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

"Colorful" as in my use of "shithead" and its variants, or as in, my love of language generally? If the former, at the heart of it, I'm a pretty basic guy, and when it comes to certain things - like this subject - I get real basic, I guess. If the latter, I can't explain it, except to say I loved learning foreign languages by the time I was 5 or so, read voraciously as a kid, and all of it persists today.

 

As a parent you are liable to make illogical reactionary statements. You are unable to think about the issue with a clear head.

 

Think about what you are saying. How would putting their name on a list remove them from civilised society? If you want to argue for keeping them in prison then do that, But what you have said does in no way support a public list of convicted paedophiles.

It is not a matter of taking them from civilized society stOX ( no matter how much we would rather take them out) it is a matter of acknowledging them in our society and having warning that they have committed a crime of abuse against a child and your children may be in harms way.

You are still arguing against what is common sense for all parental rights?

 

Definitely meant the latter. I find myself having to look up a dictionary every second word reading what you write. Your telling me English isn't your first language?

 

Why do you constantly say it's not about things when people have clearly said it is? northpointaiki clearly defended the use of a public list by stating "Pedophiles feed on children, and by doing so abrogate their right to exist in civilized society".

I'm not saying he is incorrect, But what he said does in no way support the idea of a public list of convicted paedophiles.

 

I do want to argue for putting them in prison, and removing them from society. Absent that, with the information given, I am glad to know if these animals live in my neighborhood. An example: children generally go to school within their neighborhood, in our city. They play in open playyards, in our language, or feeding grounds, in the language of this animals. If I see an offender whiling his hours doing his favorite pasttime, if only vicariously so, I know what to do, which is to accost and detain him, and call the police.

Knowing what they look like, and where they live, it is easy enough. And it is the right thing to provide citizens.

I still fail to understand your vehemence in indicating religious folks - in your words, those practicing "filth" - are "lucky enough" to even live in the land, yet you object to parents having information about predatorial animals. These animals - take it from one who knows - can mar a life. Yet you place them in a higher protected status, if your own words are to be taken at face value, than those folks who choose to kneel in prayer.

Intellectual honesty demands you face this squarely.

 

Ahahah - I'm playing, brother, I knew what you meant. I constantly war with my writing...I do love language, and always have. Sometimes my writing errs on the side of pedantry, and I work to see and write only what I think and feel. It's what the Japanese would call my "shugyo," my spiritual challenge, really.

 

So your statement about them not living in civilised society doesn't support the use of a list then? Makes me wonder why you said it.

Maybe you should be arguing on the side of longer/indefinite jail terms if you see justification for a list. My position is such lists would not increase safety and would only encourage vigilante mobs to start kicking doors down. if you see these people as being such a threat it makes me wonder why you show such support for a list and so far have shown very little support for longer/indefinite jail terms.

 

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

As to the rest of your post, lists do what I have said they do; however, and I'm sorry to say this, you appear to me,at least, to be attempting a pretty facile diversion of the argument. Plainly, again: They allow citizens who do not rape children to know who does. Such information allows parents to better protect their kids. And such a thing is an unqualified good. Vigilantism - such as my own, admittedly base impulse - is itself outside the pale of the law. As such, it is not tolerated in civilized society.

These lists have been available in Chicago at least as long as I've lived here, which is close to 20 years, now. Please provide a single instance of "vigilante mobs" committing a single act of vigilantism against a sex offender. If you have data to back your claim, namely, that these lists encourage vigilante violence, please provide it.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/872436.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/848737.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/849098.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/847639.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/864693.stm

 

Just saw this. Stox, you are making a religious statement.

 

Thank you. Plainly, though I understand the rage, such violence is wrong and rightfully condemned, and on reading further I note that action has been taken to ensure such a thing doesn't happen again. I don't know the exact nature of News of the World's "name and shame" public campaign, but it appears it was a media blitz campaign, and this clearly differs from the police department lists provided in my city. We haven't had a single instance of such violence, despite the availability of these lists for years.

Part of the issue stems from the strong likelihood that the offender will keep doing what he has done in the past. A study put out by the State of Illinois concluded:

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/5-622.pdf

(Emphasis mine).

Again, I say, knowing what these assholes look like, and the crime they've committed, allows a level of vigilance, not vigilantism, not afforded to me otherwise. As a parent, I'm grateful. As a citizen, if one's child life is saved, I stand by my position.

You have still failed to answer why you hold that people of faith should feel "lucky" to live in the land, practicing their "filth" as they do; yet you are vociferous in your defense of those who have raped, and destroyed, children. It seems like sheer hypocrisy, at best, to me.

