laws are, in fact, based on relative principles, rather than absolute ones. Different countries and different eras choose to enact different ordinances to suit their own circumstances, preferences and even and prejudices. Whether the basis of that is "some [to them] holy book" - be it the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto - or any other set of principles is entirely up to them.

[Khor tose]

I keep reminding people, I'm only here for the laughs.

Children being hurt-----ha, ha

[Khor tose]

Oh, dear. Relying on "science" as the basis for their laws was exactly what the race theorists of Nazi Germany did, I seem to recall, and look where that led to.

Far better to recognise that all laws are, in fact, based on relative principles, rather than absolute ones. Different countries and different eras choose to enact different ordinances to suit their own circumstances, preferences and even and prejudices. Whether the basis of that is "some [to them] holy book" - be it the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto - or any other set of principles is entirely up to them.

Marsilius, eugentics was never a real science. I am talking about real studies and real science. If you google "effect of child molestation" you will come up with 245,000 books and studies, many published in various journals showing a statical probability of >95% true for the population of a whole. Suggest a talk with an experimental psychologist for a good explaination of what requirement such studies must undergo for validity.

[Bob]

Any government has the right to do what the US has done in this regardI do so agree Bob, and guess what, I was talking to a friend over at State today and this is what he told me. The State Department is proposing a new Bill for the next Congress. State already asks applicants for a Green Card whether they've ever paid for sex. That principle is to be extended. A new crime - paying for sex while abroad - is proposed. State is frustrated by foreign governments, such as Thailand, who have prostitution as a criminal offence on the books but are not prosecuting anyone. It is perceived that by the US creating this new offence they will be able to take on the law enforcement activities of a foreign country where they perceive them to be deficient. The principle has already been established by laws that prosecute Child Sex Tourism, and in denying condoms to the Kenyans (I'm also pleased you mentioned them too, Bob) as a prevention for AIDS as that would merely encourage promiscuity. Thank god for all those clear-thinkers over at State, I say

I'm completely in favour of this proposal - it will keep all those damn Americans away from our beloved Thailand

As you often (too often perhaps) repeat, you're only here for the laughs and to yank peoples' chains. That's fine and that's your right (although rather juvenile); yet, occasionally you try to mix in some actual adult argument (although rather badly on some occasions such as this).

I don't dislike all Brits such as yourself, just some. Make you happy, you silly goose?

[Marsilius]

Oh, dear. Relying on "science" as the basis for their laws was exactly what the race theorists of Nazi Germany did, I seem to recall, and look where that led to.

Far better to recognise that all laws are, in fact, based on relative principles, rather than absolute ones. Different countries and different eras choose to enact different ordinances to suit their own circumstances, preferences and even and prejudices. Whether the basis of that is "some [to them] holy book" - be it the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto - or any other set of principles is entirely up to them.

Marsilius, eugentics was never a real science. I am talking about real studies and real science. If you google "effect of child molestation" you will come up with 245,000 books and studies, many published in various journals showing a statical probability of >95% true for the population of a whole. Suggest a talk with an experimental psychologist for a good explaination of what requirement such studies must undergo for validity.

And, no doubt, if we'd been able to Google "eugenics" in the first 30 years of the 20th century we'd have found thousands of supportive articles, pieces of "research", etc. too - not just from Germany but from all over the world including the USA (in many ways at the forefront of the eugenics movement).

Similarly, Googling (if it had been possible) "phrenology" in the 19th century or "alchemy" in the 16th century would have produced masses of "science" in support of those concepts.

As you often (too often perhaps) repeat, you're only here for the laughs and to yank peoples' chains. That's fine and that's your right (although rather juvenile); yet, occasionally you try to mix in some actual adult argument (although rather badly on some occasions such as this).

I don't dislike all Brits such as yourself, just some.

Agreed 100%, Bob (as, incidentally, I agreed 100% with your previous post on this thread). There is a time and a place for a good laugh (or even a bad one) and a time and a place when it is totally inappropriate and simply demeans the poster; while I may have been guilty of this myself, on occasion, I do at least try not to make a habit of it.

... and Khor tose, while some may disagree with how your conclusion has been reached, I am glad to say that (as far as I am aware) none here have actually disagreed with the conclusion itself. Ignored by the Corporal? Take it as a bonus - even the supposedly amusing one-liners are now becoming jaded, and his other posts vary between superficially uninformed, at best, to dangerously ill-informed, at worst.

[Khor tose]

As you often (too often perhaps) repeat, you're only here for the laughs and to yank peoples' chains. That's fine and that's your right (although rather juvenile); yet, occasionally you try to mix in some actual adult argument (although rather badly on some occasions such as this).

I don't dislike all Brits such as yourself, just some.

Agreed 100%, Bob (as, incidentally, I agreed 100% with your previous post on this thread). There is a time and a place for a good laugh (or even a bad one) and a time and a place when it is totally inappropriate and simply demeans the poster; while I may have been guilty of this myself, on occasion, I do at least try not to make a habit of it.

... and Khor tose, while some may disagree with how your conclusion has been reached, I am glad to say that (as far as I am aware) none here have actually disagreed with the conclusion itself. Ignored by the Corporal? Take it as a bonus - even the supposedly amusing one-liners are now becoming jaded, and his other posts vary between superficially uninformed, at best, to dangerously ill-informed, at worst.

Thank you both.

[Khor tose]

And, no doubt, if we'd been able to Google "eugenics" in the first 30 years of the 20th century we'd have found thousands of supportive articles, pieces of "research", etc. too - not just from Germany but from all over the world including the USA (in many ways at the forefront of the eugenics movement).

