Former Member bill barton

[Niko]

Well, most certainly, the sobriquet, BlackBart2010, seems to make it more likely that the perpetrator is, indeed, Bill Barton. I gotta tell you, after reading as much of this as I could stand, I really have to hand it to you guys who can find it in your hearts to forgive. No way. These aren't human beings, they're monsters.

actually, the fact that there was a guy on youtube called blackbart2010 who liked jazz is the only chance i see for our bb being taking accidentally for someone else who used the same handle there. otherwise, using a forum name so close to the real name almost looks like a plea to be taken off the streets asap. innocence is getting less likely after four months i guess, since uploading a file should be easier to prove than real world child molestation. i can't pretend to myself thinking he is innocent, i'd rather apologize and change my opinion at some point if he is.

[JSngry]

In the end, I really do think it all comes down to brain chemistry. Certainly environment and genetics feed into that, but ultimately, probably all human (and most monster) behavior is a question of brain chemistry. Just a hunch. Which does not absolve us of individual responsibility, no way. If you don't "get the message" that sexually terrorizing children is a violation of every construct of a civilized society, hey, your bad. No excuses. But as to where the impulses come from, and why they might be difficult-to-impossible to contain without some outside assistance, I think you gotta be looking at brain chemistry.

Just thinking, though, if "they" really are monsters and not humans, why don't we just castrate them, lobotomize them, and then put them to work pulling plows in China as payment on our debt? Win-win!

[king ubu]

honestly, I think all that brain stuff is the new religion and will pass... it's a huge hype and we may never find any answers to the questions.

[Chuck Nessa]

We will all die with many unanswered questions. And that might be the "HELL" some folks talk about.

I know my father died expecting all the answers as soon as he left.

The problem from my perspective was he didn't understand the questions.

[JSngry]

honestly, I think all that brain stuff is the new religion and will pass... it's a huge hype and we may never find any answers to the questions.

You don't believe in science?

I mean, the more we learn about behavior, the more it seems to come down to electric impulses and different chemicals.

The question we'll never have an answer to, I think, is they "why" of why it's designed to work like this in the first place. That, for me, is where philosophy/religion/whatever come into play. But as far as the "how" of it all, I think we can get there, or at least a lot closer than we do by just vilifying behaviors and then stopping there. That feels good, it sizzles, but...I think we can and should do better than just sizzle.

[Sundog]

The real world intruding on an internet chatboard. Ain't that a bitch.

[king ubu]

Yes, I do believe in science - but as a historian (well, wannabee maybe, who knows) I also know about the relativity of science. Not sure you can get Ludwik Fleck in English, but his "Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache" (1935) is most fascinating in that respect - and will, I think, in its gist, always remain valid.

But this is leading off-topic.

[JSngry]

Yes, I do believe in science - but as a historian (well, wannabee maybe, who knows) I also know about the relativity of science. Not sure you can get Ludwik Fleck in English, but his "Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache" (1935) is most fascinating in that respect - and will, I think, in its gist, always remain valid.

But this is leading off-topic.

I got his from Wikipedia:

Fleck wrote that the development of truth in scientific research was an unattainable ideal as different researchers were locked in thought collectives (or thought-styles). He felt that the development of scientific insights was not unidirectional and does not consist of just accumulating new pieces of information, but also in overthrowing the old ones. This approach anticipated later developments in social constructionism, and especially the development of critical science and technology studies.

W/o reading the man's actual writings, I would take this to mean that A) "facts" are one thing, "truth" something else altogether; and B) at some point, what we learn ends up being more than want we already know can handle.

I'd certainly agree with both. But even if the whole "brain thing" is just another first step on the way to another obsolescence, I do think it moves us ahead nevertheless. But amybe not. Time will ultimately tell.

But not off-topic at all, I'd say. This thread is probably more about our reactions to the alleged offense than anything else, and a big part of these reactions almost have to bounce off the "how can anybody do such a thing?" impulse, which is a more than fair question with no, at this point, equally fair answers. So, yeah, quite relevant, I'd think.

[king ubu]

Yes, I do believe in science - but as a historian (well, wannabee maybe, who knows) I also know about the relativity of science. Not sure you can get Ludwik Fleck in English, but his "Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache" (1935) is most fascinating in that respect - and will, I think, in its gist, always remain valid.