 

Well maybe it works in america, I couldn't comment i haven't spent enough time over there. But one thing i know for sure is the first thing people would do if the lists existed over here is hand out copies and start a witch-hunt.

I'm sure vigilante attacks aren't entirely non-existent in america, Even if you haven't personally heard of or seen them. I find it hard to believe that lists could be published and not a single person took matters in to their own hands.

 

Stox, again, you are making a religious stand. How can you be sure about something you don't have any information on? This seems to be the exemplar of your earlier accusation:

Respectfully, I'd say, your mindset betrays an arrogance of opinion. I think you'll find that most folks here are likely coming from an honest place, and are not beneath your honorable consideration.

 

It's logical to assume that if vigilante attacks were common when a few dozen names were released it makes sense that if an entire list exists in a country with far more people that at least a few vigilante attacks would have happened.

My section about her not being able to make logical statements was in response to the fatuous argument that i didn't know what I'm talking about because i don't have kids. I was making the point that arguments could be made for and against having kids when it comes to the validity of statements.

 

I'd have to disagree, even from a basic understanding of statistics, I don't find your blanket assumption logical at all. There are too many variables to consider to make such a blanket, and, I still maintain, religious assumption. For example, if there were substantively different things about the nature of the lists, or the culture where such a list was promulgated, one might expect a different outcome.

To work from your example, which is a logic of sampling based on population. Chicago, for example, is a brutally violent city. It's one thing I abhor about where I live. Yet, not a single mob attack despite these lists being available, I think it is, since at least the early '90's. If population density is the criteria we are using, why hasn't a single instance of "vigilante mob attacks" occurred in Chicago, a city of close to 3 milllion, yet it has occurred in Portsmouth, a city of a mere 190,000 or so?

It remains: the lists have been in place in many, many U.S. cities for many years. To my knowledge, there hasn't been anything on the order of what took place in Portsmouth.

I can only go with what you said, which was:

No different, in my mind, from the most arrogant of absolutist, religious viewpoints; I'm sorry.

 

I think stox is more scared about pedophile lists being published than anything we have seen so far. I wonder why?

Trust me stox, you come near my children and I won't give you a chance to prove to me anything. end of story sicko...

We have an open list in Oregon and when one of those on the list doesn't show up or moves without reporting, his face is on the papers. Haven't yet seen anyone break down a door and I know where a house about 4 blocks away that has a few known sex-offenders.

 

Strange how you "go with what i said" right up until i explained my reasons for saying it. I guess the explanation doesn't suit whatever agenda you have. The point was that if my judgment can be questioned because i don't have kids her judgment can also be questioned for the exact opposite reason. I would have expected better than selective reading from you.

I'm interested, northpointaiki, When did you last have a flick through the list of known paedophiles in your area? You know, In the name of protecting your children. In fact, Has anybody who is declaring the immense importance of the lists ever bothered to look at them?

 

Stox, respectfully, I think you are missing the point. I'm dealing with what you said, and only what you said - I quoted your entire post. Therefore it is impossible I "selectively read" anything, by definition. Again:

Simply, I was puzzled that you indicated that on the basis of being a parent, one was liable to make illogical statements; that one could not think with a clear head. I called the point "religious" because it has no basis in fact, but can only be argued from a position of belief, and a pre-judgemental one at that. If you now wish to amend your statement, that's fine; as it stands, there is no other way to construe the meaning of your original post.

Now, if you are saying you wrote the above as a kind of tit-for-tat to what another member said, I don't understand that kind of debate; it implies you don't really mean what you write but did so as a kind of petty revenge, doesn't it?

If this is the way you were going, I can only offer that as a parent I have known no love like the love I have for my son; and as I have also been a non-parent, I can say, in my case at least, that prior to having my son come into my life, I couldn't understand where parents came from in trying to convey their love through the paltry symbol of language, the word "love." I heard "love," but couldn't feel what they feel. Now I do.

On your second question, spoken in deep sarcasm,** when did I check the list? Last week. I place my son's life at the top of the things I value. Why?

**(if I could suggest: you really need to look at your presumed atheism, Stox, in the sense of one who seeks knowledge by empirical evaluation. You don't have "the goods," in the manner of a prophet, but you increasingly, and I am sorry to say, arrogantly, appear to presume so.)

 

I believe that citizens - whether they are parents or not - have the right to know when a sex offender lives within the area.

Of course I do not believe that people should take matters into their own hands and beat down the door of the offender's house, but I believe we have the right to be informed when a child molester moves in.

While a list will not eradicate sex offenders from the map, they WILL provide information parents can use to ensure their children remain safe.

Granted, a parents first priority should always be to keep their children safe 100% of the time - but knowing when a pedophile moves in next door is something we SHOULD have access to.