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

Do you keep calling things "religious" in a hope that it will make me agree with you? It's obvious and pathetic.

Again, Read my explanation. It was a response to the claim that as I'm not a parent i can't comment on the situation. It's a common tactic. I'm sure if i was agreeing with the woman then my lack of children wouldn't have been an issue.

So if someone can say that my opinions are invalid because i don't have children, It's equally true that her opinions are invalid because she is thinking emotionally about the subject and as such isn't going to be thinking rationally.

It's quite simple. Please, Be intellectually honest.

I don't believe you.

 

I understand what you are saying, Stox, and repeating yourself several times won't clarify it further. It is simply my opinion that you are making an irrational stand, fervid in its obstinacy; and as you have increasingly turned to sarcasm and snide remarks - really, what I would call a religious stance, a sense that you have the goods, countervailing evidence notwithstanding - I don't find it worthwhile to engage you any longer on the subject. You have so consistently and so stridently stated your atheism is one from a position of the search for truth, in supercilious counterpoint to those you deem of limited mind; and yet I find your zealotry as ill admitting of other opinions as the most closed minded of people I've known.

As to your "not believing me," I couldn't care less. You asked me a question - when did I last check the pedophile registry in my city - and I told you the truth, namely, last week, and I told you why. If the truthful answer troubles you, I can't really help that. You will have to wrestle with yourself for the answer to the puzzle of your own thoughts.

 

stox, I'm not a parent and I have the same opinion. Why are you so fiercely sticking up for pedophiles? They're pedophiles for christs sake. These people are on the same level as murderers, and you're defending them with all you got, why?

This is liberalism to the extreme.

 

I have to repeat myself northpointaiki as you constantly and consistently, And probably intentionally, Fail to acknowledge my reason for saying it. It was said to prove a point. The point being that to invalidate someones opinion because they don't have children is as stupid as invalidating their opinion because they do have children. A case could be made in both instances.

Am i the one sticking up for them ly2? Or are the people sticking up for them the people who would rather argue for public lists than for effective prison sentences? Think about it. Isn't "liberalism to the extreme" releasing criminals while they still pose a threat?

 

Seems to me there is indeed a communication problem.

 

People have to be pretty messed up in the mind to do sick things like this. It's disgusting.

 

wow anyone have pics of the bad horrible offender

 

There is indeed a communication problem, northpointaiki. On your part at least. I will explain one more time exactly why i said that statement, So develop some intellectual honesty and acknowledge it or stop posting.

I said it to show that if the poster wants to use facile arguments like the one insinuating that someone without children isn't entitled to an opinion on something, the argument could also be made that as a parent her opinions are invalid because they are going to be made on emotional grounds and not rational ones.

So now you know that it wasn't said in "revenge" and nor was it part of a "tit-for-tat" argument. It was said to show how ridiculous it is to suggest that someones parental status is some how a benchmark for judging their ability to form an opinion on the subject. So now, If you understand, You can't stop intentionally misinterpreting what i say in the face of countless explanations.

 

Why can't I argue for both? I'm sorry - but if you are going to hurt and molest children, yes, you should be in prison - but once you are out, your name is going on that damn list.

People should be aware of a pedophile living next door. Simple as that. Why anyone would argue against it baffles me.

 

I don't see how you can, at the same time, argue that dangerous people should be in prison and that dangerous people should be out of prison and on a list.

If they are a danger, keep them in prison, If they aren't a danger, why do you need the list?

Of course, Let's not forget that, In England at least, A 16 year old boy would go on the sex offenders list as a paedophile for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Is that someone who should be on a list of known paedophiles?

This is why dangerous people should be in prison, And released "sex offenders" shouldn't be on a list.

 

I can very easily argue for both. If I don't get the ideal situation, I can at least argue for "second best," which is better than nothing at all. While I would prefer dangerous sex offenders be kept in prison, more often than not that isn't the case and they are inevitably let out.

In that case I want their name on a list where people can be notified when a pedophile moves into their neighborhood. That's not hard to understand.

 

why argue for second best then? I haven't seen you argue for the "ideal" yet.

 

I'm curious if you ever pay attention to anything someone has to say when it goes against your beliefs...

