NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a topic that is really pushing my views on things. Especially after listening to that father who lost his daughter to a creature that lived across the street from them.

I have a very cute happy confident daughter(didn't get it from me ;) ). We want her to be confident but we are running into problems such as walking down the street on her own(she is four and frequently declares "I will do it").

It makes me wonder what society has become as I remember as a kid you could play till dark and walk the neighborhood without thinking about it.

We are going to give the stranger talk. Hope it doesn't freek her out.

I checked the Megans Law website and see that we have a few creatures in the neighborhood. One on the street behind us. What do you do? Torment the animal and run him out of town?

Do these creatures ever get "cured"

What do we do for punishment? Kill them? It makes you wonder when the prisons have to seperate them from the other cons.

Life in Prison? Is that really punishment? Do they regret what they did or do they regret not having access to children anymore.

Again, can they be cured or is it another crime waiting to happen.

What of groups like Nambla? It really pushes your belief of the Consititution by saying they have a right to say their piece. Even when a few "members" have been arrested for attacking a child.

Just some random thoughts on Saturday night while sick.....

What of groups like Nambla? It really pushes your belief of the Consititution by saying they have a right to say their piece. Even when a few "members" have been arrested for attacking a child.

o.O

Is that actually real?!?

-SNIP-

What of groups like Nambla? It really pushes your belief of the Consititution by saying they have a right to say their piece. Even when a few "members" have been arrested for attacking a child.

I disagree with that statement. Ever heard of the saying "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?

As much as I hate them, even groups like Neo-Nazis and the KKK have a right to speak their mind, whether it's sick, twisted, and selfish or not. Kinda like that one issue in Nationstates when the Nazi rally comes to your country.

(To tell the truth, I take no stance on NAMBLA.)

I disagree with that statement. Ever heard of the saying "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?

As much as I hate them, even groups like Neo-Nazis and the KKK have a right to speak their mind, whether it's sick, twisted, and selfish or not. Kinda like that one issue in Nationstates when the Nazi rally comes to your country.

(To tell the truth, I take no stance on NAMBLA.)

I usually say the same thing. But then I became a father. It's not so easy at that point. Yet I still am not in the shut them down camp.

The greator demon is when we start defining what is proper to say.

Kanabia: Yes they do exist.

Kanabia: Yes they do exist.

The world is doomed. :( I thought it was just a South Park thing...

The greator demon is when we start defining what is proper to say.


As a huge supporter of Freedom Of Speech, I don't think it's much of a demon at all.

Your child is far more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than to be one of the handful of children kidnapped by a stranger each year. Of course that doesnt mean you shouldnt warn her, just dont make her scared of people. In fact, the vast majority of abuse (well over 90%) is perpetrated by people that the child (and the parent) knows well and trusts. It isnt the strangers you need to be careful about, its the people you thought you knew well.

As for NAMBLA, they are rather insignificant and nothing to worry about.

Your child is far more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than to be one of the handful of children kidnapped by a stranger each year. Of course that doesnt mean you shouldnt warn her, just dont make her scared of people. In fact, the vast majority of abuse (well over 90%) is perpetrated by people that the child (and the parent) knows well and trusts. It isnt the strangers you need to be careful about, its the people you thought you knew well.

As for NAMBLA, they are rather insignificant and nothing to worry about.

Thank you.

Hysteria is unbecoming people.

Love your children. Take care of them. But don't scare the crap out of them unnecessarily.

And don't run around carrying out the latest witch hunts.

Your child is far more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than to be one of the handful of children kidnapped by a stranger each year

That doesn't mean we should tolerate them. If we can use reasonable means to protect children they should be employed. Predators are never cured, just people waiting to relapse and find new victims. Ask Jessica Lunsford. Wait, she's dead. Really effective system.

And NAMBLA really shouldn't be covered under free speech. The First Amendment was designed to protect opinions and ideas and beliefs, but child molestation is so way the hell out there that there is little reason to even consider it a valid political/social argument. Common sense dictates that what they want is so fundamentally wrong that their continued existance is a menace. My two cents of course.

That doesn't mean we should tolerate them. If we can use reasonable means to protect children they should be employed.


Of course. But teaching your child to fear people is not reasonable. The consequences are simply not worth the benefits when you take risk into account. Its like teaching your child's body to tolerate poisons by feeding them tiny doses and increasing the doseage as they get older. Sure, you can immunize them against many deadly poisons that way, but they will spend many days sick as a result and the risk of ever needing that poison immunity in their lifetime is too small to make that consequence worthwhile. Same with teaching children to fear people.


Predators are never cured, just people waiting to relapse and find new victims.


That is incorrect. Pedophiles are never cured in the sense that they will never change sexual orientation. So far, its impossible to change anyone's orientation be it gay, straight, pedosexual or whatever. But it has never been impossible to live a celibate life. It is also not impossible to settle for something other than what you preffer sexually (gay people do it all the time, though it is no longer necessary). While it is true that they will never change sexual orientation, it is not true that they will reoffend. They are individuals with free will and they can choose to offend or not to offend.


And NAMBLA really shouldn't be covered under free speech. The First Amendment was designed to protect opinions and ideas and beliefs, but child molestation is so way the hell out there that there is little reason to even consider it a valid political/social argument. Common sense dictates that what they want is so fundamentally wrong that their continued existance is a menace. My two cents of course.

The first amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech and the right of people to criticize the government or otherwise petition for changes in law or the government. NAMBLA doesnt fall into just one of those categories, it falls into both. They are unpopular (to the extreme), and they seek to repeal age of consent laws. They are precisely the type of organization the first amendment is designed to protect.

As much as I am for the notion of castration with a dull spoon and lemon juice... from what I have read, some preds do go on to lead straight and narrow lives... and some go on to commit the horrors that keep parents and teachers up at night.

Does your state list what level they consider the pred at?

Teach your daughter some self-defense - something along the lines of karate or tae-kwon do.

Well ... what I do is never let my children out of my sight unless they're in school and, well, then they're under the protection of teachers and administrators.

There's no way to keep them 100% safe once they've reached a certain age, but that's just part of parenting. It sucks, but that's life. You just have to hope for the best and eventually try to trust your child's judgement - not when they're 4, but you know what I mean.

