Rue

John Wayne was gay. Clint Eastwood, gay. George Clooney, gay. Halle Berry, gay. Harvey Firestein, straight. George Bush, gay. all you have to do is ask. Its not like its a secret.

Oleg you have of course placed the onion under cold water-therefore your eyes are not blinded by the tears it causes, and you are able to penetrate its many layers and get right to its central essence. I doubt Keng can control his compulsions which he expresses to us with religious pretexts. These things always seem to lead unfortunately to an appocolyptic ending, i.e., something full of rage, feelings of betrayal and confrontation. The problem with some of us humans is our behaviour can become very predictable and in my case deliberate. We tend to repeat it over and over until we force it to come to a head. So Keng how does it end? How do you think you will get them all to obey you? How will you capture them all and get them to do it your way or will someone try stop you? Does that person go to hell or were they sent to bring you there? Perhaps you would like to lecture me about Revelations. Can't wait.

Or me to shush up :lol. Keng: I am holy: Rue: So are my underwear Dance: oy

Yoohoo Keng! "This is an issue that they are forcing," Another negative generalization Keng. Tsssk Tsssk. "... and it's by no means about being "left alone" but stifling all criticisms so that they can openly flaunt and force their lifestyle on others. " Indeed there you go again. You accuse all gays, every single gay of trying to impose their beliefs on the world but you? What are you doingw hen you preach? Say Keng there it goes again-you condemn gays for doing the exact same thing you do, why is that Keng? Why do you think you keep condemning others for the same thing you do? "Christians don't condemn sinners; sinners condemn themselves." Ahahahhah. Let me remind you Keng. You did lecture us that Christians don't condemn the sinners but condemn the sins. Well that was interesting because it would be impossible to condemn a sin without condemning the person committing the sin, in fact impossible. But then you do like to compartmentalize and pretend things are seperate when they are attached don't you? Now you go the next step and say sinners condemn themselves. No Keng "sinners" don't condemn themselves, you do when you make that very statement, you simply replaced the word "I" with "sinners". Its not hard to figure out Keng. Whenever you wish to talk about yourself you use words such as "Christian" "Christians" "Sinner"....say Keng do you think you have used any other words to describe yourself when you write about things being evil? "Inherent to Christianity is the ability for the sinner and non-believer to repent and turn one's back on their sinful past--no matter how bad." Oh do let me translate shall we Keng- Inherent to KENG is the ability for KENG to tell the person Keng feels he has no control over that they must obey KENG. Am I getting close Keng? Is that how it feels-there is a rush in needing to control people and have them obey? "Which is why gays are so adament (and hysterical) about notion that people can leave the gay lifestyle--it undermines their agenda." Let me translate again Keng, "Which is why I am so adament and hysterica; about the notion that people can disobey me, it undermines my agenda." Its really easy after awhile Keng. I love schizmogenetic responses (circular, escalating remarks). Its fun. Oh give me more!!!!!

Oh can you hear its Keng again; "The "gay rights" movement are the one's who instigated this whole uproar and has forced Christians into a position where they have to respond. " Could this be the same Keng who lectured me on not engaging in negative generalizations? "Christians are no less concerned about the other sins that plague our society. " So tell us all Keng, how long have you felt you speak on behalf of all Christians? How long have you felt you were the spokesperson for all Christians? You do tend to speak on their behalf a lot don't you. Gosh do you know them all or I mean could it be you are....generalizing? "You clearly just do not understand the Bible...." Here we go, because someone does not agree with Keng's opinions, they can be condemned as not understanding the Bible-why because Keng's opinions must be agreed with otherwise they must be wrong. "yet you continue to make ignorant comments." Psst Keng, calling someone ignorant because they have an opinion that differs from you is um uh um ignorant. Um uh um uh imagine that Keng doing the exact same thing you criticizes others for. Hmmm you do this continually in every sentence you write. Why do you think that is Keng? Imagine, doing the very same thing you criticize others for. Whct can them mean Keng? " Do you even know what 1 Corinthians 14 is discussing, let alone what all if 1 Corinthians is about?" Now wait. Is this patronizing and insulting and sacastic comment coming from the same man who told Monsieur Dancer not to be sarcastic? Nah it can't be. Keng is a Christian as he has advised us all. He loves his fellow man. He would never ever insult or demean or patronize any fellow man er wait, unless they are gay or Jewish or a non believer or anyone who disagrees with him. Say Keng didn't you tell me I persecute people? What do you think we should call your patronizing belittling coment? Persecutorial? No wait, then that would mean you are the very thing you criticize others for. Hmm I am having deja vu.

