One of these characters, with whom I have had numerous long debates involving many hundreds of posts over a period of several years on this forum, has shown himself to be of the lowest possible personal quality. I consider people like this, who are simply incapable of entertaining a debate without constant personal abuse and who go to the max to build straw-man cases against those with whom they disagree, to be nothing short of the absolute scum of society.

So Is Mise, would you care to address questions that I have already posed a couple of times….

How could anyone have explored the things that I have explored here without you and most others in the debate thinking really poorly of me?

Would it have even been possible?

Or would you have preferred that all the things I have raised remained unspoken… and the very narrow perspective of this whole issue upheld?

<< That is where you are wrong, there is no light or heavy end of the spectrum. Being a pedophile is like walking off a cliff, you can't walk off a little, or a lot, for that matter, you can only walk off. A person simply by action passes a point of no return through a one way door, "Rolf Harris you are a pedophile" that is the community attitude, there is no "Rolf Harris you are a little bit of a pedophile" or "Rolf Harris you are an ex-pedophile" the last two do not exists. Harris got fairness from the judge, to the best of his ability, in the sentencing process. Harris has now "gone" forever. >>

Paul, you appear to be contradicting your earlier agreement that his actions were at the light end of the spectrum. I am not going to hunt back through old posts to find your exact words.

I vehemently disagree with you on this point. There most definitely IS a spectrum of severity. If there wasn’t, then Harris would have got life imprisonment, which would be the correct penalty for offences committed at the severe end of the spectrum.

We as a society, and the little band of nasty intolerants on this thread, are TOTALLY WRONG to just completely condemn Harris or people who undertake misdemeanours which are towards the light end of the spectrum.

Why should this sort of principle be different for pedophilia / child molestation / child touching than it is for all other offences?

Ludwig,

"....and the little band of nasty intolerants on this thread, are TOTALLY WRONG...."

Aww, come on....surely your not classifying us thus without exploring the other POSSIBILITIES.

I mean you've passed judgement according to Ludwig's Law of Debate - which apparently condemns those who don't buy his reasoning as "nasty intolerants" who are (prime shouty font) TOTALLY WRONG".

Interesting....

Ludwig,

".... to just completely condemn Harris or people who undertake misdemeanours which are towards the light end of the spectrum."

Kiddy fidling is a crime not a misdemeanour.

See:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/misdemeanour

"English definition of “misdemeanour”

noun [C] UK (US misdemeanor)
› an action that is slightly bad or breaks a rule but is not a crime:"

As regards the "hole" Ludwig, you dug it yourself and, metaphorically speaking, you are doing well to be able to throw the spoil so high but it is has started sliding in on you.

Ludwig,

"... I consider people like this, who are simply incapable of entertaining a debate without constant personal abuse and who go to the max to build straw-man cases against those with whom they disagree, to be nothing short of the absolute scum of society."

You're the one who's slinging about "personal abuse" on this thread...and merely because people dismiss your argument.

Here's a juicy selection of Ludwig's idea of courteous interaction - these from his most recent posts:

"Thanks again Poirot for demonstrating your incredibly blinkered view…"

"What an incredibly hopeless way of thinking. Or I should say; of NOT thinking!"

"Or was it the small bunch of total intolerants who couldn’t stomach these suggestions, without launching straight into tirades of personal abuse?"

"Have a look at the character of people still in this discussion. There is one of good character, there is one of a very polarised nature and quite nasty character and there are a couple of dismal personal character, who don’t respect the OLO forum rules and who just flame to the hilt."

"One of these characters, with whom I have had numerous long debates involving many hundreds of posts over a period of several years on this forum, has shown himself to be of the lowest possible personal quality. I consider people like this, who are simply incapable of entertaining a debate without constant personal abuse and who go to the max to build straw-man cases against those with whom they disagree, to be nothing short of the absolute scum of society."

"...and the little band of nasty intolerants on this thread, are TOTALLY WRONG to just completely condemn Harris..."

Step up and take a bow, Ludwig.

Accusing others of personal abuse while spraying it around yourself is quite a feat.

As I said Ludwig, Harris is not the worse case of pedophilia ever uncovered, all would agree. But a branded pedophile never the less, something Harris will have to live with for the rest of his life, he did not get hung, and that lightness was reflected in the sentence. They were all crimes, and that's where we may differ. Do you see some of the convictions as unwarranted? I don't. You may also think the sentence was too harsh. I don't.