But this is leading off-topic.

I got his from Wikipedia:

Fleck wrote that the development of truth in scientific research was an unattainable ideal as different researchers were locked in thought collectives (or thought-styles). He felt that the development of scientific insights was not unidirectional and does not consist of just accumulating new pieces of information, but also in overthrowing the old ones. This approach anticipated later developments in social constructionism, and especially the development of critical science and technology studies.

W/o reading the man's actual writings, I would take this to mean that A) "facts" are one thing, "truth" something else altogether; and B) at some point, what we learn ends up being more than want we already know can handle.

I'd certainly agree with both. But even if the whole "brain thing" is just another first step on the way to another obsolescence, I do think it moves us ahead nevertheless. But amybe not. Time will ultimately tell.

But not off-topic at all, I'd say. This thread is probably more about our reactions to the alleged offense than anything else, and a big part of these reactions almost have to bounce off the "how can anybody do such a thing?" impulse, which is a more than fair question with no, at this point, equally fair answers. So, yeah, quite relevant, I'd think.

Guess you'd have to dig into Fleck a little bit deeper than wiki, but for a first impression, it seems to be fair enough. The main point is something that may read kind of deconstructionalist in this prohibitively shortened form: facts are (but) a social construct.

(And my personal addition to your distinction: truth will remain untold, anyway.)

And you make a very valid point in your final paragraph, indeed - that's why this whole thing is so darn disturbing.

[JSngry]

Even more disturbing (or disconcertingly "comforting") is the possibility that the real answer is "because it can be done".

Really, is their anything that one human being can do to another human being that hasn't been done in some form or fashion for as long as anybody knows about?

I've got to think that it's because we as a species realized that truth (and a truth I think it is) pretty early on that we began to form general concepts of "right" and "wrong". But just because we form them doesn't guarantee universal compliance. Obviously.

[Face of the Bass]

These aren't human beings, they're monsters.

I'd like to think that they're monstrous human beings.

It's not like being a human being and being really dangerous and fucked up aren't mutually exclusive qualities.

OTOH, if we could round up all the monsters in the world (except the cute ones like Cookie Monster) and execute them at one place and at one time, that would pretty much fix everything, wouldn't it...

Unfortunately I think if we did that we'd have to execute ourselves, because we would have become monsters...

[Face of the Bass]

Has anyone here seen Pasolini's brilliant and horrifying film, Salo? This case is starting to remind me of that.

And yet...I think these people, if they did what is being alleged, are very sick. It must be a terrible and dark compulsion that would cause someone to do these things, and I do know that in some cases, pedophiles feel relieved when they are caught, because they won't have to hide in shame anymore...their wrongdoings are exposed in the light of day. In one of the links to the Wikipedia article there was a story about a HS football coach in Virginia caught up in this thing who seemed to in some ways have been unburdened by his arrest. Now people know the truth, and there is nowhere left to hide. All the aliases, the secret encryptions, it's all falling apart now.

[.:.impossible]

Well, most certainly, the sobriquet, BlackBart2010, seems to make it more likely that the perpetrator is, indeed, Bill Barton. I gotta tell you, after reading as much of this as I could stand, I really have to hand it to you guys who can find it in your hearts to forgive. No way. These aren't human beings, they're monsters.

Not just the nickname... the address in Kent, WA and the name William Barton. An active uploader, according to the indictment, which lists dates. He very well could have been uploading this shit while reading org...

[Jim R]

In addition to the brain chemistry/mental illness factor, I think it's important to remember (and it may have been mentioned here already) the fact that many forms of abuse are cyclical. I believe that this is a huge factor in how and why our world is so messed up. With every passing year (or, with the information bombardment that we receive nowadays, every passing day), I'm more and more convinced that child abuse- and every other form of abuse- is far more common and prevalent than we've ever realized. Indeed, it may be happening closer to home than many of us realize, and we need to be aware and alert (which is not the same as paranoid, of course). Those who are abused are at a high risk of growing up to be abusers themselves. Of course, the issues here are far more serious than the more common types of abuse, but I suspect that the people who were accused in this case are likely to have been abused themselves. It's a horrible thought that each child who was abused here could grow up to abuse multiple kids themselves.

