Another Twist in the Issue of Sexual Predators

[Pangloss]

The reality of your position, Thomas, is that you're just not going to be able to sell that to anybody based solely on the power of your flowery rhetoric. You can't back it up -- all you can seem to do is repeat yourself and stamp your feet until you get the last word. That's not debate, that's childish foot-stomping.

[beautyundone]

pangloss, i like your icon... hah, loved that movie.

[john5746]

I will try again: Law enforcement and legislators feed from the sexual predator phenomenon. We think of them as our protectors. We should understand what they do and identify law enforcement and legislators as the offenders they are, and stop them from feeding and being dependent on the sexual predator phenomenon. Nothing else will work.

 

Maybe you can give an example where this happened, preferrable a real case, but hypothetical would do.

[Thomas Kirby]

The reality of your position, Thomas, is that you're just not going to be able to sell that to anybody based solely on the power of your flowery rhetoric. You can't back it up -- all you can seem to do is repeat yourself and stamp your feet until you get the last word. That's not debate, that's childish foot-stomping.

 

You are so completely full of shit.

[Bettina]

Well, I give up trying to get anything useful out of this thread. I thought it was going to have an intellegent outcome, but Thomas Kirby, you only condemn and criticize without giving (except for a few lines) any substantial idea about what could be done.

 

And..since you obviously have a problem with any kind of authority, it makes you biased and that leads to a breakdown in credibility. I'm sorry, I really wanted to hear what your solutions would have been.

 

Bettina

[Thomas Kirby]

I already told you my solutions. They are good enough.

[Dak]

The law enforcement solution to anything is a last resort. It already indicates, or should indicate, that everything else has been tried and it failed. And that is just not the case most of the time. Too often the police are the first resort -

 

I kinda agree with this statement -- but at the same time, barring known sex offenders from hurricane shelters could be viewed as an attempt to achieve this, ie stopping it before its actually done and someone has to be arrested.

[beautyundone]

^ good point.

 

thomas, you have yet to actually state what you think should happen. should we drop laws concerning sex offenses and rape? is that what you were saying?

[MetaFrizzics]

Actually, he has a strong point. Police not only manufacture statistics to increase their budgets, create 'scare tactics' to keep people afraid to criticise them, and even create crime itself, they cooperate with criminal organizations to perpetuate profit from crime.

 

For instance, while crime actually has decreased significantly in almost every area that has been statistically analyzed, police propaganda teams manufacture alarmist stories around budget times, and even abuse anomalous incidents to justify selfish expansion of powers and weaponry, as well as ridiculous increases in pay.

 

We have arrived at the point where ethically and morally, it is no longer possible to tell the cops from the criminals, given the widespread corruption and ideological perversion of policing as a profession.

[Thomas Kirby]

^ good point.

 

thomas' date=' you have yet to actually state what you think should happen. should we drop laws concerning sex offenses and rape? is that what you were saying?[/quote']

 

Yes, we should. As evidenced in this thread and in many places, we have managed to become dependent on such laws without requiring that the laws actually do anything for us. A painfully irony is that the more the laws fail, the more we ask for more laws and the more money we give those who have failed us. The laws have become worse than useless so it is already safe to discard them.

[MetaFrizzics]

I kinda agree with this statement -- but at the same time, barring known sex offenders from hurricane shelters could[/i'] be viewed as an attempt to achieve this, ie stopping it before its actually done and someone has to be arrested.

While preventative medicine has a strong argument in its favour, in the case of criminal justice we have to balance this against individual human rights, because abuses of these rights is a criminal offence in itself.

 

Some of the fundamental theoretical foundations of justice at least in the West rest in the following key principles:

 

(1) Individuals are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish guilt or innocence in cases of dispute.

 

(2) Every citizen has the right to a fair and scientific trial, and is entitled to adequate and reasonable defence regardless of economic or racial, religious or gender status.