As for the predators themselves, where do you draw the line? NAMBLA and such, yes, horrible things that should be run out of society. What about Hentai?

We like to think of ourselves as civilised, but what that seems to mean is that we give rights to the lowest of scum. I will leave legislation up to the masses, but if I happen to catch someone trying to abduct my child, I will go total baboon. I will also stay in Texas, where I am allowed by law to defend my children with deadly force.

That is incorrect. Pedophiles are never cured in the sense that they will never change sexual orientation. So far, its impossible to change anyone's orientation be it gay, straight, pedosexual or whatever. But it has never been impossible to live a celibate life. It is also not impossible to settle for something other than what you preffer sexually (gay people do it all the time, though it is no longer necessary). While it is true that they will never change sexual orientation, it is not true that they will reoffend. They are individuals with free will and they can choose to offend or not to offend.

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as pedosexual. I was under the impression that it was like beastiality...while people might engage in it, and might even be attracted to animals, it is biologically impossible to be solely attracted to animals, which is why beastiality isn't a sexual orientation. I thought pedosexuality was the same. I could be wrong, though.

We like to think of ourselves as civilised, but what that seems to mean is that we give rights to the lowest of scum.
It's because of them that I sometimes wish the 8th Amendment (no cruel/unusual punishment) never existed....

I will also stay in Texas, where I am allowed by law to defend my children with deadly force.
I believe that is also legal now in Florida

I disagree with that statement. Ever heard of the saying "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?

As much as I hate them, even groups like Neo-Nazis and the KKK have a right to speak their mind, whether it's sick, twisted, and selfish or not. Kinda like that one issue in Nationstates when the Nazi rally comes to your country.

(To tell the truth, I take no stance on NAMBLA.)
I don't know how your first amendment works but those people would be prosecuted in the UK for inciting racial hatred or something similar. A right is of little value when it's exploited by recruiters like these lunies.
I would be nice to think that any ex-offender in your locality would be closely watched by the police. It's supposed to work that way here. They are registered and should not be able to have much freedom to approach children in any way. Of course this system like so many seems to fail on occasion with disasterous results. The only positive thought I have is that child abduction is statistically rare, education reduces it more as does reasonable care and the monitoring systems usually work. It's not perfect but it is civilised.
(although I agree I become a lot less civilised when my children are under threat)

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as pedosexual. I was under the impression that it was like beastiality...while people might engage in it, and might even be attracted to animals, it is biologically impossible to be solely attracted to animals, which is why beastiality isn't a sexual orientation. I thought pedosexuality was the same. I could be wrong, though.

You are wrong, it is a sexual orientation. In fact, you are also wrong about bestiality. There are people who are only sexuallly attracted to animals. They preffer the companionship of animals to that of humans in terms of both relationships and sexuality. Strange? certainly. But it does exist. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like any other as well.

Pedophiles are never cured in the sense that they will never change sexual orientation.

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are sexual orientations; pedophilia is no more a sexual orientation than a preference for rape is - it is a sickness, an abomination. Even fundamentalists who think sodomy should still be illegal recognize a difference between child rape and a consensual act between adults.

In my amateur opinion, pedophilia stems more from a mental disorder or past trauma than a true sexual preference for children – children who are abused are incredibly more likely to be molesters themselves.

Not that I think that you were saying pedophiles are just good people who happen to like to violate children, but I think in our “sexually enlightened” age we must still realize that while there is value in allowing people to live their lives the way the choose, true deviancy still exists, and shouldn’t be considered normal or acceptable.

I think on the first offense they should be put in prison for LIFE in general population. And no NAMBLA should not be protected by the 1st ammendment, the same way you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. They distribute how to material for committing a God-Awful crime.

I don't know how your first amendment works but those people would be prosecuted in the UK for inciting racial hatred or something similar.
I think the reason that the 1st Amendment is so vehemently protected is that banning speech can become a slippery slope..."we don't agree with the Nazis, ban them"...can become "we don't agree with you, we'll ban you" quite quickly.

The 1st ammendment does not protect against things such as inciting a riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre. So why should it protect speech that teaches to snatch our children away and rape them. This speech should be banned. It's only useful purpose is illegal.

I think the reason that the 1st Amendment is so vehemently protected is that banning speech can become a slippery slope..."we don't agree with the Nazis, ban them"...can become "we don't agree with you, we'll ban you" quite quickly.

Don't you think you could find a better cause to stand-up for???

It's because of them that I sometimes wish the 8th Amendment (no cruel/unusual punishment) never existed....

Maybe we should add an exception. ;) However, there are ways around it. A guard can be "distracted" while a child sex offender gets butt raped in the shower ... 6 times a day ... for 10 years.


I believe that is also legal now in Florida

Possibly ... but who wants to live in Florida? *shudder*

Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are sexual orientations; pedophilia is no more a sexual orientation than a preference for rape is - it is a sickness, an abomination. Even fundamentalists who think sodomy should still be illegal recognize a difference between child rape and a consensual act between adults.

In my amateur opinion, pedophilia stems more from a mental disorder or past trauma than a true sexual preference for children – children who are abused are incredibly more likely to be molesters themselves.

Not that I think that you were saying pedophiles are just good people who happen to like to violate children, but I think in our “sexually enlightened” age we must still realize that while there is value in allowing people to live their lives the way the choose, true deviancy still exists, and shouldn’t be considered normal or acceptable.

First of all, I have not said that it should be accepted or considered normal. But you have to separate science from morality. Scientifically speaking preferential pedophilia is a sexual orientation like any other. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Having said that, you are partially right if you include situational pedophiles. Situational pedophiles are not primarily attracted to children. They abuse children in the absence of an adequate partner, often after abusing drugs or alcohol. These types of people have other issues such as substance abuse, low self esteem, and other mental illness which leads them to take advantage of children despite the fact that they actually preffer adults. These people account for the vast majority of all sexual offences against children, so you have a point in bringing them up. But they are not the type who get all the media attention.

Preferential pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Situational pedophilia is an action performed due to other underlying conditions.

As a huge supporter of Freedom Of Speech, I don't think it's much of a demon at all.

You have no clue whatsoever, hes saying that the demon would be to say what is proper to say, therefore making free speech not free any more, giving it rules and guidelines. Think about what you are going to say before you start preaching about how you are a huge supporter of free speech. The most important part of free speech is shutting up and listening to what needs to be said. You, my ill-learned friend, need to do some thinking, some listening, and most importantly, some learning.