Here are the sources I rely on for my comments and Jeff is right about my comment on Constantine ordering E to come up with the manuscripts for the NT that specific info I read in; Prof/ S.L. MacGuire, God's Book of Eskra, Salisbruy, 1922, c.xiviii. I also appreciate MDance's comments and J's. I find them interesting and helpful for me. I think we all basically agree on the council and Constantine's role, just not the exact dates and I am sure we all concede the actual agendas of all the players can be speculated on but of course none of us will really know although Jeffer for me, I really do see this as having been for Constanine a crass political exercise_ i just don't see this man as anything but a crass opportunist-the rest, who knows, I concede I can't possibly know what the motives of all the players would have been and I am sure many of them were driven by very honest good spiritual intentions while others may have simply been power hungry manipulators or maybe both in some cases. I know I am not presenting anything either Danc or Jeff have not seen before and were already aware of. I presented it to show Jeff where I was coming from and I am glad I did, because it enabled me to get an opinion of his on how he sees Constanine and the council's role which I would not have otherwise have properly understood as I do now. Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity. New York, NY.: Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Brothers, 1957 On Mystic Visions as Sources of Knowledge, in S. Katz, Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. New York, New York.: Oxford University Press, 1978 Carl G. Jung Man and his Symbols. New York, NY.: Dell Publishing Co. Inc., 1964 The Origins of the New Testament By Alfred Firmin Loisy, Translated by L. P. Jacks From the French Les Origines du Nouveau Testament, 1936, English Edition, 1962, Published in New Hyde Park, N.Y. by University Books, Inc. Hellenism, the Seed-bed of Christianity, The New Testament's Non-Hebraic, Hellenistic Greek Presuppositions,, Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A. Ed., 29 January 2003, http://www.bibleorigins.net/NewTestament.html From the Catholic Enclcylopedia, I rely on; Vol. vi, p.137, xiv, p.310-11, iii, p.171.

