I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore by JCKnife

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Well this thread sure when downhill fast.

When Geezer lies ABOUT ME, I take it personally. But maybe you don't care if the ppl on 'your side' routinely, reflexively lie. Have a nice life with the low-lifes you associate with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 8:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer:
Quote:
GEEZER: I'm afraid that you added the hyperbole (in your parentheses above)

Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
THESE ARE YOUR WORDS - nothing added. This is not my hyperbole, it's YOURS. Stop lying.

So tell me Geezer, how does it feel to be pathological?

Sigh.

Been taking Michael Moore lessons, have we?

1. Run together seperate sentences from different statements until it says what you want.

2. Then throw in a bunch of snide comments, i.e. "money-lending? that prohibition was once a major part of the social contract", "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ! Geezer has determined you have forfeited your value in major ways!", "And are liable to be killed at leisure by the better people?", "And you shall perish from this earth. So sayeth Geezer."

3. When you are called on it, deny and go to personal insults, i.e. "So tell me Geezer, how does it feel to be pathological?"

But I do agree that my statement "(as "value" means right to live)" should have more correctly been "...right to life or liberty."

To try to get back on topic, some more questions:

In the unfortunate climate of homophobia in the US, can we be sure that a public listing of sex offenders isn't perverted into a tool to be used against gays who participate in consensual sex between adults?

By publicizing the location of sex offenders after they have completed their sentences, are we violating their rights to be presumed innocent of possible future crimes until proven guilty? Are we actually endangering their lives? How do we balance everyone's rights?

Should medical intervention, such as castration, be used in severe or repeat cases of child sex abuse? Would it be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

I got no answers here, just more questions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It's always easy to say "This is bad, that is bad". Coming up with workable alternatives is this hard part.

But I already have, so I don't see why we're still on this point. Lifetime in prison. Study the h*ll out of them... I mean, there you are with a whole abnormal population at your disposal- fMRI, PET scans, neuropsych tests, heavy-metal tests... as long as the proposed studies are peer-reviewed and wil be published in peer-reviewed journals and meet informed consent. See how many fit various diagnoses. Try various treatments on them- education, antidepressants, cognitive therapy and so forth. In time, you should be able to figure out how people got this way and how it can best be prevented and treated.

... The only thing it would take is money. But since we just blew $300 Billion (that's Billion, with a "B") on Iraq for "security" reasons, I assume we're willing to spend that much on crime, which really affects far more Americans than Iraq ever did.

Skipping over the reflexive Iraq jab, this program wouldn't be a bad idea if it was workable. It appears to be applying a lot of high-pricd talent to help the less worthy end of society(not necessarily my viewpoint, since I can see the possible overall benefit). I just don't see either party willing to spend enough to make any of it happen - except the lifetime in prison part.

I'm also sort of uncomfortable with the amount of social engineering that might be necessary for the "In time, you should be able to figure out how people got this way and how it can best be prevented and treated." part of this. How far into family life or medical treatment do we go for someone who is just "at risk" but hasn't actually committed a crime? In the wrong hands, this could lead down the road to eugenics, master races, and, well, you know how that goes.

This is what I mean when I say no easy answers. Something that is theoretically doable, and maybe laudable, is sometimes not practical to actually accomplish.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Well this thread sure when downhill fast. From trying to help end child abuse to attacking an old man(inferred from the nick, geezer) and the Pope. How nice. I am sure no one will miss me from this from this thread either.

I wish you the best luck JCKnife.

Bye.

ByteTheBullet (-:

My bad. Rue & SignyM get me off track sometimes, as I do them. Will try to do better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:34 AM

You know, if you really want to do something about the ugly world you see on the news, quit watching it. Turn off the goddamned television and its morbid fascinations and look at what's really going on in the world (it ain't on TV or in the paper, and it sure as hell ain't on the internet).

Go outside. Talk to people on the street. Take care of the people you love and help out people in duress. If you're still plagued by the knowledge that someone, somewhere out there is planning evil against the helpless, then go out in the world and help the helpless.

All most of us can do about this kind of stuff is just try to be good people ourselves - look after our children and friends and try to realize that the twisted, evil picture of the world presented by the media is a very, very tiny slice of what's really out there.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer:

Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).