The 1st ammendment does not protect against things such as inciting a riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre. So why should it protect speech that teaches to snatch our children away and rape them. This speech should be banned. It's only useful purpose is illegal.
So? Advocating illegal things is, and should be protected by the Constitution as free speech. How do laws get changed other than by people advocating change?

The 1st ammendment does not protect against things such as inciting a riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre. So why should it protect speech that teaches to snatch our children away and rape them. This speech should be banned. It's only useful purpose is illegal.


You're building a strawman. I don't agree with NAMBLA, but they are not there to promote rape of kids.

They're there to promote CONSENSUAL sex with minors. Now me, I see a number of holes in that theory, (Too young to understand what's going on, etc) but that doesn't make it right to supress them.

Besides, they never are gonna get anywhere.

I dunno who said that its only a handful of children who get abducted or abused each year, but thats the biggest understatement I've ever heard. I'm like Keruvalia....my kids dont leave my site unless they are at school or with another family member. All it takes is a few seconds to turn your head and someone cant take a child away. Anyone who has known me very long on NS knows my stance on child abusers/crimes against children. I have zero tolerancy, I do not believe they can be rehabilitated and I think they should be tortured for about a month then killed slowly and painfully. If you think that sounds harsh or uncivilized, let me remind you that these are people who willingly force themselves on innocent children who are not physically able to defend themselve or fight their attacker off. The terror of say a 7 year old who is experience sexual intercourse from an adult, while being held against their will and then sometimes killed after the fact....is far more uncivilized and cruel than my idea of punishment. I cannot imagine the fear that a child must go through in these instances, but anyone who harms a child does not deserve a 2nd chance.
Ive posted a few detailed stories before about this subject and I have no problem doing so again. If it makes just one more person aware of the sick torturous things that happen to children everyday, then excellent. The more aware people are, the better they are at spotting a child that may be going through sexual abuse at home. And the pictures you see of missing children hanging on the wall at Walmart or other hightraffic places....I always stop and look just in case I may have seen one of the children. People walk by it everyday and dont even glance. Next time you pas by one....just take a few seconds to look.

As far as talking to children about it, well ask my 6 year old about strangers and you will be surprised. I tell her the truth. That there are people out there who take children away from their parents and hurt them. There are people who will try to trick you by saying "hey I have some puppies/candy/ice cream back in my car just rigtht over there....want to come see them?" And then push the child in the car and they are gone. She knows to tell someone like that 'NO" and run as fast as she can. I dont believe in sugar coating things like this. The more informed a child is, then better chance they have at handling a situation if it ever presents itself.

I checked the Megans Law website and see that we have a few creatures in the neighborhood....
got a link?

What do we do for punishment? Kill them? ...yes.

I dunno who said that its only a handful of children who get abducted or abused each year, but thats the biggest understatement I've ever heard.

Youve fallen for the media histeria. The fact is that the most reliable current research on this topic in the united states comes from the NISMART 2 study commissioned by Bush the I. According to that study, there are an estimated 100-130 cases of stranger abductions in the United States each year.

When you take into account that there are 60,799,722 children aged 0-14 in the United States, you quickly realize that the chances of any one child being abducted are so small, that my calculater gives me an error and refuses to tell me the answer. A better calculator was able to give me the following percentage: 0.0002138%. This is despite the fact that NISMART statistics counted people as old as 18 as children and the census information I was able to quickly obtain only listed 0-14 separately. If I bothered looking for better census data or population estimates, the percentage chance I would be able to calculate for you would be much more accurate and you would see it drop dramatically, probably by more than one decimal place since I am sure the number of 15, 16, and 17 year old children in the united states is quite high. Therefore, as is clearly seen, only a handful of children are abducted by strangers and if you are deathly afraid of this happening to your child you are falling for the illogical media hysteria. Your child is more likely to die in a plane crash than to be abducted by a stranger.

Koroser, There is NO SUCH thing as "consenual" sex with minors. It does not exist, it is RAPE. And also they do put out a how to manual on "luring and abducting kids." Two child rapist and murders that were captured in my homestate had the manual on their person at that time. One little boys parents probable wish it wasn't available.



"So? Advocating illegal things is, and should be protected by the Constitution as free speech. How do laws get changed other than by people advocating change?"

Jello, Speech that leads to a crime is illegal

"inciting a riot"- illegal

"Yelling fire in a crowded theatre" - illegal

These are 2 forms of speech, should they be protected????
I think you really need to take a look at yourself and rethink your twisted thoughts???

Youve fallen for the media histeria. The fact is that the most reliable current research on this topic in the united states comes from the NISMART 2 study commissioned by Bush the I. According to that study, there are an estimated 100-130 cases of stranger abductions in the United States each year.

When you take into account that there are 60,799,722 children aged 0-14 in the United States, you quickly realize that the chances of any one child being abducted are so small, that my calculater gives me an error and refuses to tell me the answer. A better calculator was able to give me the following percentage: 0.0002138%. This is despite the fact that NISMART statistics counted people as old as 18 as children and the census information I was able to quickly obtain only listed 0-14 separately. If I bothered looking for better census data or population estimates, the percentage chance I would be able to calculate for you would be much more accurate and you would see it drop dramatically, probably by more than one decimal place since I am sure the number of 15, 16, and 17 year old children in the united states is quite high. Therefore, as is clearly seen, only a handful of children are abducted by strangers and if you are deathly afraid of this happening to your child you are falling for the illogical media hysteria. Your child is more likely to die in a plane crash than to be abducted by a stranger.


I said abducted or abused.....and 100-130 cases a week happen in my state alone. Abduction isnt the only issue. Children are abused , raped, molested, beaten and killed every day. I dont think this subject should be taken lightly or discussed with the attitude of 'oh theres not that many children who are abducted or abused".........ONE child that falls victim to that is too many.
When I have time I will find you some stats if you like. Hundreds of thousands of children are victims of violent crimes every year.

And also they do put out a how to manual on "luring and abducting kids." Two child rapist and murders that were captured in my homestate had the manual on their person at that time. One little boys parents probable wish it wasn't available.