Keng this is in direct response to your comments in italics; "Rue, Your kind of jabbering about Christianity has been going on from day one, so don't think you're accomplishing much by doing this except re-inforcing negative stereotypes." For you to lecture anyone on engaging in negative stereotypes is laughable. Since you have come on this forum all you have done is to engage in them. More to the point Sir, when I responded, I was clear I was stating a subjective opinion, prefaced it with a remark to Christians making it clear what it was, and unlike you at no time suggestidc my opinion was infallible and the only one. Not only that Keng, but provide sources for my opinions when asked. "Christians have always been persecuted by your kind; Christians have always been the victims, regardless of how history gets twisted to seem otherwise." Keng you speak for yourself, no one else. This role you take on as having the right let alone the role of speaking on behalf of all Christians is delusional. You speak for yourself. " But that's okay; we all know where you're headed, so it's safe to say that the ability to wantonly malign and persecute without consequence in this mortal world is small consolation for the prize that awaits your kind" Who is "we" Keng. You speak for you, no one else. The fact that you can not decipher your personal opinions from anyone else's shows what I mean when I suggest you are demonstrating narcissism, an inability to differentiate your feelings from others and understand they are not the same. As for you threatening me with eternal damnation, all it does Keng is show anyone reading your words that you rage and are full of hatred and anger and are under the pretense if you call yourself a Christian it makes such behaviour acceptable. What is also interesting Keng is you accuse me of persecuting Christians, and tell me I am going to hell, and then have the nerve to state and I quote; "All true Christians "hate the sin, not the sinner". Your very words show you do not differentiate between hating me and the sin you think I have engaged in just as your words show you do not differentiate between the sin you think gays engage in and your feelings towards gays as people. Your comments in regards to both gays and myself as well as other posters shows clearly through your words, you simply hate. When asked by another poster what you meant by "your kind" you stated; "God-haters, anti-Christians, those of the general persecutorial bent." Let's get one thing very clear Keng. I despise everything you stand for. I personally think you are a man full of sexual confusion, rage and violence and I have no doubt if given the opportunity you could hurt someone given what I read. But at no time have I questioned Christians or there right to worship or believe in God any way they want and your attempt to suggest I have because I think you use the Christian religion as a pretense for your own expressions of rage and hatred doesn't make me anti-Christian. In fact Keng, even if I believe Jesus was not THE son of God but A son of God, it would not make me a Christian hater. I may also question ALL organized religions in the exact same manner, but it doesn't mean I hate them. As for you Sir having the audacity to suggest I hate God because I won't think like you do and hate people like you do shows in clear form how once again you can not differentiate any view or feeling other then your own and if you sense difference you lash out in a rage to try prevent anything but your feeling or thought from being expressed. No Keng you do not know what I believe and what I do not believe and I am afraid with all the rage and anger in your heart and the loud screams coming from your righteousness you can not hear anything from anyone-you are too busy telling us all how we must obey you. Now then Keng. you tell Monsieur Dancer and I quote; "spare us all your flippant, sarcastic remarks..." . Who is all? You do not speak for anyone but yourself Keng. More to the point Keng, right before you told him not to be sarcastic you stated and I quote; "Honestly, this one-liner drivel that you always resort to is pathetic." Shortly before that you also stated and I quote; "Although there are better sources, I think a quotation from Wikipedia will suffice for you:" Tell me Keng do you care that in every sentence you write, you contradict it with your own words preceding what you say? Keng you have repeatedly demonstrated you do the exact same thing you condemn...over and over. So I say, yes Keng I know. We all now know. The cat is out of the bag. The rage, the conflicted statements, the engaging in exactly what you claim to rage against, the use of religious words to engage in saying hurtful and hateful things-its all there Keng. Now tell me Keng, do you really think threatening me with damnation changes that? BOO!

deleted

deleted

I think yous ummarized it well R. I was suprised though when the police psychologist stated on t.v. he felt the police did not follow standard protocol. You know I do not know the exact protocol only heard tid bits from what that psychologist said on t.v. about it being a last resort and only to be used if the police officer is in direct line of comrpomise, or the subject is hurting himself or others. According to that police psychologist, they were trained to do other stuff before they use the taser. That said, we do not know what protocol they have been given. For all I know, the RCMP within airports may have been told a diff. thing given the 9-11 stuff making anything in airports more volatile. I mean I concede River it could be that. If the RCMP had a protocol telling them to use it right away, then the issue is not whether they used it but whether something else should be used. So you are dead on and we will have to wait to see what the protocol was. No one wants police unecessarily dying but no one wants poor shmuks like this guy having to die the way he did. It is inexcusable this poor guy was trapped like he was. I am sorry but even someone speaking perfect Ebglish has gotten frustrated and wigged out when travelling. It can happen to any of us.