 

(3) Every individual has the right to respect of privacy of person in absence of any critical overriding emergency involving the majority or the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

[BenSon]

Rolling Stones

Just as every cop is a criminal

And all the sinners saints

As heads is tails

Just call me lucifer

’cause I’m in need of some restraint

[Pangloss]

Actually' date=' he has a strong point. Police not only manufacture statistics to increase their budgets, create 'scare tactics' to keep people afraid to criticise them, and even create crime itself, they cooperate with criminal organizations to perpetuate profit from crime.

 

For instance, while crime actually has decreased significantly in almost every area that has been statistically analyzed, police propaganda teams manufacture alarmist stories around budget times, and even abuse anomalous incidents to justify selfish expansion of powers and weaponry, as well as ridiculous increases in pay.

 

We have arrived at the point where ethically and morally, it is no longer possible to tell the cops from the criminals, given the widespread corruption and ideological perversion of policing as a profession.[/quote']

 

This is a vast assumption. You're stating factually that the decrease in crime is fully accounted for by direct manipulation of statistics. That is a very serious charge, and one which is not supported by typical news reports, which suggest only that some of the numbers can be attributed to corruption.

 

Can you back it up?

[Thomas Kirby]

Actually' date=' he has a strong point. Police not only manufacture statistics to increase their budgets, create 'scare tactics' to keep people afraid to criticise them, and even create crime itself, they cooperate with criminal organizations to perpetuate profit from crime.

 

For instance, while crime actually has decreased significantly in almost every area that has been statistically analyzed, police propaganda teams manufacture alarmist stories around budget times, and even abuse anomalous incidents to justify selfish expansion of powers and weaponry, as well as ridiculous increases in pay.

 

We have arrived at the point where ethically and morally, it is no longer possible to tell the cops from the criminals, given the widespread corruption and ideological perversion of policing as a profession.[/quote']

 

They do this to create a perception that things need to be policed when they don't need to be policed and no gains can be made by policing them, except a massive pain in the ass for those who are policed.

[Bettina]

Actually' date=' he has a strong point. Police not only manufacture statistics to increase their budgets, create 'scare tactics' to keep people afraid to criticise them, and even create crime itself, they cooperate with criminal organizations to perpetuate profit from crime.

 

For instance, while crime actually has decreased significantly in almost every area that has been statistically analyzed, police propaganda teams manufacture alarmist stories around budget times, and even abuse anomalous incidents to justify selfish expansion of powers and weaponry, as well as ridiculous increases in pay.

 

We have arrived at the point where ethically and morally, it is no longer possible to tell the cops from the criminals, given the widespread corruption and ideological perversion of policing as a profession.[/quote']

 

Please explain something to me so I can keep updated.

 

When a kid goes ballistic in school with a gun, who should I call?

A prowler on my property?

See a bank getting robbed?

Someone threatening your family?

A child goes missing?

Cars drag racing on your street?

People rioting?

Someone beating me?

Your just plain scared?

 

When there is a fire, who arrives there first?

 

I have a whole list, but this is good enough.

 

Bettina

[Dak]

Actually, he has a strong point. Police not only manufacture statistics to increase their budgets,

 

Unfortunately, this is semi-true (at least in the uk) due to targets. It is called, i believe, administrative policing, or paper-policework or something along those lines.

 

However, what this does to the statistics, at least for violent, sexual and unsolved crime, is artificially forses them down; so if its an attempt to scare-monger, then its a bad one.

 

create 'scare tactics' to keep people afraid to criticise them, and even create crime itself, they cooperate with criminal organizations to perpetuate profit from crime.

 

As pangloss said: can you back this up?

 

While preventative medicine has a strong argument in its favour, in the case of criminal justice we have to balance this against individual human rights, because abuses of these rights is a criminal offence in itself.

 

agreed

 

Some of the fundamental theoretical foundations of justice at least in the West rest in the following key principles:

 

(1) Individuals are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish guilt or innocence in cases of dispute.

 

(2) Every citizen has the right to a fair and scientific trial, and is entitled to adequate and reasonable defence regardless of economic or racial, religious or gender status.

 

(3) Every individual has the right to respect of privacy of person in absence of any critical overriding emergency involving the majority or the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

 

right-oh. But given that these restrictions apply to proven criminals, I dont see what argument your trying to make above.