That is incorrect. That well known rumor you are reffering to comes from the lawyer of the family of Jeffrey Curley, who came out on the news saying that NAMBLA published a book that might as well be called the rape and escape manual. It was his opinion about a book that was later discovered to have no connection to NAMBLA whatsoever. Most people didnt hear the "might as well be" part and quickly started spreading the false allegation that NAMBLA publishes a manual entitled "rape and escape".

I said abducted or abused.....and 100-130 cases a week happen in my state alone. Abduction isnt the only issue. Children are abused , raped, molested, beaten and killed every day. I dont think this subject should be taken lightly or discussed with the attitude of 'oh theres not that many children who are abducted or abused".........ONE child that falls victim to that is too many.
When I have time I will find you some stats if you like. Hundreds of thousands of children are victims of violent crimes every year.

But the overwhelming majority of those cases (nearly every single one), is not a stranger abuse case. It is a family member or trusted friend doing the abusing. Therefore, inculcating fear of strangers into your daughter was a bad mistake. You taught her to fear people because of your own fears, not because of sound logic. What you should have taught her instead (and Im sure you probably did, but it shouldve been instead of and not in addition to) is to tell you anytime anyone ever makes her feel bad or uncomfortable. Its much more likely a trusted family member or friend would abuse her than a stranger. Stranger abuse almost always takes the form of the abductions covered by the NISMART 2 study, and thus is already taken into account for the most part in those 100-130 cases a year. Its difficult for a stranger to abuse a child without taking them to a private area first, and doing so is considered an abduction and covered under the NISMART 2 study.


I dont think this subject should be taken lightly or discussed with the attitude of 'oh theres not that many children who are abducted or abused".........ONE child that falls victim to that is too many.

All subjects should be approached with a logical, level headed attitude. Intelligence, logic, and reason should always prevail in all discussions.

When I have time I will find you some stats if you like. Hundreds of thousands of children are victims of violent crimes every year.

Go ahead, but all reliable statistics will prove what I have already pointed out. The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by people the parent and child know and trust. There are very few cases of stranger abduction or stranger abuse. If you want to inflate the numbers by introducing data on children who fall victim to random acts of violence (killed in a crossfire and such), then be my guest. But I see no other way that you can prove your point without adding non-strangers to the mix since your point defies all studies that have ever been done on the topic.

Jello, Speech that leads to a crime is illegal

"inciting a riot"- illegal

"Yelling fire in a crowded theatre" - illegal

These are 2 forms of speech, should they be protected????
I think you really need to take a look at yourself and rethink your twisted thoughts???
You have to prove that all of the speech that you disagree with leads to a crime. Not everyone who espouses racist views commits crimes. While I disagree with their views, they should have every right to espouse them.

According to that study, there are an estimated 100-130 cases of stranger abductions in the United States each year.

That's 100-130 too many.

But the overwhelming majority of those cases (nearly every single one), is not a stranger abuse case. It is a family member or trusted friend doing the abusing. Therefore, inculcating fear of strangers into your daughter was a bad mistake. You taught her to fear people because of your own fears, not because of sound logic. What you should have taught her instead (and Im sure you probably did, but it shouldve been instead of and not in addition to) is to tell you anytime anyone ever makes her feel bad or uncomfortable. Its much more likely a trusted family member or friend would abuse her than a stranger. Stranger abuse almost always takes the form of the abductions covered by the NISMART 2 study, and thus is already taken into account for the most part in those 100-130 cases a year. Its difficult for a stranger to abuse a child without taking them to a private area first, and doing so is considered an abduction and covered under the NISMART 2 study.


Well certainly I didnt go into detail about everything I teach my daughter in my first post.......and who are you to judge anyone else's parenting techniques? Do you have children?Have you ever seen a child who was raped? Do you personally know someone whose child was kidnapped? I have on all 3 counts. Being a parent is tough. You have to balance the "sometimes strangers AND family members/friends can be harmful" with the"be polite and courteous to people and say nice to meet you when you meet someone new. How do you say beware or strangers and still assist in the developement of their social skills? Its tricky and you just have to think it out and try your best to inform them. The point is, whether its a stranger or a family member/friend.....it is important to teach them that some things are not ok..no matter who does it. NO ONE should touch her private areas unless its the doctor and only when mommy is in the room. The thing about someone saying they have puppies in the car-wanna see? If someone tells her to keep a secret about something....an adult....then she should tell mommy. I cant think of any secrets an adult should have with my child. In my house, we dont "keep secrets". If my husband and daughter plan a surprise for me....its not '"its a secret from mom"...its" we are planning a surprise for mommy". I am going to give her as much information to keep her safe as I possibly can. Just like what to do if a fire breaks out in the house, or if I got sick and she couldnt wake me....how to call 911. All of that is important. I communicate with my child and she isnt "afraid" of strangers and I dont lock her away from the world. She is aware that everyone isnt as loving and peaceful as the Care Bears she has and that there are some mean people in the world. Keeping her in the dark about the way the world is isnt fair to her.

But the overwhelming majority of those cases (nearly every single one), is not a stranger abuse case. It is a family member or trusted friend doing the abusing. Therefore, inculcating fear of strangers into your daughter was a bad mistake. You taught her to fear people because of your own fears, not because of sound logic. What you should have taught her instead (and Im sure you probably did, but it shouldve been instead of and not in addition to) is to tell you anytime anyone ever makes her feel bad or uncomfortable. Its much more likely a trusted family member or friend would abuse her than a stranger. Stranger abuse almost always takes the form of the abductions covered by the NISMART 2 study, and thus is already taken into account for the most part in those 100-130 cases a year. Its difficult for a stranger to abuse a child without taking them to a private area first, and doing so is considered an abduction and covered under the NISMART 2 study.


All subjects should be approached with a logical, level headed attitude. Intelligence, logic, and reason should always prevail in all discussions.



Go ahead, but all reliable statistics will prove what I have already pointed out. The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by people the parent and child know and trust. There are very few cases of stranger abduction or stranger abuse. If you want to inflate the numbers by introducing data on children who fall victim to random acts of violence (killed in a crossfire and such), then be my guest. But I see no other way that you can prove your point without adding non-strangers to the mix since your point defies all studies that have ever been done on the topic.


I assume you can read since you are replying to posts, so go back and read what I said. I did not say that all abductions were commited by strangers. I said nothing like that. You said 100-130 children are abducted each year and I said that's bullshit. Well I didnt say that, but I'm saying it now.