My comments are to the issue as to the origins of the New Testament and not meant to insult any Christians-they are strictly for debate as to the discussion as to the estimated dates or accuracy of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., no. vi, states that the Gospels do not go back to the first century of the Christian era and I think its accurate to say mainstream Christian scholars agree with this. The Catholic Church is on record as having stated that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD ( see pp. 656-7 of the Cath. Ency., which according to my math would be 350 years after the Church claimed that Christ existed. There is also historic consensus that Flavius Constantinus who lived about 272 ad to 337 ad authorised the creation of the New Testament. He lived in an era where most people would have been illiterate and where people believed in numerous Gods. The Catholic Church has conceded (also in the Cath Ency.Vol.iii, p.299) that Constanine was never converted or baptised and was faced with a civil war between people believing in many Gods and alleged Christians and other God factions and so Constantine needed to stabilize his state and make it easy to rule and so based on the advise of his advisors was told if he created a state religion, i.e., a central organ to control peoples’ thoughts and neutralize the many feuding factions, he could achieve this stability. There is also consensus the first ecclesiastical conference was the Council of Nicaea and it was at this gathering the first seeds of Christian religious formality come about. We also know about 4 years prior tot his gathering Constantine joined the order of Sol Invictus, which regarded the Sun as the divine essence. His being a Sun worshipper is no secret and this is precisely why he ordered Eusebius to convene three sittings during the summer solstice, 21 June 325. At this council of Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea was present and made mention of the fact of how everyone was ignorant and illiterate and the convention was a farse, i.e., full of screaming and irrationality. Interestingly the Catholic Church admits that much of what went on at this council were not written down. We know Eusebius made the first speech. There is reference to representatives from Greece, Asia and the following; Caecilian, Paphnutius, Nicasisus, and Donnus. Its estimated that at this council there were around 318 people including bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists. Apparently they screamed and yelled and debated as to what religion to create and follow and in fact many Gods were proposed as the one God everyone should worship and since no one could agree they took a vote which went on for over a year to decide what to call this God. Apparently all they could come up with was a short list of Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus. Constantine then decided that the Druid god, Hesus be fused with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna, the Sanskrit term for Christ or Messiah in Hebrew and Christos in Greek. Based on a vote of 151 to 157, the two Gods were merged into one. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ". So there was no divine inspiration. This was a deliberate political exercise complete with meetings, debates, political manouvering, and voting and its all documented. We then know once they come up with this God, Constanine then ordered Eusebius to come up with a collection of new writings and specifically told him to sift through them, edit them, and come up with only those writings that would serve their political purpose, i.e., using a central organ to control the masses and unify them through one belief system. Interestingly old council records were found and referred to the first council of Nicaea ending in November of 326 ad and we know the second council of Nicaea which was around 787 referred to the first council as having been a gathering of madmen. What is clear is the New Testament was not first hand and anyone who states this is living in la la land. The New Testament came about as part of a deliberate, pre-meditated political plan to create a social control mechanism to control feuding factions of illiterate people. This is why it was created by throwing out many stories, editing and re-writing others, and adding in stories and values reflecting the political agenda behind the people editing the passages. Not even the Catholic Church claims the New Testament is written first hand. Keng’s comment that if something is divinely inspired means its first hand is nonsensical. “Divinely inspired” means a human states, he felt that the passage he has was inspired by God. How is that first hand? Its necessarily a subjective opinion as to the value of the script, i.e., simply believing it as divine. All it is-is at best something a human may have written and then was re-written or edited and changed so many times, no one can say what was the original form or script. But we do know when the council was held, and that the actual process of putting these alleged passages together happened long after the alleged death of Jesus and certainly can not be authenticated as being first hand and in fact many of them clearly state they are gospels “according” to so and so precisely because no one had the original scripts. The fact we do not know the dates of original scripts does not change the fact that there is no proof of the original scripts existing. What we do have is proof of the editing, political selective process involved in pasting together the New Testament and the fact that had to have happened 300 or so years after Christ’s alleged death and necessarily created an impure compilation of documents since they were changed for political and not faith purposes. Divine inspiration? Why because humans say so and want it to be so? The stories are far from original and clearly fuse pagan and other plagerized concepts of deity and saviours and human body Gods sent to save the world. Far from original. In fact so unoriginal as to have forced the Church to admit that the story of Christ is not the only story of a man sent by God in human flesh. So I say, if Keng wants to believe it is so, bully for him but to pronounce to the world it must be divine because he says so does not make it so.

I actually apologize J. I misunderstood your point. Hear that? Its me removing my shoe from my bum bum or my mouth. I also appreciate your other comments. Nwo I get what you are contending which I may not agree with but I at least can understand so I can genuinely respect the point you are making-they were well stated. Now I have to work hard to see what I can counter debate it with. I happen to appreciate it when you do debate-you have an excellent writing style and disciplined line of reasoning when you are in the mood to debate - you jerk, Lol. what you think Iw ould end with a complement? Me? Never.Lol.

Its because you were circumsized. Man JBG do I have to tell you everything. p.s. its really which way your family jewels hang that decides it p.s.s. you commies disagree with everything anyways ahahahah this is fun. Now you label me. let's see-I am so right wing the ice surface at Madison Sqare Gardens has to be modified for me to play hockey OK I am outta here stage right.

Duh, commie Zionist.