Without going into details, I have a non-blood relative who was convicted of molesting his own adopted child. It came as a complete and total shock to the whole family, and things will never be the same. This occurred just a few years ago, and although I feel like I was already pretty well aware of how common the problem is, there's nothing quite like having something like this happen so "close to home". The issue comes even more into focus, and is harder to be passive about.

Too often I hear about pedophiles who have committed serious crimes being slapped on the wrist and allowed to return to society and repeat their crimes. I was raised in a christian environment, and understand the ideals of forgiveness, but as a society, I believe we need a legal system that allows us to not give convicted offenders so many second (or third) chances, and put these people away permanently (if not worse... but I'll refrain from starting a debate on the death penalty).

Slight tangent, but something I think is relevant... around the world, too many people are having too many children for the wrong reasons, and all of these unwanted kids are greatly contributing to the whole cycle of abuse. That's another serious problem that needs to be discussed and dealt with. It's been going on for far too long.

[alocispepraluger102]

In addition to the brain chemistry/mental illness factor, I think it's important to remember (and it may have been mentioned here already) the fact that many forms of abuse are cyclical. I believe that this is a huge factor in how and why our world is so messed up. With every passing year (or, with the information bombardment that we receive nowadays, every passing day), I'm more and more convinced that child abuse- and every other form of abuse- is far more common and prevalent than we've ever realized. Indeed, it may be happening closer to home than many of us realize, and we need to be aware and alert (which is not the same as paranoid, of course). Those who are abused are at a high risk of growing up to be abusers themselves. Of course, the issues here are far more serious than the more common types of abuse, but I suspect that the people who were accused in this case are likely to have been abused themselves. It's a horrible thought that each child who was abused here could grow up to abuse multiple kids themselves.

Without going into details, I have a non-blood relative who was convicted of molesting his own adopted child. It came as a complete and total shock to the whole family, and things will never be the same. This occurred just a few years ago, and although I feel like I was already pretty well aware of how common the problem is, there's nothing quite like having something like this happen so "close to home". The issue comes even more into focus, and is harder to be passive about.

Too often I hear about pedophiles who have committed serious crimes being slapped on the wrist and allowed to return to society and repeat their crimes. I was raised in a christian environment, and understand the ideals of forgiveness, but as a society, I believe we need a legal system that allows us to not give convicted offenders so many second (or third) chances, and put these people away permanently (if not worse... but I'll refrain from starting a debate on the death penalty).

Slight tangent, but something I think is relevant... around the world, too many people are having too many children for the wrong reasons, and all of these unwanted kids are greatly contributing to the whole cycle of abuse. That's another serious problem that needs to be discussed and dealt with. It's been going on for far too long.

one can but imagine the crimes against the weak and innocent when the bright lights of public scrutiny were certain never to shine on this sort of thing.

Edited August 13, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[Face of the Bass]

In addition to the brain chemistry/mental illness factor, I think it's important to remember (and it may have been mentioned here already) the fact that many forms of abuse are cyclical. I believe that this is a huge factor in how and why our world is so messed up. With every passing year (or, with the information bombardment that we receive nowadays, every passing day), I'm more and more convinced that child abuse- and every other form of abuse- is far more common and prevalent than we've ever realized. Indeed, it may be happening closer to home than many of us realize, and we need to be aware and alert (which is not the same as paranoid, of course). Those who are abused are at a high risk of growing up to be abusers themselves. Of course, the issues here are far more serious than the more common types of abuse, but I suspect that the people who were accused in this case are likely to have been abused themselves. It's a horrible thought that each child who was abused here could grow up to abuse multiple kids themselves.

That's one possible outcome, although my experience with child abuse also has taught me that it can have the opposite effect, that the abused person grows up and vows to never allow anything like that to happen to anyone that they love. Victims of child abuse can become hyper-vigilant about any form of abuse ever happening to their own children, or to other children they know.

[papsrus]

In addition to the brain chemistry/mental illness factor, I think it's important to remember (and it may have been mentioned here already) the fact that many forms of abuse are cyclical. I believe that this is a huge factor in how and why our world is so messed up. With every passing year (or, with the information bombardment that we receive nowadays, every passing day), I'm more and more convinced that child abuse- and every other form of abuse- is far more common and prevalent than we've ever realized. Indeed, it may be happening closer to home than many of us realize, and we need to be aware and alert (which is not the same as paranoid, of course). Those who are abused are at a high risk of growing up to be abusers themselves. Of course, the issues here are far more serious than the more common types of abuse, but I suspect that the people who were accused in this case are likely to have been abused themselves. It's a horrible thought that each child who was abused here could grow up to abuse multiple kids themselves.

