8 year old girl murdered when going to restroom in shop.

terrible

he was 21 years old? I was expecting the guy to be atleast 40

shows how much the media has warped my mind to stereotype pedophiles

 

Well done, Thanks acknowledging my point and understanding where I'm coming from..... I don't know what else I'm supposed to say.

 

That's not what I mean.

You continue to attack people even after they've already acknowledged they understand where you are coming from. It's almost as if you enjoy senseless bickering.

But that's enough of that. I've made my point several times already.

 

I don't know what you expect me to do. You can understand what i'm saying and still be wrong.

 

Who are you to tell people their opinions are invalid?

That's why they are called opinions. I'm not saying YOUR opinion is wrong, yet you feel the need to belittle others with different beliefs than you.

Furthermore, if I understand where you are coming from and agree to an extent - doesn't that make you wrong as well?

 

You can say I'm wrong, I don't mind.

I have a problem with the idea that everyone's opinion is equal and we are all entitled to opinions though. I don't believe we are all entitled to opinions and i don't believe that everyone who manages to throw together an "opinion" has as much validity as the next guy.

Of course, i can't stop someone vocalising whatever thoughts they managed to conjure up, But it doesn't mean i have to treat all vocalisations of thoughts with an equal amount of respect simply because it happens to be "an opinion".

 

Let us be clear.

Stox,

You have told religious folks they should be lucky to even live in the land, to propagate what in your words is "filth." Yet you object to a list that allows concerned citizens (parents and non-parents alike) to know who has committed this especially baleful class of crime; it allows those concerned the knowledge of who lives near their children, knowledge of who has every intent, if the overwhelming statistics are in fact indicative of the real world, of harming our kids again. And again.

You asked how knowledge of such a list would allow parents to better their children. I provided specific examples. You ignored the response, and continued to ask those who value the lists to indicate how it would allow parents to protect their children.

You have ignored that I, for one, have indicated, damn right, I'd prefer these criminals are removed from society, and then acted as if I never said it, though I repeated it several times. (I am with Denise - this is what we have. It beats nothing).

You indicated that you responded in kind to something you felt another poster did; why you called parents "liable to make illogical reactionary statements - unable to think about the issue with a clear head." I indicated this isn't the way I debate, and asked if this was really the best way to proceed. I further tried to illustrate by way of at least my example - what I held as a non-parent, and what I held as a parent - in order to provide some context as to where some of us who do hold these opinions come from, and hopefully bring additional perspective. I additionally provided the disclaimer that this is my experience; not everyone's, necessarily. I do love my son above all else, and these lists allow me additional security on his behalf. Your repeating the line didn't ameliorate what is in my opinion an inherent flaw in such thinking.

You made a blanket statement of extrapolation - comparing Portsmouth to Chicago, for example, using population (the criterion you chose), I showed the weakness in your extrapolation, I did so by providing facts; real world, empirical data. You ignored them. Repeatedly.

You asked if anyone holding this view - that lists are a good thing to have - in fact uses the list. I told you I had - at that point, last week. You called me a liar.

And so forth and so on.

Now, my friend, I am an atheist, and with one life, I am absolutely interested in discovering the truth. It seems to me that this is either a game for you, in which case you are simply being disingenuous; or you are incapable of seeing the ample flaws in what you are doing.

I'll leave it to you and others to decide who has been "intellectually dishonest." Either way, I am reminded why this is generally such a waste of time.

 

I don't care where the religious live, I said i don't want to hear their filth and it should have no effect on 1) what i do 2) what they teach as science in schools 3) public policy 4) laws or 5) foreign policy.

I don't see the connection between that and this thread though. Is there a reason why someone against religion should be for a public list of known paedophiles? If yes, What's the connection? Bit of a stab in the dark there on your part.

And i provided examples of the damage the lists could do, Which was equally ignored by yourself.

but not a flaw in her thinking?
See, You are both guilty of the same thing here. My status as a parent wouldn't have been questioned if i happened to believe the same thing as her. And her statement wasn't questioned by you because she happens to agree with you.

I still don't believe you did. because if you were half the dad you claimed to be you would spend your time doing something a bit more constructive than trawling lists of nonce's and going on the paedohunt. You seem like a smart guy, at times, and as such i find it hard to believe that you would invest so much time and effort in to something that, When you look at it, Poses an insignificant risk.

 

And so you find yourself dancing on a precipice of scree, again. Your memory seems extremely selective, to me, Stox.

You didn't say you didn't want to hear the religious view. You said:

In other words, those who don't share your religious sentiment should feel lucky to be allowed to continue their faith.

When you provided data, a single instance of the violence against pedophiles that you fear, I not only acknowledged it, but thanked you for the information. Further, I condemned the mob violence. As much as my personal feelings come into play, I acknowledge that my personal desire for revenge is subordinated to the rule of law in a civilized society, and mob violence cannot stand. Ignoring all this, you then made a wildly inaccurate extrapolation, based solely on population density, and when I then provided statistics based on your criterion (population density), data you were free to refute or concur, you ignored this as well. (I reiterate: the bottom line is that in a city of millions, there hasn't been a single instance of mob violence against known pedophile(s) as happened in your Portsmouth. Yet the lists have been in existence for over a decade, in my city).