"You lose.? Oy gevalt. That is it? Youdeliberately misrepresented what he said to suggest he was defining exactly the dates of the gospel when at no time has he ever stated the dates he referrred to were absolute. Given the fact you are probably well aware that not one story in the Bible can be proven to be written by anyone its claimed to be written by let alone even remotely close to what may have originally been written before it was edited, you think you can engage in passive aggressive name calling and then defend your behaviour with a "you lose" and " I dun havtuh" response I guess I am dealing with a young man. I hope Mama knows you are on the inter-net.

Moxie in response to your words; "Rue I concur, Wahhabi Islam is the target of my anger." From reading your past words and these, I had no doubt of that. I of course concur with all your comments. This fundamentalist crap is a dead weight on humanity. Man if we could only make them put more fibre in their diet and let it pass through them.

Amen. Er you know what I mean.

Given Keng's statement that all of civilization need to be taught how to be moral and normal and of course given his role as one who claims to teach what is moral and normal for us all I said to msyelf, have there been other saviours and then at least 30 examples of saviours claiming to have descended from heaven and taken the form of men come to mind; Chrishna of Hindostan Budha Sakia of India Salivahana of Bermuda Zulis and Orus of Egypt Odin of the Scandinavians Vikings) Crite of Chaldea Baal and Taut of Phoenecia Indra of Tibet Bali of Afganistan Jao of Nepal Wittoba of the Bilingonese Thammuz of Syria Atys of Phrygia Xamolxis of Thrace Adad of Assyria Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam Alcides of Thebes Mikado of the Sintoos Beddru of Japan Hesus or Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids Thor of the Gauls Cadmus and Adonis of Greece Hil and Feta of the Mandaites Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico the Universal Monarch of the Sibyls Ischy of the island of Formosa Divine teacher of Plato the Holy One of Xaca Fohi and Tien of China Ixion and Quirinus of Rome Prometheus of Caucasus Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia not to mention Jesus of Nazareth AND NOW quite possibly Keng of Canada.

Instead of playing the passive aggressive and simply dismissing what people have to say, exercise a bit of discussion and explain yourself. The above response suggests since something might be possible you can make assumptions it happened. Given that line of reasoning just who do you think might be said to be unreasonable? Before you engage in a Keng and hurl an accusation of ridiculous look at your own words. Now tell us, how do you think it is possible the New Testament was not edited and is first hand eye witness testimony written by the actual authors. Tell us how you arrived at the conclusion and dismiss all the archeological and historic evidence and a lot of it from very religious Christians that states otherwise? Do tell us Mr. Everyone Is Ridiculous But You. I do so much want to be enlightened.

I personally agree with you, especially the comments on materialism and spirituality. Its a basic point whether one is conservative or liberal (i.e., burke, bentham, not the other stuff) we can most certainly agree. I think you are dead on. Then again I hate all political ideologies and religions. Never met one I really liked, well except Groucho Marxism.

Actually you might have to think about this, the concept of equality, does not suggest things are the same, it suggests we treat people the way we would want them to treat us-its just a variation of the golden rule. For example equal rights when referred to men and women does not mean to define them as the same, just receive the same treatment under the law. When good bleeding heart liberals such as me talk of equality we do not for one second intend to mean or suggest Sharia Law is equal to Western law. What we are saying is if a Muslim is a Canadian citizen, he or she should be treated no differently then any other Canadian citizen. The fact that I disagree with the Wahabi Islam sect's version of Islam now prevalent in Saudi Arabia does not mean I have to hate all Muslims. Many Muslims like me, condone this kind of law or interpretation of Islam. Hopefully they can grow and get to the point where they can challenge this extremist fundamentalism just as we have and try do so in Christian, Jewish or other societites influenced by certain religion. To me this is an issue of males using fundamentalist concepts to impose their values on men and women unequally in the name of Islam. All religions have men that do this. Its precisely why I reject the orthodox or ultra-porthodox sects in my religion.

The above situation in Saudi Arabia should be causing international condonement but with due respect it won't because of Saudi's oil clout on the countries who should be openly condoning what its doing. That said, I think your take on the feminist movement if you want to call it that is a tad anqtiquated and stereotypical. I think if you actually looked carefully you would see many people in the movement are yegads men and yes straight. You might also find its not all angry women burning bras and male bashing. You would also find that most if not all the leading women's groups have been condoning and trying to bring international attention to what is going on in many countries to women, I am not sure its as simple as you make it sound. The so called women's movement is far from uniform in thought or approach and no its not simply focused on domestic laws. That said this is precisely the kind of legal development the West is afraid to speak out about for fear of angering its oil supply. Interesting how selective we are with the countries we criticize.