These are YOUR WORDS - IN ORDER. Nothing added, nothing taken away, nothing rearranged. Stuff it.
As for your other comments:

Quote:
By publicizing the location of sex offenders after they have completed their sentences, are we violating their rights to be presumed innocent of possible future crimes until proven guilty? Are we actually endangering their lives? How do we balance everyone's rights?
Should medical intervention, such as castration, be used in severe or repeat cases of child sex abuse? Would it be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

Well let's see - if the LAWS are WRITTEN to require life sentence for a second conviction, how is that violating someone's 'rights'? It's no different from a 'three-strikes law' and probably more useful. So, what's your issue? Oh, that would be - none. In case you haven't been following the literature, castration doesn't work. It's a non-starter. And who suggested it? Oh, that would be YOU.
So many phony dillemnas, so little time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Skipping over the reflexive Iraq jab

Geezer, it's not "relexive". Ignoring Iraq is like ignoring the the elephant in your back yard. The money that Bush blew out of our collective *sses represents the entire Social Security shortfall. I mean, that's a H*LLUVA lot of cash!!!

Quote:
It appears to be applying a lot of high-pricd talent to help the less worthy end of society(not necessarily my viewpoint, since I can see the possible overall benefit). I just don't see either party willing to spend enough to make any of it happen - except the lifetime in prison part.

The point, Geezer, is to help US... the non-criminals, so that we have fewer criminals in future to arrest, process, house and- in effect, support. It's like autism- wouldn't you like to find the cause(s) of autism and eliminate it??

Quote:
I'm also sort of uncomfortable with the amount of social engineering that might be necessary for the "In time, you should be able to figure out how people got this way and how it can best be prevented and treated." part of this. How far into family life or medical treatment do we go for someone who is just "at risk" but hasn't actually committed a crime? In the wrong hands, this could lead down the road to eugenics, master races, and, well, you know how that goes.

Well, in fact, we do social engineering every day. We set up a society where we revere greed, we tell people that it's a dog-eat-dog world and only the fit survive; we saturate airwaves, print media, and highways with hosannas to consumerism; we hand out credit like "candy"; we constantly undercut education; we suppress philosophical thought and push hypermoralism and an ideology of personal failure and then we wonder why people steal and take drugs and why they hate themselves and each other. I mean, if you WANTED to create a vicious dysfunctional society, that would be the way to go, wouldn't it?

So, when I talk about "preventing" crime, it's more along the lines of changing SOCIETY, not intruding on a person's individual freedom. (In fact, if you look at my posts on what I would do if I were in charge, it's all about limiting the power of the already powerful.) Full employment at wages that would support a reasonable lifestyle for example, would go a long way to reducing crime. (Not necessarily child abuse, but overall crime.) As far as individuals "at risk", they often perceive threat where there is none. The point is to reduce frustration as much as possible both by modifying their surroundings and by individual training, so that the eventual brain structure is less geared towards irritability.

BTW- We could cut our prison population IN HALF if we treated the druggies instead of jailing them. The recidivism rate for jailed drug offenses is 80%, for treatment is 50%. Then we could focus on the people who really need to be in jail (people who are a threat to others).

I think that so many people have a knee-jerk to crime - it's all about moral failure, punishment and revenege- that they overlook practical options.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well this thread sure when downhill fast. From trying to help end child abuse to attacking an old man(inferred from the nick, geezer) and the Pope.

Well, how do you know that I'm not as old as Geezer? Or the Pope, for that matter???

heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi HK,

Somehow I missed your post. I'm glad to see you aboard.

I personally don't think of child molesters as monsters, and I'm not into revenge. What I think is that pedophilia and rape are powerful compulsions ingrained at an early age; and that only some successfully resist or overcome these compulsions.

I don't think we have the tools yet to treat ppl who can't break away on their own. And so I proposed a life sentence on a second offense, not for revenge, but to keep society safe until we collectively discover what to do to help.

Anyway, let me say again how pleasant it is to see your name around these parts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer,
here are your words, in full:

Quote:
...and just (to answer the "all lives equal" question - not to me. For example, the life of an armed housebreaker is not worth as much to me as my wife's life, or mine. I would not risk our lives by giving that person the chance to take them, even if it meant killing them. People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
Is an Adolf Hitler worth as much as a Mother Theresa? Uday and Qusay Hussein as much as Orville and Wilbur Wright? Not in my book. People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do.
BTW, I have heard several sources state, and agree, that the correct interpretation of "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder".
Edit: And although I believe that we are all "endowed by our creator (or whatever's cranking)" with the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I also believe that individuals can squander that endowment by their actions. The converse of rights is responsibilities. Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost.

Quote:
"...and just to answer the "all lives equal" question - not to me. For example, the life of an armed housebreaker is not worth as much to me as my wife's life, or mine. I would not risk our lives by giving that person the chance to take them, even if it meant killing them."