That's one possible outcome, although my experience with child abuse also has taught me that it can have the opposite effect, that the abused person grows up and vows to never allow anything like that to happen to anyone that they love. Victims of child abuse can become hyper-vigilant about any form of abuse ever happening to their own children, or to other children they know.

Wanting to know more about this whole 'brain chemistry' argument, I did a quick Google on 'brain chemistry child abuser' and got a slew of results pointing to studies that suggest abuse may alter the brain chemistry of the victims, over time. Which obviously means that the abuse itself is suspected of causing the altered brain chemistry. That it's not inherent, in other words.

Which, in the end, so what. Screwed up wiring is screwed up wiring. But maybe if we know how the wiring got screwed up we'd at least be more aware of the source of the problem.

Whether or not the problem can be fixed at its source is another question.

[papsrus]

Yes, I do believe in science - but as a historian (well, wannabee maybe, who knows) I also know about the relativity of science. Not sure you can get Ludwik Fleck in English, but his "Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache" (1935) is most fascinating in that respect - and will, I think, in its gist, always remain valid.

But this is leading off-topic.

I've gone round and round on this before, but as a layman I've always relied on Karl Popper's view that science is in the business of disproving theories, not proving them.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

Through this ongoing process of falsification, knowledge advances.

As you say, a little off topic. But Popper's paradigm does tend to make one a little more hesitant to accept certain judgments about cause and effect, for example.

Edited August 13, 2011 by papsrus

[king ubu]

Yes, I do believe in science - but as a historian (well, wannabee maybe, who knows) I also know about the relativity of science. Not sure you can get Ludwik Fleck in English, but his "Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache" (1935) is most fascinating in that respect - and will, I think, in its gist, always remain valid.

But this is leading off-topic.

I've gone round and round on this before, but as a layman I've always relied on Karl Popper's view that science is in the business of disproving theories, not proving them.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

Through this ongoing process of falsification, knowledge advances.

As you say, a little off topic. But Popper's paradigm does tend to make one a little more hesitant to accept certain judgments about cause and effect, for example.

Popper's method may be sensible *within* science (natural, exact science, to a lesser extent also humanities).

What Fleck does is analyze how theories get constructed - an aspect that sort of turns science back on its feet, as I see it. Science never happens to be exclusively about theories, science is never free from social, political, you name it, influences. That's what Fleck brings back in - and that's what I think needs to be reflected.

[papsrus]

Popper's method may be sensible *within* science (natural, exact science, to a lesser extent also humanities).

What Fleck does is analyze how theories get constructed - an aspect that sort of turns science back on its feet, as I see it. Science never happens to be exclusively about theories, science is never free from social, political, you name it, influences. That's what Fleck brings back in - and that's what I think needs to be reflected.

Seems they dovetail nicely then. If theories have a built-in bias, all the more reason to be suspicious of them. All the more reason to test them and try to find conditions where they would be false.

Anyways, just some thoughts. They could be false!

[marcello]

Boy, there's some heavy lifting going on here!

I, like others here, only had nice dealing with Bill, may he rest in peace.

Edited August 13, 2011 by marcello

[clifford_thornton]

Yeah, reconciliation of the Bill we "knew" and a part of Bill that no one should ever want to know is pretty tough. If it happens at all, it will only happen after death, which will likely occur in Angola prison. Sad stuff.

[sheldonm]

.agreed...the entire thing is surreal...

Yeah, reconciliation of the Bill we "knew" and a part of Bill that no one should ever want to know is pretty tough. If it happens at all, it will only happen after death, which will likely occur in Angola prison. Sad stuff.

[AllenLowe]

I wonder if Barton is reading this in the joint.

Edited August 13, 2011 by AllenLowe

[John L]

We will all die with many unanswered questions. And that might be the "HELL" some folks talk about.

I know my father died expecting all the answers as soon as he left.

The problem from my perspective was he didn't understand the questions.

Does anybody understand the questions? What we don't know is so vast that we don't even know how to pose the really big questions.