Pedophiles do not necessairly have religious agenda on their minds when they molest children. The object of their intentions is not to discredit Christianity its to molest children. In fact pedophiles are known to compartmentalize their thought processes if anything not blend them. In case anyone is really interested pedophiles who have engaged within relious or other institututions to molest children, when interviewed and analyzed, are shown to engage in a cognitive process known compartmentalization, i.e., they keep their religious feelings seperated from their sexual ones in rigid dfferentiated roles because they know they are not compatible. What forensic psychiatry has found with sexual deviants is that when they have a sexual impulse they know society will not not approve of and they feel guilty about it or feel it makes them dirty or evil, (it remains unresolved in their minds) and they were brought up with fundamental religious values, they are more likely to take on the role of a religious figure who damns such behaviour in an attempt to clean themselves or rid themselves of their feels of guilt or self-hatred. This is why for example Jimmy Swaggart rages publically about the evils of adultery but of course in private life is addicted to sex with prostitutes or why a politician makes a career of calling gays evil and unGodly but goe swinto public washrooms to engage in sex with strangers of the same sex. The more they obtain pleasure from their forbidden actions, the more guilty they feel and the more compelled they feel to take on a personna that publically rages against what they do in private. Eventually their public rages become so loud and irrational they break down usually with some sort of action where they compromise themselves. Some psychiatrists theororize the more pronounced the compartmentalization and extremes between the inner and outer personnas become, the more likely the subconscious tries to sabotage the external personna in an effort to resolve the splt between inner and outer identities. What crime investigators have found oiver the years is that pedophiles usually have two tell-tale traits. One is they like tp put themselves in a position where they have access to children so if that means becoming a teacher, a boy scout, etc., that is what they do. ....but pedophiles also have another trait.... if they come from a rigid family background where they were taiught sex was "dirty"-they tend to take on roles or personnas in the public where they can rage to the public about the very actions they feel compelled to do in private and can't stop themselves from doing-its their way of trying to make themselves feel clean or legitimate, In fact a sociopath doesn't go around preaching what they do is good, just the exact opposite. I doubt if you sat with Paul Bernardo he would try argue to you what he did is normal and should be accepted. He would in fact probably try make himself out to be quite a sympathetic gentle man who is a romantic. Its why for example Karla Hamolka can come on t.v. and turn on the tears on cue and make herself appear the victim as opposed to victimizer. Its why so many clergymen have been able to give sermons raging about gays and calling them pedophiles, and then shortly after the sermon molest a choir boy. Compartmentalization of conflicting thoughts enables these conflicted personnas to play out at the same time. You all know about Jimmy Swaggart or politicians raging about family values. How about the Cardinal who gets caught and says he was simply doing research, Peter Townsend of the Who used that same"resear5ch" pretense when he was caught. When Billy Preston got caught, he denied he knew the boy was underage. Bobby Bonds has no problem telling the world he doesn't take sterpoids. That is how compartmentalization works, The difference is this though. In someone repressing homo-sexual sex urges, but is NOT desiring underage boys, once he or she is taught to accept their urges as natural, their compartmentalization ceases and they have no need to rage against the world which is actually their way of raging against themselves. If they don't hate themselves they no longer need to rage. With pedophiles however, the ones who don't feel guilty and truly think its normal , do not adapt outer personnas of rage-they form networks with others just as quiet and calm as themlseves to get access to children. The kind of pedophile who rages outwordly hates himself because of the values he was brought up with. With pedophiles, unlike gays who are consenting adults not hurting anyone, pedophiles do hurt people and so the therapy is not one that teaches them to accept their desires as normal and healthy. In fact it tries to contain them. Very few therapists believe you can actually cure pedophilia. At best you can contain it with drugs and limited kinds of behvioural modification. There is a new legal fiction that criminal defence lawyers have created that argues a pedophile could simply be a normal person who just one time acted strangely due to stress but its legal fiction used as a defence. People under stress don't suddenly become pedophiles. Its an urge they always had and access and opportunity enabled it to come out not the stress. In fact with true stress people become sexually impotent or unable to engage in sex (frigidity) (lowered libido).