I assume you can read since you are replying to posts, so go back and read what I said. I did not say that all abductions were commited by strangers. I said nothing like that. You said 100-130 children are abducted each year and I said that's bullshit. Well I didnt say that, but I'm saying it now.

No, I did not say that. I said "stranger abductions". I stand by that number. It is the most reliable and current statistic we have available. You have yet to provide any reliable statistics which prove this wrong (heck, you havent provided any statistics at all). I think I trust the NISMART 2 study more than I trust your hearsay. The other types of abduction are mostly custody dispute based and not relevant to this discussion on predators.

Oh, and dont forget, some of those stranger abductions are actually abductions of babies in order to raise them with no sexual motive whatsoever, further lowering the number of abductions by sexual predators (this is covered in NISMART 2, but Im not going to look into it very in depth because at this point, moving everything over yet another decimal place wont make a difference in showing how astronomically small the chances of this type of thing happening are).

No, I did not say that. I said "stranger abductions". I stand by that number. It is the most reliable and current statistic we have available. You have yet to provide any reliable statistics which prove this wrong (heck, you havent provided any statistics at all). I think I trust the NISMART 2 study more than I trust your hearsay. The other types of abduction are mostly custody dispute based and not relevant to this discussion on predators.


Thats because unlike you, I am not so much concerned with regurgitating statistcs, but rather discussing the horrifc things that are being inflicted upon children. I dont care if its a stranger or a well known family member.....the fact of the matter is-it happens A LOT. I am not saying that most of the crimes agaisnt children are comitted but strangers....I am saying that it does happen and I am going to arm my child with the information I think is vital for her to know. You make it sound as if no one should warn their children about society and teach them about what possibly could happen. I will say it again....you are in no position to make assumptions or judgements about my parenting skills or anyone else who tries to make their children aware of the dangers of life.

EDIT: I incorrectly quoted you....yes you did say the 100-130 number was stranger abduction.

Still, my concerns are to make that number zero.

Well, Im starting to see that perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other. What I was reacting to was the following statements you made.

I dunno who said that its only a handful of children who get abducted or abused each year, but thats the biggest understatement I've ever heard.

It was I who said only a handful are abducted. Yet you said abducted or abused. I missed the abused part and figured you were directly criticizing my statement. You misunderstood me and I misunderstood you.

Then you said this:

I'm like Keruvalia....my kids dont leave my site unless they are at school or with another family member. All it takes is a few seconds to turn your head and someone cant take a child away.

Which sounded to me like a comment based on extreme paranoia driven by the media hysteria. The funny part about your comment is that your kids are many times more likely to be molested by their teachers or those family members you leave them with than by strangers. They have a 1 in 6 chance for boys 1 in 3 for girls of being victimized by someone they know, and only a 1 in 500,000 of being victimized by a stranger. Thats why I found your expression of paranoia at them being taken by someone they dont know amusing.

Perhaps you do have an accurate understanding of abuse. But it did not seem that way from your post. It had an air of hysteria rather than reason.

I believe that anyone convicted of child sexual abuse should be declared "outlaw" in the old Icelandic sense, and after that, anyone who wants to can hunt them down and kill them like an animal in the street.

Well, Im starting to see that perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other. What I was reacting to was the following statements you made.



It was I who said only a handful are abducted. Yet you said abducted or abused. I missed the abused part and figured you were directly criticizing my statement. You misunderstood me and I misunderstood you.

Then you said this:



Which sounded to me like a comment based on extreme paranoia driven by the media hysteria. The funny part about your comment is that your kids are many times more likely to be molested by their teachers or those family members you leave them with than by strangers. They have a 1 in 6 chance for boys 1 in 3 for girls of being victimized by someone they know, and only a 1 in 500,000+ of being victimized by a stranger. Thats why I found your expression of paranoia at them being taken by someone they dont know amusing.

Perhaps you do have an accurate understanding of abuse. But it did not seem that way from your post. It had an air of hysteria rather than reason.

Well I dont think I'm paranoid,.....just aware and cautious. When I say they dont leave my sight.....I mean like back when I was younger, I would romp all over the neighborhood and go everywhere for hours upon hours. Today it seems that it isnt quite as safe(i use that term loosely) as it was say 20 years ago. I just want to be sure I am protecting my children. I dont carry a gun and put them on a leash and lock them away. I am cautious about everything that involves them. Like last year at swimming lessons, I had to jump in and get my daughter because the lifeguards werent paying attention. Some parents just dropped their 5 year olds off and picked them up later. That has nothing to do with abduction but I dont want you to think I'm trying to limit my childs social skills and/or over-reacting. Just giving her information and helping her think for herself. She never meets a stranger actually as she is so outgoing and friendly. I want her to be social and outgoing yet aware that everyone she meets may not have her best interests in mind.
So yes I think we had a misunderstanding. I'm just very passionate about children who are victims of any kind of abuse. I always get riled up about it. Apologies if I seemed ready to fight.....its just that this subject gets to me.

so what to tell your young child

first of all they need to gradually learn what to do in ANY emergency. calling 911, getting out of the house when the smoke alarm goes off, letting you know when "uncle joe" touches her in a yucky way. whatever. as they get older, they learn more things. dont burden her with more than she can possibly handle at 4.

warning a child about strangers can put her in more danger. first of all, she thinks this stranger is going to look like a monster. big help when its the nice man who is looking for his lost puppy. she needs to know that NO ONE is going to give her candy for good reasons. it always comes through mommy or daddy. she needs to know that NO adult needs her help. she helps by telling another adult like daddy or a policeman. if daddy oks it, then its ok to help. she needs to know that its OK to make a fuss in public if something scares her. you must never "shuuush" her when she makes a fuss about kissing grandma (or whoever). that trains her to "be a good girl" in times when good girls get killed.

what i told my son is that while most people are good, in ANY group of people there are some bad people. that includes strangers, teachers, nuns, mommies, ALL groups. i didnt want him caught in the trap of "this guy works for the school, it cant be wrong to go into the janitors closet with him".

as lazy hippies points out, your child is in much more danger from the "safe" people in her life than from some stranger coming along to grab her. (the nice man on the next street over might not even count as a stranger to her). look at all the boys molested by priests. what could seem more safe to a parent than leaving their son at the church?? she needs to know that she can come to you no matter who she has to "tell on".

so the guys in your neighborhood... are they sex offenders who have molested children? i would make sure i knew who they were, what they look like, where they live and that my child knows to keep away from them. there are far more undiscovered child molestors than convicted ones but there is NO sense ignoring the wolf who lives down the street.