I've stated several times that yes - I want sex offenders to be in prison. Yes, I would prefer these people are put away so they can't harm innocent children anymore.

But in the event that doesn't HAPPEN... why shouldn't we put these people's name on a list? Why shouldn't people be aware when a pedophile moves in? I'd like to hear your rationale - honestly, I would.

 

I'm curious if you ever pay attention to anything someone has to say when it goes against your beliefs. I have already stated one excellent reason why there shouldn't be a list. And that is because if a 16 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and is convicted of sex with a minor (which is likely if the girls parents press charges) he would go on a sex offenders register as a paedophile. Then perhaps 8 years later he will buy a house next to you, You will see the list and see that this 24 year old man was convicted of being a "paedophile" when in reality he is no such thing. it has the risk of openly labeling someone as being something they are not. or at least labeling them as something people are paranoid and frightened about.

See your assumption is that ordinary people are rational and smart. And the fact is they aren't. they are frightened reaction prone animals.

Another good reason against the list is that the parents of the murdered girl in the first post are calling for the list, Even though such list would have not done anything to keep their kid alive. Firstly the man wasn't a convicted sex offender and as such wouldn't have been on any list and secondly the list only tells you where they live, Not where they shop.

It's understandable that some people will back whatever those people call for simply because their child was murdered, it some how makes their opinions completely valid. When in reality calling for a public list is entirely irrelevant to their story.

 

Of course I pay attention to other people's beliefs - even if they happen to go against my own. I am not like the vast majority of people I've seen on this forum who openly attack others because one opinion differs from theirs.

I don't consider myself a "reaction prone animal." Your example is valid, and I agree that in certain circumstances people shouldn't be labeled "sex offenders" - such as the situation you mentioned.

Individualized risk assessments based on the situation should be made before inclusion on a list but unfortunately that doesn't happen. HOWEVER - the vast majority of sex offenders do not seem to be juveniles, but rather adults who are grossly disturbed and need to suffer the consequences for their actions.

If jail time isn't an option (or a permanent option, which I would MUCH rather argue for,) then sex offenders need to realize their rights are severely limited once they decide to molest a child. If putting their name on a list is a consequence for that so be it. I don't see the problem with it.

I have yet to hear of someone in my neighborhood beating down the door of a sex offender's house because they found their name and address on a list.

 

Even where the vast majority of people eligible for being named on a list as a paedophile aren't juveniles there are still a minority that are. This minority will be publicly named as a "paedophile" when their "crime" does in no way warrant that label, Especially on a public list of paedophiles that everyone has access to.

It's like having a list of "criminals" which includes everyone from the old guy who has only ever got one speeding ticket to the guy that kills prostitutes and then puts them in a bath of acid. The term "sex offender" and the crime of "sex with a minor" are too vague to make any kind of list meaningful.

Because, In the eyes of the law, There is little, If any, Difference between a 16 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl and a 40 year old man having sex with a 12 year old girl. The only difference really is the sentence the judge will pass down. And this difference isn't demonstrated on the lists.

 

You don't have to argue your point - I've already told you that the law isn't perfect in the situation you named. You don't have to convince me. I see where you are coming from.

Something has to be changed regardless. Either keep dangerous sex offenders in prison permanently or alter the list to include individualized risk assessments of offenders based on the type of situation you've already mentioned.

Overall I still don't believe a public list would be too detrimental. I already have access to a public list of sex offenders (at least in my state- I'm not sure how other states operate.) I can check the list online anytime I want. I know who is a sex offender in my area.

Funny enough however, I've never felt the urge to beat down their door and take matters into my own hands. I don't believe a list would do more harm than good in the long run but I am able to appreciate your opinion and understand where you are coming from in certain situations.

 

I understood from the beginning, Stox. And have stated so now, several times. You seem to miss points made that answer yours, directly and clearly, and this myopia cannot be helped, apparently.

 

So why did you ask me if it was "revenge" or a "tit-for-tat" argument?
I have to say, I didn't expect this kind of intellectual dishonesty from you.

 

Stox I have to wonder about you. You seem to be very quick to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you - yet when someone acknowledges your point and understands where you are coming from it blows right over your head.