Similarly, Googling (if it had been possible) "phrenology" in the 19th century or "alchemy" in the 16th century would have produced masses of "science" in support of those concepts.

I messed up once by letting the subject be changed and I am not going to do it again. Besides that I am at work and busy today. PM me, or even better PM Aunty who is actually a practicing scientist and ask her to explain the difference between a psudo-science and science. I am not dismissing you but all the things you mentions were never really sciences any more then the study of astrology (still wildly practiced) is, or was a science. Better yet that would make a good thread as I suspect (with all the latin I've seen lately) that we may have several people that could do a good job with an explanation. You are in your Saturday, I am at work Friday with 15 things to do.

Choc Dee

[Marsilius]

Saturday???? It's now 6pm Friday in the UK. Maybe better get a scientist to look into your discrepancy...

Oh, dear. Relying on "science" as the basis for their laws was exactly what the race theorists of Nazi Germany did, I seem to recall, and look where that led to.I'm not sure why you bother, Marsilius. I decided long ago, and I've said many times on this Board, that the gang who shriek about paedophilia have the same psychological profile as the deep-in-the-closet-homosexual who doesn't want to confront his homosexuality. It's probably compounded by the fact that for most Westerners, Asians look young; how many "rice queens" are sublimating some inclination to paedophilia? It is possible to have a rational debate about the topic - but not on this Board. Don't forget that when Americans talk about science, a CBS Poll in 2006 revealed that 55% of Americans believe that "God" created man in his present form, 27% believe that man evolved but "God" guided the process, and only 13% believe that evolution needed no help from "God". Perhaps Khor tose would come out about where he stands on that list of alternatives, and why he is not expending his energies on educating his profoundly ignorant fellow countrymen

Are you still smarting, Bob, about your silly comment about never having claimed to have grown up? I promise to visit you in prison when the Feds lock you up under this new law, by the way

[Khor tose]

I decided long ago, and I've said many times on this Board, that the gang who shriek about pedophilia have the same psychological profile as the deep-in-the-closet-homosexual who doesn't want to confront his homosexuality. It's probably compounded by the fact that for most Westerners, Asians look young; how many "rice queens" are sublimating some inclination to pedophilia? Yes, if you have no logical argument resort to just calling names. Homi, thatтАЩs not cleaver that is just plain dumb. It is possible to have a rational debate about the topic - but not on this Board. It appears that as long as you are involved that is true. So far your arguments consist of, "you are an America, you are not logical, and you are probably a pederast for talking about it. Don't forget that when Americans talk about science, a CBS Poll in 2006 revealed that 55% of Americans believe that "God" created man in his present form, 27% believe that man evolved but "God" guided the process, and only 13% believe that evolution needed no help from "God". Perhaps Khor tose would come out about where he stands on that list of alternatives, and why he is not expending his energies on educating his profoundly ignorant fellow countrymen. Even as a confirmed Humanist, I do not regard people who are religious as automatically being stupid, or in need of education, and I am quite proud of most thing America does and much that is stands for. Are you still smarting, Bob, about your silly comment about never having claimed to have grown up? I promise to visit you in prison when the Feds lock you up under this new law, by the way. I am going to have fun for a long time asking Americans when they come to this board bragging about the good time they have had in LOS, if they were arrested for prostitution while they were in country and taking jabs at what is clearly well-read Homi's first big factual error.

One good thing I've noticed about Homi's post of the other threads is that he is being nice to almost everyone else. Maybe while he is calling me names you all can get a break. I think I will send Henry Cate a PM just to test my theory. :laughing3:

... by my suggestion that those who shriek the loudest are more likely than not to be those with something in themselves they are unwilling to confront, I refer them to the scientific literature such as
John Bradford, a psychiatrist with two decades of experience studying pedophilia, estimated that 4 percent of the population meet the criteria for diagnosis (Cloud 2002). Others have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children (Hall et al. 1995, Freund and Costell 1970, Quinsey et al. 1975). Hall's study, for example, found that approximately 30 percent of their sampleтАФconsisting of 80 adult malesтАФexhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicated that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children (Freund et al. 1972). http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pedophilia

[Khor tose]

... by my suggestion that those who shriek the loudest are more likely than not to be those with something in themselves they are unwilling to confront, I refer them to the scientific literature such as
John Bradford, a psychiatrist with two decades of experience studying pedophilia, estimated that 4 percent of the population meet the criteria for diagnosis (Cloud 2002). Others have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children (Hall et al. 1995, Freund and Costell 1970, Quinsey et al. 1975). Hall's study, for example, found that approximately 30 percent of their sampleтАФconsisting of 80 adult malesтАФexhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicated that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children (Freund et al. 1972). http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pedophilia

Why Homi, I am beginning to suspect that you forgot to put me on ignore. Well at least you have stopped some of the BS, but you are still trying to change the subject. The subject is not about people who try to protect children from harm being pedophiles, or what I would call "The Lady doth protest to much syndrome", but whether it is okay for government of a foreign land and people who may be working with them to protect children from being harmed by the citizens of that countries government. . I am getting old myself and I understand how our memory slips a little bit so let me give you the opening statement again.

As a UPenn study estimates there are "nearly 300,000 children in the US are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes," perhaps those Americans working with the Pattaya Police should concentrate their efforts nearer to home?

Okay and now to the above nonsense. Yes, I am sure that the only people who protest children being devastated for life by pedophiles are themselves closet pedophiles. Not only is that true, but every pig that flies wears lipstick.
:love1: