Alleged Pedophile Kills self amid allegations.

[PocketRocket]

Hi, ya'll. Been away for a few years. Nice to be back.

Straight into the fray.....

The issue here is that an alleged pedophile killed himself ......

And the key word here is "alleged".

As others have pointed out previously, you seem to have taken upon yourself to convict the man with no benefit of trial.

I could care less if a pedophile takes his own life, good riddance.

If the man was indeed what he was accused of being, then my sympathy is also limited.

There is another possible scenario that does not seem to have been touched on here as of yet.

The mere accusation of pedophilia has an inherent stigma which simply does not go away.

Just as you found this man guilty with no trial, a large segment of society has the tendency to do the same.

Let's take as an example the late, great Michael Jackson.

Accused, but never convicted, EXCEPT in the court of public opinion.

To this day, jokes abound about the man and his alleged activities.

At risk of sounding holier-than-thou, but true nonetheless, through all those years I always gave MJ benefit of the doubt. It was plain to anyone with eyes that someone casting such accusations at a man of MJ's wealth could stand to make tons of cash.....and they did.

Was MJ a strange man??? You bet he was.

Did he enjoy the company of children, even in his bed??? By his own admission, yes he did.

Did he sexually abuse these kids???

Easy to come to the conclusion that he did, based on all evidence provided, and yet after his death, at least one of his former accusers has come forward and admitted that his accusations were made at the behest of his mother in an attempt to grab some of MJ's cash.

As to WHY MJ may have enjoyed romping, rollicking pillowfights with kids, consider the fact that he never had a childhood of his own. Never had a private life. Maybe playing with kids, having sleepovers, etc was simply his own strange way of reclaiming his own lost childhood.

We will never know.

But we do NOW know, as stated previously, that at least one of the cases brought against him was false.

Were the others false as well???

And yet, even with this knowledge now made public, we STILL hear the MJ-as-child-molester jokes.

The stigma remains, even after his death, simply because accusations were brought.

Perhaps the ALLEGED pedophile you are so quick to condemn also feared living with such stigma.

Perhaps THAT is why he offed himself.

Perhaps also, since you claim to be a Christian, it would be better to take to heart the words from the Bible from which you are quick to quote.

Perhaps you should keep in mind that "Judgment is mine, sayeth The Lord".

Until I meet you in person, and see your halo, by your own beliefs you are not qualified to judge others, unless your beliefs are not so strong as you claim.

One pedophile has well over 100 victims throughout his/her lifetime if not stopped.

Citation, please.

[PocketRocket]

The rest of this post was addressed by my previous response. As for this line....

In my pov he robbed those children of gaining any type of closure at all.

How much closure do you want??? The guy is DEAD. I think that's about as much closure as someone who has been assaulted, sexually or otherwise, could hope for.

Knowing the (alleged in this case) predator who assaulted you is no longer among the living would, I think, allow these people to sleep just a wee bit better.

Edited October 9, 2009 by PocketRocket

[Melanie_]

Good to see you back, PocketRocket!

[Mr.Canada]

Hi, ya'll. Been away for a few years. Nice to be back.

Straight into the fray.....

And the key word here is "alleged".

As others have pointed out previously, you seem to have taken upon yourself to convict the man with no benefit of trial.

The police do not lay charges in serious matters such as these willy nilly. There must have been some damning evidence in order for him to be charged.

Are other people that are charged with similar charges given the benefit of the doubt like this? No.

These people don't have control and cannot stop their urges to touch children. I'm sorry sir, I have zero sympathy for pedophiles. I don't make it my business to defend child molesters as some people do. These monsters deserve everything they get.

I hope the government has the foresight to increase sentencing for pedophiles and child molesters as the average sentence for a pedophile/child molester is 7 years. That is despicable and disgusting. Then these monsters are free to hurt more children and 80-90% of them re offend sometime in t heir lives. That means more children get hurt.

Here is your cite PocketRocket. I included a few.

“The average pedophile will victimize 244 children in their lifetime, according to the Massachusetts Children’s Trust Fund, a child advocacy group working to prevent child abuse and neglect.” http://www.aninchfrommurder.com/blog/archi...age_follows.php

“On average, a pedophile will victimize hundreds of children.” http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050825.html

“A major problem among incarcerated child pedophiles is that they often aren’t treated in prison, and thus, become repeat child offenders.”

http://childprotection.lifetips.com/cat/63...tics/index.html

Here's a link to the NAMBLA(North American Man/Boy Love Association) wikipedia page. You can see for yourself the sick thoughts these people have. Absolutely disgusting.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[PocketRocket]

Good to see you back, PocketRocket!

Thanks, Melanie. Good to be back. I don't think I'll be frequenting the place as often as I used to, but I'll be dropping in from time to time.

[PocketRocket]

The police do not lay charges in serious matters such as these willy nilly. There must have been some damning evidence in order for him to be charged.

Yes, yes. Damning evidence in the case of pedophilia is having a kid say "he touched my.....". THAT, sir, is all the damning evidence required for investigations to be launched and arrests to be made.

And in the case of an old acquaintance of mine, the "damning evidence" was his psycho ex-wife who simply wanted to cut him off from all contact with his own kids, so she cast false allegations. Luckily for my friend, she was a poor liar, and after a few months of contesting this, she was told, by the judge, who saw through her lies, that if she did not tell the truth immediately, she would be charged with contempt, and would spend time in jail. She came clean at the behest of her council.

My friend, however, still lives with those whispers behind his back. After 12 years, with both kids grown up, and both having said that they spoke the lies at the urging of their mother, the stigma remains.

Not so cut-and-dried when it's someone you know, when it was indeed untrue, and when the injured party is punished for years after the fact, and punished for a crime he did not commit.

The kids, by the way, moved out of their mother's home, and back in with their father and his wife of their own volition. "Had to get away from the old psycho" is what they'll tell you if asked why they left their mom.

So you see, sir, my contention is not about how we should treat pedophiles, but how we should NOT pre-judge ANYONE. That is why we have a legal system, and why we pay judges.

Are other people that are charged with similar charges given the benefit of the doubt like this? No.

And this makes it right??? Hmmm. Good solid mob-mentality here. "We got away with lynching that boy yesterday, so let's lynch another today".

My entire point is that we, as a society AND as individuals should take more care in passing judgment. We should wait until the facts are in, ALL the facts.

You have not done that, and THIS is the point I am addressing.

These people don't have control and cannot stop their urges to touch children.

I am not a psychologist and so do not claim to know all the inner workings of the human mind.

You do seem certain, though. What are YOUR qualifications.

I also do not deal in absolutes, nor in blanket statements. Are you claiming that there is not a single person out there who DOES have the urge to touch children, but is not able to control it???

Kind of tough to prove, so we should probably leave that one alone.

I'm sorry sir, I have zero sympathy for pedophiles. I don't make it my business to defend child molesters as some people do. These monsters deserve everything they get.

I have the same lack of sympathy, for CONVICTED pedophiles. Show me the proof, and I'll help you throw him in a cell.

I also do not make it my business to defend CONVICTED pedophiles. (Although your implication that I do does not go unnoticed, I simply refuse to enter a flame war)

I agree, once convicted, they should be punished severely.

I, in fact, would applaud the introduction of some sort of surgical procedure to render them impotent. I would, however, like to see a reversible procedure as we have, in the past, seen convicted men who later turned out to be innocent. I am sure you do not need me to cite such a case for you.

Bottom line here, sir, and where we differ, is NOT in our mutual loathing of pedophiles, but in your premature assumption of guilt.

We have a legal system. We live in a society where someone is SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty.

From the tone of your posts here, it seems to me that if you lived in my area, and knew my friend, you too would be one of those whispering vile things behind his back. Perpetuating false information about an innocent man.

That, sir, is where we differ, and until you admit that someone should NOT be publicly vilified until the facts are in, then we shall continue to be at odds.

Until you do come to this realization, you will continue with a 16-th century witch-hunt mentality, where the mere accusation is sufficient to condemn a person.

I refuse to regress to such a state.

[Mr.Canada]

PocketRocket, I don't think that people that go about their lives normally have to worry about being charged. This person had to do something "off" in order to garner the police attention he did.

The police don't just drive down the street looking for people who look like diddlers and decide to charge them.

This guy must have done something questionable, he had to of or he wouldn't have been charged.

If the police are in the wrong where's the lawsuit on his behalf?

It's obvious that his guilt for what he had done was tearing him up. He knew the stats and knew that he didn't want to hurt any more children anymore and the only to be sure he didn't was to off himself.

An innocent person would be screaming and jumping up and down to clear their name, he did none of this. Innocent people just don't behave the way this alleged child molester did.

It really is as simple as that.

[Melanie_]

It's obvious that his guilt for what he had done was tearing him up. He knew the stats and knew that he didn't want to hurt any more children anymore and the only to be sure he didn't was to off himself.

This is pure speculation. You have no idea what this guy was actually thinking, you are just making it up as you go along. Maybe they will have an inquest to find out the truth, but until then we don't know.

[PocketRocket]

This guy must have done something questionable, he had to of or he wouldn't have been charged.

You make it really tough to not start calling names.

Your logic is as solid as your grammar (....he had to of....???)

I get the idea that you did not even read my previous post.

All it takes is a single accusation for charges to be laid.

That accusation could be a lie from someone with an ulterior motive.

No one or any group is above the law.

Exactly right, and in our country the law says "Innocent until proven guilty"

It's as simple as that.

As someone who claims to be Conservative, I would think you would be mindful of the law.

As someone who claims to be Christian, I would think you would be mindful of Christ's law.

No sir. On both counts, you know best. You know better than the law of the land, and you know better than God Himself.

It is people like you who ASSume that someone is guilty, simply because charges have been brought, who cause the sort of stigma I have wasted several minutes of my life trying to get through your skull.

If being charged with a crime automatically meant guilt, then we would have no need for lawyers, judges, courtrooms, etc.

Perhaps we should all follow your lead and just assume that everyone who is charged with a crime is automatically guilty. After all, they must have done SOMETHING wrong, or the police wouldn't have charged them.

Hell, let's throw Milgard back in jail. Let's throw ALL those who have been accused in jail, even those who have been found innocent in a court of law.

Let's just get rid of the judges and lawyers and courtrooms and just assume everyone the police pick up is guilty and throw them in jail.

Think of the millions the country would save in legal wranglings.

I should have seen the brilliance in your scheme before

Edited October 10, 2009 by PocketRocket

[Mr.Canada]

I'm just a normal person and that's the way I speak, normally. I've meet literally hundreds of people a year and I can tell you that just because someone is educated it doesn't make them smart. Book smart sure but that has little to do with reality.

Well this is where it ends for me, I've had enough. I'm not going to convince you that you shouldn't support alleged pedophiles and you're not going to convince me I should.

It's fairly obvious that people who don't have children are more concerned with themselves then they are about the victims. If people did this would effect them differently.

People don't put themselves in the victims shoes enough. It's always all about the poor alleged criminal and never about the victims. They left are more concerned about the welfare and rehabilitation of the alleged criminal then they are about the victims.

Someones child came to their parents and said that a man or woman did something wrong to them.

As I said before if he was wrongly accused, where is the lawsuit?

I also said innocent people do not behave the way this guy did.

You chose to ignore these two points and instead shift your focus onto me with your ad hominem.

[Wild Bill]

I'm just a normal person and that's the way I speak, normally. I've meet literally hundreds of people a year and I can tell you that just because someone is educated it doesn't make them smart. Book smart sure but that has little to do with reality.

Well this is where it ends for me, I've had enough. I'm not going to convince you that you shouldn't support alleged pedophiles and you're not going to convince me I should.

It's fairly obvious that people who don't have children are more concerned with themselves then they are about the victims. If people did this would effect them differently.

People don't put themselves in the victims shoes enough. It's always all about the poor alleged criminal and never about the victims. They left are more concerned about the welfare and rehabilitation of the alleged criminal then they are about the victims.

Someones child came to their parents and said that a man or woman did something wrong to them.

As I said before if he was wrongly accused, where is the lawsuit?

I also said innocent people do not behave the way this guy did.

You chose to ignore these two points and instead shift your focus onto me with your ad hominem.

For the record, I have children and I'm certainly NOT a leftie!

Yet I disagree with you! Why? Because I don't find your arguments to be logical! I think you would make a great preacher, where all your points are to be taken on faith.

Myself, I draw a distinction between faith and reason.

[PocketRocket]

As I said before if he was wrongly accused, where is the lawsuit?

I also said innocent people do not behave the way this guy did.