For sure, you have a self-defense theme going on in these statements.

And then you make a sweeping generalization that is frankly Hitlerian: "People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live)." What does this have to do with self defense? In fact, the entire rest of your post discusses how to assess someone's 'worth', and concludes that people who have not 'met their responsibilities' lose their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Through a series of false equations, you equated the immediate need for self-defense with capital punishment of worthless people (who have not 'met their responsibilites').

If you had stuck with self-defense, I would have had no argument. But you didn't. And that's why I commented on your Hitlerian notions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:21 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well let's see - if the LAWS are WRITTEN to require life sentence for a second conviction, how is that violating someone's 'rights'? It's no different from a 'three-strikes law' and probably more useful. So, what's your issue? Oh, that would be - none.

Laws aren't currently written that way, and I doubt they ever will be. Pubilication of lists of pedophiles was one of the suggestions further up the thread. I'm just wondering what problems, rights-wise, that would cause.

Quote:
In case you haven't been following the literature, castration doesn't work. It's a non-starter. And who suggested it? Oh, that would be YOU.

Actually, it was Hardware, earlier in the thread.

"A long, long time ago, in a sociology class far away I studied pedophiles. Their sexual orientation was children, not male or female. Their level of recidivism approached 100%. The only thing that stemmed the level of repeated behavior was castration, removing the drive to commmitt the crime, not fear of punishment for committing the crime."

Quote:
So many phony dilemmas, so little time.

Hardly phony. Any change in the law to the level you are suggesting needs to be considered from all sides, and the benefits and pitfalls need to be discussed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:36 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The point, Geezer, is to help US... the non-criminals, so that we have fewer criminals in future to arrest, process, house and- in effect, support. It's like autism- wouldn't you like to find the cause(s) of autism and eliminate it??

I'm aware of this. From earlier:"not necessarily my viewpoint, since I can see the possible overall benefit." I'm just not sure that the same population that would deny rights to gays would see the overall benefit of helping criminals.

Quote:
Well, in fact, we do social engineering every day. We set up a society where we revere greed, we tell people that it's a dog-eat-dog world and only the fit survive; we saturate airwaves, print media, and highways with hosannas to consumerism; we hand out credit like "candy"; we constantly undercut education; we suppress philosophical thought and push hypermoralism and an ideology of personal failure and then we wonder why people steal and take drugs and why they hate themselves and each other. I mean, if you WANTED to create a vicious dysfunctional society, that would be the way to go, wouldn't it?

So it's just your version of "social engineering" you want? Thanks, but I don't prefer yours any more than the examples you cited.

Quote:
So, when I talk about "preventing" crime, it's more along the lines of changing SOCIETY, not intruding on a person's individual freedom.

Lets just say that I'd need a good bit of convincing that your, or anyone else's, idea of changing SOCIETY would not intrude on my personal freedom.

Quote:
BTW- We could cut our prison population IN HALF if we treated the druggies instead of jailing them. The recidivism rate for jailed drug offenses is 80%, for treatment is 50%. Then we could focus on the people who really need to be in jail (people who are a threat to others).

I agree 100%. The money spent on war on drugs makes the Iraq war costs look like chump change. Treat people who have a problem, let folk who use responsibly alone.

Quote:
I think that so many people have a knee-jerk to crime - it's all about moral failure, punishment and revenege- that they overlook practical options.

My only interest in treatment of crime is to prevent criminals from injuring the rest of us. I don't consider some of your plans practical because I don't see any chance the current or any near-term future government implementing them. If I thought you could get actual buy-in for the research into causes, I'd be all for it, but I can't see that happening.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And then you make a sweeping generalization that is frankly Hitlerian: "People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live)." What does this have to do with self defense? In fact, the entire rest of your post discusses how to assess someone's 'worth', and concludes that people who have not 'met their responsibilities' lose their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, I admit that "value means right to live" should have been "value means right to life and liberty".

Our social contract - our laws - provide that people who violate that contract, by breaking those laws, can be deprived by due process of their liberty, or in some cases their life. Our laws also recognize that in some cases - self defense, or a policeman's action to end a threat to the public for example, people who are violating the laws may be injured or killed to remove that threat.