This has always been a problem, we in America are just now coming to terms with it in the past two decades. Before we were in a state of denial and we used euphemisms like "Stolen By Gypsies" and "Ran away to the circus" to not think about the reality.

To make matters worse we lived in a society where abusing and killing children was socially acceptable and in some cases encouraged. During the 19th century a sexual predator could have all the Native American children they wanted during the "Only good Indian is a dead Indian " phase of our history. Up until the 1960s it was open season on Black children and a missing Black child still won't get the massive media attention and Amber alerts a blonde blue eyed girl will.

Of course we are in a real sense overreacting to the danger we are finally admitting to. We have gone from a state of total denial to seeing child molesters under every rock. In the 1980s we sent dozens of people to life sentences in prison for being Satanic Child Molesters in the greatest travesties of justice since the Salem Witch trials.

Of course the danger of sexual predators is real though not pandemic. A child is in greater danger of abduction and sexual predation from a family member or a trusted authority figure than a stranger.

Well I dont think I'm paranoid,.....just aware and cautious. When I say they dont leave my sight.....I mean like back when I was younger, I would romp all over the neighborhood and go everywhere for hours upon hours. Today it seems that it isnt quite as safe(i use that term loosely) as it was say 20 years ago. I just want to be sure I am protecting my children. *snip*

Key word here would be "seems"

So yes I think we had a misunderstanding. I'm just very passionate about children who are victims of any kind of abuse. I always get riled up about it. Apologies if I seemed ready to fight.....its just that this subject gets to me.

I am also passionate about the abuse of children.

But mislabeling the problem doesn't help.

Thats because unlike you, I am not so much concerned with regurgitating statistcs, but rather discussing the horrifc things that are being inflicted upon children.

Any abuse of a child is disgusting. Some is more horrorific than others, but it is all horrorific.

But the statistics help us identify the greater risks to our children so we can protect them rationally.

They also help us identify the largest threats to our children so we can seek to do something about those threats -- rather than wasting effort getting all worked up about the highly unlikely.

so what to tell your young child

first of all they need to gradually learn what to do in ANY emergency. calling 911, getting out of the house when the smoke alarm goes off, letting you know when "uncle joe" touches her in a yucky way. whatever. as they get older, they learn more things. dont burden her with more than she can possibly handle at 4.

warning a child about strangers can put her in more danger. first of all, she thinks this stranger is going to look like a monster. big help when its the nice man who is looking for his lost puppy. she needs to know that NO ONE is going to give her candy for good reasons. it always comes through mommy or daddy. she needs to know that NO adult needs her help. she helps by telling another adult like daddy or a policeman. if daddy oks it, then its ok to help. she needs to know that its OK to make a fuss in public if something scares her. you must never "shuuush" her when she makes a fuss about kissing grandma (or whoever). that trains her to "be a good girl" in times when good girls get killed.

what i told my son is that while most people are good, in ANY group of people there are some bad people. that includes strangers, teachers, nuns, mommies, ALL groups. i didnt want him caught in the trap of "this guy works for the school, it cant be wrong to go into the janitors closet with him".

as lazy hippies points out, your child is in much more danger from the "safe" people in her life than from some stranger coming along to grab her. (the nice man on the next street over might not even count as a stranger to her). look at all the boys molested by priests. what could seem more safe to a parent than leaving their son at the church?? she needs to know that she can come to you no matter who she has to "tell on".

so the guys in your neighborhood... are they sex offenders who have molested children? i would make sure i knew who they were, what they look like, where they live and that my child knows to keep away from them. there are far more undiscovered child molestors than convicted ones but there is NO sense ignoring the wolf who lives down the street.

Words of wisdom and common sense.

Someone asked what we should do with all these sexual predators. It was also mentioned that some go on with their lives never to be caught abusing again. Fine. Good for them. I agree leave those people alone. They made a mistake. But I believe if someone is a repeat or multiple sex offender of young children there should be one solution. Castration. They've already proven how sick you can be. Their likelyhood of repeat offense is huge. I think we need to stop these people at the source. No more returning them to the public to pick off their next victim. You're right. They're sick. They've mostly been abused and it's led to this. I'm done shedding tears at that point though. They're no longer the prey, they're the predator. And it's gotta stop.

Key word here would be "seems"



I am also passionate about the abuse of children.

But mislabeling the problem doesn't help.



Any abuse of a child is disgusting. Some is more horrorific than others, but it is all horrorific.

But the statistics help us identify the greater risks to our children so we can protect them rationally.

They also help us identify the largest threats to our children so we can seek to do something about those threats -- rather than wasting effort getting all worked up about the highly unlikely.


I am not disputing that statistics arent useful, I just dont focus on them like some people do. I see people discussing numbers so often that they lose site of the acutal details of the crimes that are being commited and minimizie the severity.(as i thought LH was doing in one post.)

I dont understand your comment of mislabeling the problem...you quoted me but I do not see what you mean if in fact that comment is directed at me. I havent labeled anything. I stated my opinion of how these offenders should be dealth with and gave examples of the things I discuss with my daughter.

Someone asked what we should do with all these sexual predators. It was also mentioned that some go on with their lives never to be caught abusing again. Fine. Good for them. I agree leave those people alone. They made a mistake. But I believe if someone is a repeat or multiple sex offender of young children there should be one solution. Castration. They've already proven how sick you can be. Their likelyhood of repeat offense is huge. I think we need to stop these people at the source. No more returning them to the public to pick off their next victim. You're right. They're sick. They've mostly been abused and it's led to this. I'm done shedding tears at that point though. They're no longer the prey, they're the predator. And it's gotta stop.

In addition to being inhumane, castration is -- more importantly -- ineffective and actually tends to backfire.

A sex offender need not have working equipment to abuse a child.

Castration can, in fact, frustrate offenders, create obstacles to harmless outlets for impluses, and tend to increase the savagery of offenses. (You do not want me to be more specific.)