Generally, in this country, when accusations are brought, the accused is not the one launching the lawsuit, he is the one defending.

If he is found to be innocent, he may launch a counter-suit for slander or some such.

Seldom are both cases happening simultaneously.

Does that reply meet your expectations???

As for how an innocent person would behave, again, show me your psychology credentials, and then we'll talk about how someone in a particular circumstance would act.

But you're right about one thing. You are not going to convince me. What you are wrong about is what is is you're not going to convince me of......I will not assign myself the multiple tasks of judge-jury-executioner. You seem to have no problem taking on these multiple tasks. Must be nice to be infallible.

And you sir, who I have so far refrained from attaching a label to, appear to be a hypocrite; that assumption based on your self-contradicting posts.

[ToadBrother]

The police do not lay charges in serious matters such as these willy nilly. There must have been some damning evidence in order for him to be charged.

The police get things wrong. A man is only guilty when determined by a court of law to be guilty.

Are other people that are charged with similar charges given the benefit of the doubt like this? No.

And that is unfortunate. I'm sure if you were accused of such a crime you would wish people would give you the benefit of the doubt.

These people don't have control and cannot stop their urges to touch children. I'm sorry sir, I have zero sympathy for pedophiles. I don't make it my business to defend child molesters as some people do. These monsters deserve everything they get.

I have no sympathy for pedophiles either. I do, however, have a great deal of respect for one of the most fundamental of our liberties, that we are innocent until proven guilty.

I hope the government has the foresight to increase sentencing for pedophiles and child molesters as the average sentence for a pedophile/child molester is 7 years. That is despicable and disgusting. Then these monsters are free to hurt more children and 80-90% of them re offend sometime in t heir lives. That means more children get hurt.

Which has nothing to do with determination of guilt.

[Mr.Canada]

Generally, in this country, when accusations are brought, the accused is not the one launching the lawsuit, he is the one defending.

If he is found to be innocent, he may launch a counter-suit for slander or some such.

Seldom are both cases happening simultaneously.

Does that reply meet your expectations???

As for how an innocent person would behave, again, show me your psychology credentials, and then we'll talk about how someone in a particular circumstance would act.

But you're right about one thing. You are not going to convince me. What you are wrong about is what is is you're not going to convince me of......I will not assign myself the multiple tasks of judge-jury-executioner. You seem to have no problem taking on these multiple tasks. Must be nice to be infallible.

And you sir, who I have so far refrained from attaching a label to, appear to be a hypocrite; that assumption based on your self-contradicting posts.

Keep defending alleged pedophiles and child molesters, someone has to I suppose.

I don't really care about a diddling piece of human garbage like this tbh. The world is a better place without him in it.

More victims of his are coming forward and speaking to police. Did you know that?

When it comes out that the accusations were true based on multiple victim statements, I'll be sure to bring up your words again.

Oh, and if you ever post on how you 're tough on crime, I'll be sure to bring up these posts as well.

I personally find it sad that people take the side of an alleged pedophile/child molester over that of a childs. Our children deserve to be protected not cannon fodder for left wing political gain. Shame on you sir....shame.

I'm not a medical professional to be sure but I have vast experience with convicted criminals and am in court often. I see and hear many things you could only imagine didn't exist. Not everything makes it the papers you know.

A pedophile that doesn't get caught will abuse 200+ children if their lifetime. They're not worth the risk. Pedophilia cannot be treated and these people should be classed as dangerous offenders immediately and locked up for life. 90% reoffend. Also I'd like to see a registered sex offender program like they have in the US complete with a bumper sticker and lawn signs that identify themselves a pedophiles or child molesters. The public has the right to be informed when we have a monster in our midst. Trying to blend in with our children, getting their jollies as they walk to school.

Would you feel comfortable living next to a pedophile after they've been released? After all they're no longer guilty and have served their sentence right?

[PocketRocket]

ToadBrother: You may as well save your breath, friend. The man is guilty because Mr Canada says he is guilty because he MUST be guilty because if he were not guilty the police never would have laid charges because.......

It's a never ending circle. And if you disagree with the assumed guilt, then you must hate children and love pedophiles because if you didn't you would agree that the man is guilty because Mr Canada says he is guilty because the police laid charges because........

.....and so on.

