yes, and a political system operating within a country, with a specific societal and economic model and machinery. within a global context, etc... I think that we are all equal also in that, that we are all pawns (including the leaders) and all in charge of our destiny, and then responsible for the way we are pushed, incited, or whatever lead to mistreat somebody or the institutions or the environment that humans (and the planet also, it is what i think) need to survive and ensure better and better well-being as well as continuity. Still a questioning: what would bring this opening doors- or bring over.
One might get stuck thinking, just to notice they will be put to pay. people against the horrors will be firstly targeted at all levels. it is terror, unemployment and (menace by the very independently acting spectrum of) sheer poverty. i don't know what to say.
And on top it is a group called: The United Nations (U.N.)
I understand your obligation to stay focuse on your speciality, but in fact if one institution has to tackle this subject urgently it would be the UN, our only
current hope at legislating globally. it is happening everywhere. A global problem, whether incentive to paedophilia are perpetrated via religion, or under other groups, networks, and very powerful whole institutions practically. I am sure you are aware of human trafficking and how it had become international and dupes police, ngos of all countries because of them being isolated from supranationality, centralised information and synchronised actions.
the un as being the one organ protecting freedom of religion and being in touch with all nations, and regimes should be the one (as it is its very function) to regulate them in order that freedom does not become a synonym to impunity to harm and violations (most egregious, pervasive and omnipresent in that case). to condemn one's family, one children at state and family level is the most powerful weapon of oppression and destruction. that will get rid of any fundamental rights and inspire relentless fear by excellence. children gross violation. the ones that would get you to lose your sovereignty as a whole. it is pedophilia incentives within family and schools we are talking about. the state helping, the communities potentially following the same law, the whole institution and nowhere else to cry help, in case you've heard of integrity. or one will hear about, but be reassure that it 'is more than just like that' 'beyond despotism' present themselves to be the only way. pedophilia is morbid and is the death of any society, but still is commanded by people whose wish is violence under all its forms and extremity, moribund and decay, to sanitise the description, simply because there should not be discussion about it but going there and stop it straight away. all the description I can add is just vain, and to pretend describe the suffering of children that everyone let dying, is the devilish side of vanity. I can't do it, you don't describe life being an horror as if you permit it your own life is stopping to go down the neant. and we can't stop it. so who are we but …
I do not think that interviewees would at any times suit 'the sweet and wild salvage' innocence that have been described and 'documented' widely in Victorian civilisation literature and even more in the contemporary.
if I was living in my country and that a rich academic from whose countries who might have well helped some systems a bit, more than a bit in some case, but notoriously puncture local economy, whose presidents and governments intervene not, but to sell cheap weapons, cheap yes but yet able to kill everybody... i won't try to exhaust the list or line of endeavour (misbehaviour of democracy). i do not think i would start giving my data or the data i encounter to everybody.
I you were the interviewee, tell me why you would entrust the questionnaire, the institutions or the guys collecting it. And if so, if you trust them, why??? What are the proofs available of their integrity???
Along my character yes i could have confided into someone who i would think and feel particularly lovely and sincere, but being a little more mature would also tell me even with the best of intention, that this lovely person, lady or fair man, (lady more like [a joke this one, viva homosexuality, though it is not a sexual comment, just in the west I am not forced to marry anyone, or less forced, and I also can marry the love of my life, which make things easy- at least on the instinct of destruction and lethal compulsion that someone will have and cultivate if the victims of such vital bullying- death and love are not linked in every mythology for naught) will be able to manage with their bureaucracy. Also, if I started to say it all and therefore if my witness becamea bit particular they would cut the corners for more amalgamy.
Talking to a wall, research for tally.
In UK, they let sexual exploitation happen and come in over exploited they are all, area, vampirised first ones (also called underdeveloped) to get what??
Again, i would tell them that they can return from where they are and run themselves a bath and forget about it. But that it is only me. Or i could try to tell all what i know to demonstrate i studied, but for what end, a dead apology.
Other i think would have the reaction of telling and interacting with the interviewer in shifting the reality, just are we paid to inform you? what you want from us phrase is quite telling actually? liberalism never talk about liberty. And being equal in front of nature the sole boss of everybody (abused since quiet and running deeper than politics or sociology)
To assume truth from the interviewee.
To assume that the people will believe it to be scientific and enough to reveal pattern of anything, like if the phenomenon could be studied.
It suits the dream of the elites; after what?
after in fact the only study they care for: what population is after, their reactions, their own strategies, ways to cope, their discourses showing, hiding, relativising, make better, be jocky.
the comble of irony, by the scholar guarding guarantee.
on·o·mat·o·poe·ia (ŏn′ə-măt′ə-pē′ə, -mä′tə-)
The formation or use of words such as buzz or murmur that imitate the sounds associated with the objects or actions they refer to.
[Late Latin, from Greek onomatopoiiā, from onomatopoios, coiner of names : onoma, onomat-, name; see nō̆-men- in Indo-European roots + poiein, to make; see kwei-2 in Indo-European roots.]
on′o·mat′o·poe′ic, on′o·mat′o·po·et′ic (-pō-ĕt′ĭk) adj.
on′o·mat′o·poe′i·cal·ly, on′o·mat′o·po·et′i·cal·ly adv.