Koroser, There is NO SUCH thing as "consenual" sex with minors. It does not exist, it is RAPE. And also they do put out a how to manual on "luring and abducting kids."
1. I didn't say that I AGREED with their position. In fact, I clearly said there are some holes in their theory. If every false theory was banned from being said, all those annoying flat-earth people would be under arrest.
2. That manual is misinformation and a rumor.

Lazyhippies, you seem almost offended by what people think of these people. As for that distcusting group you are defending I say this. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you know what it's a duck. This group is dedicated UNNATURE and ILLEGAL acts. I think that ONE conviction and they should never see the outside of a prison...unless it's in a bag!!!!

Soooo, you eat your flesh raw and sleep in a tree?

Lumping people together is never a good idea.


And sometimes the duck is a duck hunter who just got kicked in the crotch.

This is a topic that is really pushing my views on things. Especially after listening to that father who lost his daughter to a creature that lived across the street from them.

I have a very cute happy confident daughter(didn't get it from me ;) ). We want her to be confident but we are running into problems such as walking down the street on her own(she is four and frequently declares "I will do it").

It makes me wonder what society has become as I remember as a kid you could play till dark and walk the neighborhood without thinking about it.

We are going to give the stranger talk. Hope it doesn't freek her out.

I checked the Megans Law website and see that we have a few creatures in the neighborhood. One on the street behind us. What do you do? Torment the animal and run him out of town?

Do these creatures ever get "cured"

What do we do for punishment? Kill them? It makes you wonder when the prisons have to seperate them from the other cons.

Life in Prison? Is that really punishment? Do they regret what they did or do they regret not having access to children anymore.

Again, can they be cured or is it another crime waiting to happen.

What of groups like Nambla? It really pushes your belief of the Consititution by saying they have a right to say their piece. Even when a few "members" have been arrested for attacking a child.

Just some random thoughts on Saturday night while sick.....
I think that with some of your comments, you show yourself no better than those you are so antagonistic towards. Yes Paedophiles exist, no, they do not automatically set out to assault and abuse children. There are however, some evil Paedophiles who are guilty of unacceptable abuse.

There are also some "silent majority" types who think violence is an acceptable response to any sort of mention of paedophilism. A few years ago, here in Britain, a Paeditrician (yes, thats right) was attacked outside her home by a mob, who couldn't even bother to understand what paeditrician meant, they had read the tabloids which had been whipping up hysteria over paedophiles living within the community, the mob felt they had the right to take matters into their own hands. as far as I can see, they are no better than the paedophiles they hate.

As an individual, I have no problem with knowing a paedophile, it's the abusive paedophiles that I think something needs to be done about. I also think that society only succeeds in whipping up hate and hysteria instead of looking for solutions.

1. I didn't say that I AGREED with their position. In fact, I clearly said there are some holes in their theory. If every false theory was banned from being said, all those annoying flat-earth people would be under arrest.
2. That manual is misinformation and a rumor.



You are comparing the earth being round to having sex with children...are you alright!!!

You said, "There are SOME holes in their theory." So what are the parts that don't have holes in them. I'd like to hear that!!!

I just went through my mind to recall exactly what terminology I used when speaking to my daughter about this subject. I say "people". I say 'some people may try to trick you by having puppies in the car or offering you some kind of treat. I dont think I have used the term stranger. I say people. Whoever they might be. Uncle Bob or Aunt Susie or the mailman or the guy who runs the carousel at the mall or a teacher. I stress the importance of communication with children. I can see how focusing on 'dont talk to strangers" can be less than helpful as some of you pointed out. As I said, you are charged with teaching children to be polite and developing socially,and when meeting someone new, I have asked her to say "Hi I'm Reagan,nice to meet you". So I cant very well tell her "hey-stay away form anyone you dont know."

Okay, fine. Their theory is one big hole. Happy?

But that doesn't let you ban them from saying it.

I think they should be shutdown, their materials(paraphaneliaSP?)banned, and their members arrested and prosecuted on charges of conspiracy to promote illegal activities in the U.S.


Okay, fine. Their theory is one big hole. Happy?

But that doesn't let you ban them from saying it.

Lazyhippies, you seem almost offended by what people think of these people. As for that distcusting group you are defending I say this. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, you know what it's a duck. This group is dedicated UNNATURE and ILLEGAL acts. I think that ONE conviction and they should never see the outside of a prison...unless it's in a bag!!!!

You see, we have this inconvenient little thing called the Constitution.

It has things like freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the presumption of innocence.

It keeps hysterical witch hunters like yourself from locking people up merely because you do not like their views or would like to punish them for guilt by association.

Don't get me wrong. NAMBLA is evil. Pure evil.

But they have the same rights as you or I.

You and I can say stupid things on the internet and so can they. We don't punish thought crimes.

I think they should be shutdown, their materials(paraphaneliaSP?)banned, and their members arrested and prosecuted on charges of conspiracy to promote illegal activities in the U.S.
Then what level of censorship should be have?

I just went through my mind to recall exactly what terminology I used when speaking to my daughter about this subject. I say "people". I say 'some people may try to trick you by having puppies in the car or offering you some kind of treat. I dont think I have used the term stranger. I say people. Whoever they might be. Uncle Bob or Aunt Susie or the mailman or the guy who runs the carousel at the mall or a teacher. I stress the importance of communication with children. I can see how focusing on 'dont talk to strangers" can be less than helpful as some of you pointed out. As I said, you are charged with teaching children to be polite and developing socially,and when meeting someone new, I have asked her to say "Hi I'm Reagan,nice to meet you". So I cant very well tell her "hey-stay away form anyone you dont know."

Sounds good.

My issue was to the degree that people disproportionately focus on "strangers."

In addition to distracting resources from the real problem and perhaps unwisely teaching our children, this kind of thinking often causes people to disbelieve and downplay real child abuse because it is committed by a friend, a family member, or a trusted adult and doesn't fit the "stranger abduction" model. It is very similar to the false stereotypes about rape that lead some to disbelieve incidents of acquaitance rape (or "date rape") and/or say they are not "real rape."

(I do not mean to imply that you are guilty of this misthinking about either child abuse or rape. I merely wished to explain my earlier concern.)

You're building a strawman. I don't agree with NAMBLA, but they are not there to promote rape of kids.