[Mr.Canada]

I never said he was guilty, what I did say is that he should be monitored of current activities and let to roam free among our children until his guilt is proven in a court of law. However now that he took the cowards way out he'll never has his day in court.

[ToadBrother]

I never said he was guilty, what I did say is that he should be monitored of current activities and let to roam free among our children until his guilt is proven in a court of law. However now that he took the cowards way out he'll never has his day in court.

Usually in such cases there are restrictions on who the accused can be around. A teacher is almost inevitably put on leave.

So I have no idea what your problem is here, other than that you're a bloodthirsty kind of guy who has some sort of authoritiarianism fetish about cops.

[Oleg Bach]

What I find unjust is the idea that during some family law dispute the woman can whisper to the authorities that the husband and the father is molesting his very own children...Then they torment the poor man to the brink of finacial and emotional suicide - Then after this dirty deed is done...and the truth becomes known - that the male is innocent of this evil...NOTHING is done to punish the slandering bastard that brought about the suffering to all concerned...why are liars not considered crimminals? Oh and I have seen an incident in a court room where the nasty cheating female is caught lying on the stand and all the Judges says in these regards to justify the evil is "She must have had a good reason"

[Melanie_]

If anyone suspects a child is being abused, they have an obligation to report. Its not up to individuals to investigate, and sometimes people make allegations that turn out to be incorrect. If they make the allegation in good faith, they are protected from prosecution. Its better to have a false allegation than to allow a child to continue to be abused and do nothing.

[jbg]

It's also quite repulsive that all the media attention is swirling around the sympathy for this disgraced teacher and not on the two innocent victims of his alleged assault.

Assuming he was guilty there's no place in hell bad enough for him. However there have been known to have been unfounded charges motivated by blackmail.

Someone may well kill themselves rather than face slow motion societal and reputational death.

[Argus]

Well, I'm a little weary of the subject, but I think I should pronounce on this simply because no one else has made these points.

1. Being accused of lusting after children is the worst possible accusation one can suffer in this society today. It is worse than being accused of rape, of robbery, of murder. People will look at you warily if accused of murder, but people will look at you with utter contempt, even family members, and perhaps outright assault you on the streets if you're an accused child molester.

2. The man was charged with "Invitation to sexual touching" and "luring". That sounds to my inexpert eye as if nothing actually happened. That is, he is charged with attempting to make something happen. The criminal code defines "invitation..." as counselling directly or indirectly, a person under 14 to touch... well, anyone in a sexual way. However, had he actually touched I think sexual interference charges would have been laid. Counselling someone indirectly to touch someone... well it sounds like a pretty difficult matter of interpretation. Certainly that is something best left to a judge to pronounce on.

In any event, those talking about these boys as having had their lives destroyed by this man are being more than a tad dramatic.

3. I'm reminded of a huge world-wide sweep for pedophile downloaders a few years back. Many were arrested simply because credit card records indicated they had been members of a particular web site. A number of them commited suicide, and there was some indicatons that, in fact, they had never been guilty, that someone had simply stolen their credit card. A British army general in charge of Malta killed himself over the charge, and no porn and no indication of porn was ever found on his computers, nor any indication he'd ever been on that web site. Likely, his card was simply stolen and used by someone else. Yes, the charge alone can incite suicide nowadays, even from the innocent.

4 Paedophila is a psychological disease. No one ever asks to be a pedophile. Those of us with empathy can still only imagine the tortured lives such people lead. Once, those who refrained from contact with children could keep their urges hidden. Nowadays even those who look at pictures they've downloaded from a thousand miles away can be thrown into prison for life. Even those who write down their sexual fantasies can be dragged to the centre of town for everyone to point and shout and throw stones. I don't have the same level of sexual urges I had when I was younger, but I don't need psychiatrists to tell me how powerful those urges are to some. I'm not sure, frankly, that I could have resisted if looking at pictures of women, or trying to have sex with women had been criminalized to the same degree. Maybe I would have wound up in prison. Maybe some of you would have, too.

[ToadBrother]

3. I'm reminded of a huge world-wide sweep for pedophile downloaders a few years back. Many were arrested simply because credit card records indicated they had been members of a particular web site. A number of them commited suicide, and there was some indicatons that, in fact, they had never been guilty, that someone had simply stolen their credit card. A British army general in charge of Malta killed himself over the charge, and no porn and no indication of porn was ever found on his computers, nor any indication he'd ever been on that web site. Likely, his card was simply stolen and used by someone else. Yes, the charge alone can incite suicide nowadays, even from the innocent.