I've done my best to remain courteous. You've simply been shown to be wrong, Stox. As much as I know it is a challenge to stick to honorable debate, particularly when you've no other leg to stand on - you are calling me a liar again, and in addition you are now attempting to malign my fatherhood. I really can't know if you're simply a kid with a loose keyboard at play, or someone who should know better; regardless, I'd suggest you catch a breath, and pull it back.

 

And yet nothing about them being lucky to "live in the land". That was what you claimed i said, Right?

yes you thanked me, and then went on to ignore the fact that public lists do and have resulted in mob violence.

I'm simply saying that as a good father you should spend your time more wisely and more productively than going through lists on a paedohunt. Statistically your son is less at risk from a paedophile than he is from you, Your neighbours dog, Falling down the stairs or eating something he is allergic to, Yet you still maintain this fabricated notion that paedophiles are a risk worthy of a paedohunt. You have simply bought in to the scaremongering without thinking rationally about what you are afraid of. Screw your head on and have a re-think.

 

I'm not sure how to otherwise interpret it. Forcibly preventing the practice of faith...concentration camps, perhaps? "Re-Education" camps a la Mao and Pol Pot? Who is the "we" who "allows" other citizens of a democracy to pursue their life of individual conscience, then? You see, as an atheist, I just don't give a damn. I don't spend my time wagging my finger at the empty sky to scream, in petulant rage, that THAT doesn't exist, dammit! I figure, what the hell, to each their own - provided they have not transgressed society by committing acts of violence or other crime. Yet you would curb the individual liberty of such religious folks, while at the same time you vigorously assert the defense of some presumed "right to privacy" of those who rape children - and who by every accepted standard of empirical research will do it again, if allowed the opportunity. I don't get it.

I cannot both condemn and ignore something at the same time.

Finally, as a father, I "should" do whatever I deem I should do out of love for my son. As an atheist, you "should" desist from preaching so vociferously - particularly about something you seemingly couldn't know any less about. Simply, I love my son, and moment by moment, each day of his life, I do anything within my power to safeguard him and give him a good life free from fear and full of love. Balanced against this, the "right to privacy" of a child molester means zero.

Alas, you will have to have the last word, Stox. I find your views obdurate and your posts riddled with zealotry, in the extreme. I don't believe it's possible to carry on a fruitful discussion along these lines, so, all the best.

 

I don't think we need to go that far. We can deal with it the way we dealt with racism, homophobia and sexism. Simply make it socially unacceptable. As soon as people realise that the moderates are the problem, the moderates create a safe-haven for the extremists, They will no longer tolerate hearing them and their opinions and they will all just disappear.

It would be a fairly simple process. In fact i may do a blog post on it this week, Kind of the atheists manifesto for the annihilation of religion.

 

Like Paul, sounds like you've been struck by that ole' timey religion. Good luck with the evangelism, brother.

 

Hey North!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where ya been, bro???

 

Recently retired with a self-induced dramatic flourish, missing the kindnesses of friends...

-and finding myself right back where I was, swimming in useless drivel once again. If an atheist can toss the baton to a Christian brother, he's all yours, dead. Haven't seen you around in awhile...I trust your well?

 

well, indeed, it's been a whirlwind year since last I was bannished

Do you play chess?

 

I've given up messin' with him too. I enjoy your posts because they show respect to other people's opinions, no matter if you are with or against. It's no wonder the P&R Forums have a strict license on it. Unless guys like stOx pull their head in, their time here at DP is limited.

For someone who can at times appear so learned, it is a shame on the other hand, to be acting so maliciously.

 

Putting someone on a list like that is a living death sentence. You can't find a place to live, you can't find a job to pay your bills. It's cruel and unusual punishment. Have you ever tried to find a neighborhood without any schools nearby? Can you imagine trying to get a job when you have to tell every prospective employer that you're a sex offender?

It would be kinder if we just executed them.

 

Well, cry me a river for the difficulties faced by a child rapist. Following this line a convicted felon shouldn't really have the title "felon" to include on a job application. After all, it's embarrassing. I mean, really uncool.

I don't give a rat's ass about the difficulties faced by a person who would destroy a child's life. The child's welfare is paramount.

 

np:

Well, I am not opposed to killing them. I see that as more humane, and you can't argue with its effectiveness.

But really, this doesn't just relate to child rapists. You can get this kind of treatment for saying something rude to a female co-worker.

Heck, a fellow I know just lost his business license because he was accused - not convicted - of domestic violence.

The "domestic violence" accusation wasn't physical. He was accused of yelling at his (soon to be ex) wife.

But now he's on a list and there is NO LEGAL PROCESS to get off the list.

I really take this from a criminologists viewpoint. These laws make people PERMANENT criminals because they make reform impossible. And yes, I do include -- perhaps specifically -- the laws that state you have to tell prospective employers if you have ever had a felony.

When people ask why criminals don't reform -- this is a big part of the answer.