Jawa I will respond to the above point in another religious post. I hope you feel free to debate it,

Sorry JBG but I was laughing at myself when you sid that. I mean I don't know if I am capable of just commenting on ANY friggin issue without going off on a psychoanalytic rant! That said in this particular case, I think the police and airport authority screwed up very badly. To start with the Airport authority lied to this guy's mother and said they had no idea where he was. Inexcusable. Second huge mistake they made was not arranging to find someone who could speak Polish to talk to the man. People lost in airports who can not speak English happens each and every day. This is why sometimes you hear on the loudspeaker of any airport a request for someone who can speak the language. The bigger the airport and of course the more international flights there are, the more likely someone will speak the language. If you can' find someone you give them a cell phone and speak with them through a Bell Telephone operator...so what happened here? It was not done. Not knowing he was speaking Polish makes no sense as they could figure out by simply looking at his ticket or passport. I think in this case what you are going to see was THERE WAS NO effort made by the airport to find someone who could speak Polish to speak to the man. Think about it. Someone caught for 10 hours and no one bothering to try speak with him? So by the time the police come in-the airport's negligent actions have set off the remaining incident that would not have happened had the airport done what it has a legal responsibility to do. So now he's in a hyper state of not being able to get help. He's panicked. He throws a chair. So the RCMP are called and 4 officers appear.The video is damning in that it shows they failed to follow basic protocol for defusing such situations in that; 1-like the airport they made no attempt to either bring a Polish translator or slide h im over a cell phone with a Bell Canada Polish translator, which by the way is standard protocol with paramedics when they have a medical emergency and the person doesn't speak English; 2-they then immediately used the Taser rather then follow protocol which is to stand back and use universal hand gestures to try establish contact and see if that will calm him down-universal hand egstures in this case would have consisted of holding their hands up, smiling and then nodding and backing up, pushing down words outstreched as they stepped back, smiling and nodding; 3-none of that was tried, they immediately moved in and its precisely why an RCMP psychology trainer has already stated on the news this is not the standad protocol they were trained to follow; 4-what is also damning from a negligence perspective is the video clearly shows the police were not in a line of fire or immediate physical danger nor was the individual hurting himself or another human, the only other 2 reasons you move to the taser-yes even property damage is not reason to move to the taser unless it is hurting the individual or someone else physically. Me personally I do not like tasers. 17 people have died from them. If used on someone with certain medical problems such as high blood pressure, hardened arteries, heart disease, epilepsy, cancer, diabetes, liver disease, etc., they can kill the person on the sport or cause them to stroke out or literally for their brain to experience hemmeraging leading to death. No its not a panacea or a particularly safe tool. More to the point its show on people strung out on angel dust or crack or crystal meth, it doesn't work, they just rip it out and get even more infruriated and dangerous. There are two other far better restraint methods. One is a foam spray shot from a gun it encases the arms and legs and quickly forms a casing that prevents them from being able to use their arms or legs. The foam is quick forming but non toxic and can easily be removed. It also has the advantage of full restraint without pain which lessens the likelihood of accidental death. The other is the restraining net, also shot from a gun which envelops the subject and contains their arms and legs and entire body but unlike the form requires more physical action by the police officers when subduing the subject. However like the foam option it also is less likely to injure or kill but unlike the foam can be more terrifying. There is also mace which I think should only be used with violent subjects and of course requires the officer to be able to have unobstructed view of their eyes which is not always possible making it sometimes impractical and if it does not completely blind it also can cause the subject to attack with more anger. Electricity is not safe as a subduing agent as each human reacts differntly to it. I myself favour the foam method which is suprisingly cheaper then the taser method. It is a travesty this innocent human spent the remaining hours of his life feeling alone, misunderstood and trapped. Surely we can all concede that point. None of us would want to die this way let alone be treated like this. He was lost for f..ck's sake. How could such a basic issue be so mandhandled? I am a huge supporter of the police but I think in this case they screwed up big time. So did the airport.