Operation Ore. While it did net many actual pedophiles, it also nailed a lot of innocent people. Probably the best known case was Who guitarist Pete Townsend. His tale is a cautionary one for these kinds of child pornography stings:

1. The guy uses his credit card to view a site that has nothing to do with child pornography.

2. That credit card number is stolen and used as part of a criminal scam to flush funds through child porn sites for the cash.

3. Operation Ore discovers the card number, arrests Townsend and seized his equipment.

4. Despite the fact that a forensic search of Townsend's computers shows no signs of child pornography ever having been downloaded, Townsend appears to have been given the choice between a trial that's bound to be a media circus or receiving a caution and being putting a sex offender's list for five years.

5. A later investigation by journalist Duncan Campbell reveals that the British investigators had no evidence that Townsend had ever accessed child pornography.

6. Campbell further discovers that what really happened was that the British investigators had little or no understanding of online credit card fraud, were so keen to get as many people as they could (and in particular high profile people) that they just wantonly arrested and accused everyone whose credit card numbers showed up on the list. In fact, the FBI, which had done some similar and related investigations netted far fewer people because it's online fraud experts knew that you couldn't just get these lists and wantonly assume that the credit itself was the smoking gun.

This is what happens when you get a combination of an investigative group that needs to deliver big results, public paranoia fueled by both the police and the media (who seem to want us all to believe that there's a pedophile lurking on every street corner), and ignorance of the underlying technologies being used to nab suspects. The phenomena of people admitting guilt to things they haven't done, particularly after being hammered by police with supposed "evidence" and faced with an embarassing trial that could destroy their lives, in exchange for a relatively light sentence, is common enough that it should suggest to everyone that certain police investigative and interview techniques can lead to substantial miscarriages of justice.

[PocketRocket]

I never said he was guilty, what I did say is that he should be monitored of current activities and let to roam free among our children until his guilt is proven in a court of law. However now that he took the cowards way out he'll never has his day in court.

You never said he was guilty???

Interesting. And yet when all I have argued is the simple fact that his guilt has not been proven, you have repeatedly accused me of defending a child molester.

If you are not assuming him to be guilty, then why is he not an "alleged" molester???

Additionally, in your post immediately previous to this one, you say....

I don't really care about a diddling piece of human garbage like this tbh. The world is a better place without him in it.

Hmmmm.....so he's a "diddling piece of human garbage".

In your opinion, this is not a straightforward condemnation???

And before that one, there was this....

It's obvious that his guilt for what he had done was tearing him up.

Sounds pretty much like you've passed judgment and decided he is guilty, and posting a statement like that is a public declaration of his guilt.

Perhaps we should make it a poll and see if I am the only one who has interpreted your remarks that way???

You continue in trying to distract me with accusations that I defend pedophiles. I've already said I do not.

What I DO defend is a person's right to a fair trial before they are pilloried.

You don't seem to think some people are entitled to a trial before YOU pass judgment.

That has been my entire argument throughout this thread.

And you have contradicted yourself nearly every time you have replied to me.

And for the record.....

I'm not going to convince you that you shouldn't support alleged pedophiles and you're not going to convince me I should.

Congratulations on your use of the word "alleged" in this post, but nowhere did I say anyone should support him or any other "alleged" criminal.

What I said is they should get their day in court BEFORE we publicly tar-and-feather them.

That is all.

Once pronounced guilty, I'll help you lock them up, and I'll do my best to lose the key.

Until the day that a court pronounces them guilty, I will hold my tongue.

You don't seem to think that's important.

[PocketRocket]

ToadBrother: That last post you made was excellent. Very insightful, with some new information of which I had been previously unaware.

ARGUS Kudos to you for your last post as well.

You two have both raised some great points, many of which I had not previously considered, Thanks to you both.

Edited October 14, 2009 by PocketRocket

[Oleg Bach]

Cruxifiction by media is not nice - no one knows who or what this person truely was or was not. Dead men tell no tales. I still see a person who was a sexual dysfunctional person who was underdeveloped in many ways. His worst crime was approaching young men and asking them "what's it like to be normal".