They're there to promote CONSENSUAL sex with minors. Now me, I see a number of holes in that theory, (Too young to understand what's going on, etc) but that doesn't make it right to supress them.

Besides, they never are gonna get anywhere.
Actually, they're there to promote consensual sex with teenaged boys, they seem to have no interest in girls and not even they would promote sex with actual children (IE pre-pubescent).

Personally, I believe that from the age of 13 to 18, teenagers should have the right to prove themselves mature enough to handle such adult issues as sex which then allows them to be treated like any other adult concerning said issue. Meaning, if you were under 18 and wanted to consent to having sex, then you should be able to prove that you understand what that means in order to be allowed to do so. Blanket age requirement laws are unfair and just serve to further complicate an already overly complicated issue, overly complicated namely because it's a topic that's shamelessly open in the media, yet fiercely taboo among most parents.

And people wonder why there's a very large portion of American teens who are sexually active by the age of 14, four girls I know personally were pregnant by the age of 14, and only one had an abortion, but that girl knew absolutely nothing about sex until she actually had it because her school in Kentucky was overly conservative towards sex; she even knew a girl who freaked out over her first period because she had absolutely no clue what was going on at the time. At least here in Wisconsin they started teaching us about puberty and such by 5th grade (10-11 years old), but still, the simple fact that teachers have to educate children about their own body and the facts of life is a very sad statement about the parenting ability of the average American in general.

Really, the Christian bias against sex does much more harm than good. Keeping your children ignorant about sex doesn't prevent your children from having sex, it prevents them from properly understanding the sexual situations they are bound to experience whether you want them to or not. Compared to that, NAMBLA's harmless.

I think the death penalty should apply to certain rape and pedophile cases.
If there is indisputable proof, rock solid evidence they will reoffend and they open the judicial lock, kill the bastards. Pehaps an reoffend and die rule would be the best option. By judicial lock, I mean have it so that 10+ jurors must agree on death before it becomes a option.

However I personally have been thinking people should get given a chance ever since I heard about Stan 'Tookie' Williams.
He was a founder of the Crips and was put on Death Row in California in the 80's. Since then he has changed completely and has written dozens of anti-gang treatises and books. The guy has gotten seven nominations for the Nobel Prize, three nominations for the Peace Prize and four for the Literature prize. a protocol for peace he wrote as also used recently in NJ to stop an 200+ participant gangwar
There is more at tookie.com and savetookie.com, but the guy is a true story of rehabilitation and redemption.

You and I can say stupid things on the internet and so can they. We don't punish thought crimes.

I believe that child sexual abuse in any degree should be a Federal offense, and should have a mandatory sentence of death.

No need for thought crime statutes. Just wait for one of them to do something, and then kill them.

I think that with some of your comments, you show yourself no better than those you are so antagonistic towards. Yes Paedophiles exist, no, they do not automatically set out to assault and abuse children. There are however, some evil Paedophiles who are guilty of unacceptable abuse.

There are also some "silent majority" types who think violence is an acceptable response to any sort of mention of paedophilism. A few years ago, here in Britain, a Paeditrician (yes, thats right) was attacked outside her home by a mob, who couldn't even bother to understand what paeditrician meant, they had read the tabloids which had been whipping up hysteria over paedophiles living within the community, the mob felt they had the right to take matters into their own hands. as far as I can see, they are no better than the paedophiles they hate.

As an individual, I have no problem with knowing a paedophile, it's the abusive paedophiles that I think something needs to be done about. I also think that society only succeeds in whipping up hate and hysteria instead of looking for solutions.

My my how ignorant of you. You know all from reading a post on a thread. Do you know me? :rolleyes:

Questions are not advocation of violence.

It's fine for you to say there is no excuse for violence. However, I can not think of any parent that would not attack a person that assaulted and or killed their child.

As to your mob example? Yes it's a pity. But that is why it is called a mob. There is little intelligence when a mob is formed.

It's fine to be "ok" with living next to a pedophile. However, how do you know when they become abusive? A recent case was one that was previosuly arrested for lewd behavior. He latter kidnapped, raped and killed a girl.

So how do you know?

Do you have a solution?

It's ok to judge society about their actions when you are trying to solve the very problem.

so what to tell your young child

first of all they need to gradually learn what to do in ANY emergency. calling 911, getting out of the house when the smoke alarm goes off, letting you know when "uncle joe" touches her in a yucky way. whatever. as they get older, they learn more things. dont burden her with more than she can possibly handle at 4.

warning a child about strangers can put her in more danger. first of all, she thinks this stranger is going to look like a monster. big help when its the nice man who is looking for his lost puppy. she needs to know that NO ONE is going to give her candy for good reasons. it always comes through mommy or daddy. she needs to know that NO adult needs her help. she helps by telling another adult like daddy or a policeman. if daddy oks it, then its ok to help. she needs to know that its OK to make a fuss in public if something scares her. you must never "shuuush" her when she makes a fuss about kissing grandma (or whoever). that trains her to "be a good girl" in times when good girls get killed.

what i told my son is that while most people are good, in ANY group of people there are some bad people. that includes strangers, teachers, nuns, mommies, ALL groups. i didnt want him caught in the trap of "this guy works for the school, it cant be wrong to go into the janitors closet with him".

as lazy hippies points out, your child is in much more danger from the "safe" people in her life than from some stranger coming along to grab her. (the nice man on the next street over might not even count as a stranger to her). look at all the boys molested by priests. what could seem more safe to a parent than leaving their son at the church?? she needs to know that she can come to you no matter who she has to "tell on".

so the guys in your neighborhood... are they sex offenders who have molested children? i would make sure i knew who they were, what they look like, where they live and that my child knows to keep away from them. there are far more undiscovered child molestors than convicted ones but there is NO sense ignoring the wolf who lives down the street.


Very wise.

The Church scandles have made me leave the church. Before that I would never have thought it possible.

As to the one down the street, yes he was convicted on an offense involving a preteen. He is listed as a posible relocation so I have been trying to see if he lives there. I never see him out side.

The megans law site is useful but as one lawyer said "Don't abuse it because you could loose it."

Wasn't parenting supposed to be easy? :p

Luckily my girl has taken an interest in Karate. Her teachers have said they rarely see such focus in one so young. They are good. They teach her but they also teach her to be smart about it.