 

Just to clarify my position tho: Im still undecided as to wether this restriction counts as 'reasonable', and still not 100% ok with what constitutes a 'sex-offender'.

[BenSon]

When a kid goes ballistic in school with a gun, who should I call?

A prowler on my property?...

If there's somethin' strange in your neighborhood

Who ya gonna call....

 

~Scott

[Thomas Kirby]

The interesting thing is so many people ask us to "back up" what should be common knowledge. C'mon people, do something about that blind spot. It's an effort of will. It is not hardwired. At least, I don't think it's hardwired.

 

I just had a thought. At least when it is illegal to have sex with children, it is possible to have the police officer arrested who thought he could get away with bedding someone's 16 year old daughter.

[BenSon]

I just had a thought. At least when it is illegal to have sex with children, it is possible to have the police officer arrested who thought he could get away with betting someone's 16 year old daughter.

I just read this sentence like five times and I still don't get it...

Oh and by the way Thomas I was not asking a question before..think Ghoast busters

 

~Scott

[Thomas Kirby]

All better, BenSon. Look up.

[Dak]

The interesting thing is so many people ask us to "back up" what should be common knowledge. C'mon people' date=' do something about that blind spot. It's an effort of will. It is not hardwired. At least, I don't think it's hardwired.

[/quote']

 

Right-oh. but its not. thusly, does the burden of proof lie on you.

 

if you think that this should be commonly accepted knowledge, and if its as inportant to you as the time that you must have invested into your posts suggests that it is, then make the effort to find some valid evidence to support your claim, so that we have to accept these 'facts-that-should-be-common-knowledge'.

 

I just had a thought. At least when it is illegal to have sex with children, it is possible to have the police officer arrested who thought he could get away with bedding someone's 16 year old daughter

 

so its ok to bed 16 year olds, unless your a policeman?

[Thomas Kirby]

Right-oh. but its not. thusly' date=' does the burden of proof lie on you.

 

if you think that this should be commonly accepted knowledge, and if its as inportant to you as the time that you must have invested into your posts suggests that it is, then make the effort to find some valid [b']evidence[/b] to support your claim, so that we have to accept these 'facts-that-should-be-common-knowledge'.

 

 

 

so its ok to bed 16 year olds, unless your a policeman?

 

Actually, in some states in the US it is legal. I just like the fact that policemen can't get away with it either where it is illegal.

 

Call this insulting, and some will, but part of the uphill struggle here is the ignorance of a large portion of the population. By simply ignoring the corruption and stupidity of the law, and ignoring all evidence, they make someone like me work a lot harder. Then the mess is still not cleaned up and the audience has fun dumping on me from their high and mighty position of willful ignorance. Tell me how this situation is suitable for anything except for me to dump off my own emotional baggage.

[Pangloss]

Blind ideology is so much easier than having to prove what you state, isn't it? If nobody believes you, call them "idiots" and "conservatives", or tell them they're "full of shit" -- that's much easier than having to actually give examples, state objective sources, or stand behind your words.

 

You know, there's another word for when you ask people to accept something. The word for that is "faith".

 

I find it highly amusing that Thomas Kirby, the self-proclaimed champion of science over Intelligent Design, is so dependent upon faith to make his arguments.

 

The ironic thing is, faith is the very thing that Thomas Kirby hates most. It's the purvue of "idiots" and "conservatives", right? And yet it's the very thing he is most dependent upon. Thomas Kirby makes arguments in exactly the same way that James Dobson (leader of Focus on the Family) makes arguments: Blind faith, repetition, and denial.

 

Go figure.

[Thomas Kirby]

Never mind. I'm just going to go get some medication prescribed and become a good little drone.

[beautyundone]

i believe you all told me that becoming a police officer (or something of that sort) would do nothing and wouldn't help the situation.

 

however, the more non-corrupt officers we have, the less the corrupt ones affect people, right? so if i am a non-corrupt officer and i do my job well and try to stop the corruption, i would be doing a LOT of good.

 

so why is it that i "wouldn't help" anything?

 

and what exactly is this prescribed medicine supposed to be?