In both due process and the aftermath of self-defense, there is in effect a weighting of the relative values of the criminal and the potential victim, and the decision of who was in the right and who was not - who is worth more to society.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:55 PM

Has anyone ever looked at why people get so over-the-top emotional about this stuff? At the risk of offending, I'll suggest that it's the very nature of sick, sexually related content that gets everyone so worked up. There are thousands of brutal murders every year, each deserving 'the appropriate level of outrage'. But they aren't peppered with the seedy sexual angle so they are largely ignored. It just irks me the way this type of thing turns ordinarily rational people into an angry mob and the justifications for it don't ring true.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Has anyone ever looked at why people get so over-the-top emotional about this stuff? At the risk of offending, I'll suggest that it's the very nature of sick, sexually related content that gets everyone so worked up. There are thousands of brutal murders every year, each deserving 'the appropriate level of outrage'. But they aren't peppered with the seedy sexual angle so they are largely ignored. It just irks me the way this type of thing turns ordinarily rational people into an angry mob and the justifications for it don't ring true.

Consider the media circus surrounding the Michael Jackson trial. You have celebrity, power, child sex abuse - the whole package. Or the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I can understand the outrage at killing or abusing a child, but the sick fascination on every detail makes me wonder about both the media that inundate us with it, and the folks who can't miss a second of it.

Unfortunately, child sexual abuse has been going on forever, and was probably worse in the past than now, just like child labor abuses. You just get beat about the head with it so much by the media that I wonder if folks don't get kind of addicted to it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:53 PM

JADEHAND

Quote:

Reality: If I ever went crazy enough to attack someone for pleasure, profit, or 'cause a little voice in my head said it was the thing to do, I'd WANT someone to assist me off this planet- in a hurry! If I was ever made sane enough to realize what I had done through doctors or therapy, the burden of it would make me kill myself, anyhow.
Once you step over certain lines, there's no coming back.
But there's always next time 'round. It could be a better one.

Harsh Buddah Chrisisall...

Chrisisall, I like the way you think, I like you too Geezer. I was afraid to read this thread after seeing some of the earlier posts. I managed to push through it, and appreciate you guys.
As for input to the thread, I agree this has been in the news a lot, and it bothers me a great deal. Real solutions will be difficult to come by. Any action/solution that saves even one innocent from such atrocities, without breaking laws or making us monsters in the process, is worth it I think. (I could be wrong)
I disapprove greatly of any solution that begins with the idea of "on the second or third offense", there shouldn't be a second. I also agree whole heartedly with the idea of distinquishing between real offenders(Rapist/Child molester) and not(Streaker/ 18 year old with 17.5 year old consentualy/ homosexual)
Real offenders should never see "the outside" again. I wish there was an easy solution, a place where people who can't live within society without causing harm to others are allowed to live normally (get a job, work, pay your cable bill) but never leave to re-enter society. Maybe they could be studied for causes etc. there.
I used to be more religious, but some of the religious arguements presented here make me shake my head and remember why I'm less religious now. Now I'm all for the "love thy neigbor, and turn the other cheek" but I wouldn't go to letting these offenders out to harm others.
Sorry for the long rambling.

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live
"We rejoice at being 'connected' without touching, Thank God for the internet. We stare at our screens all our lives, what a waste of eyes. 'Til the electrical storm blows our fuses and we gaze, dumbfounded, at the rain."
-Interior Lulu - Marillion - .Com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:18 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:

Quote:

In case you haven't been following the literature, castration doesn't work. It's a non-starter. And who suggested it? Oh, that would be YOU.

Actually, it was Hardware, earlier in the thread.

"A long, long time ago, in a sociology class far away I studied pedophiles. Their sexual orientation was children, not male or female. Their level of recidivism approached 100%. The only thing that stemmed the level of repeated behavior was castration, removing the drive to commmitt the crime, not fear of punishment for committing the crime."

Just doing my part to keep the pot simmering.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:05 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Jadehand:
I wish there was an easy solution, a place where people who can't live within society without causing harm to others are allowed to live normally (get a job, work, pay your cable bill) but never leave to re-enter society. Maybe they could be studied for causes etc. there.

This is a tempting idea, and a repeated theme in sci-fi. A prison area, or planet, where criminals are sent to survive or perish and there is no outside interference. In fiction it usually ends up like the movies "Escape from New York", "No Escape", "Chronicles of Riddick", etc. I'm not sure how it would work in real life.

Among the up sides would be lower costs, and the concept of keeping all your rotten eggs in one basket, and watching that basket. Downsides would be choosing a good site that provides easy containment, and the fact that someone, or a lot of someones, might have to give up their homes to provide the space.

Other issues to consider would be: How much room would have to be allocated to provide the current crop of violent offenders enough space to raise enough food to feed themselves? Would you be able to effectively provide enough tools, manufactury, etc., to permit a sustainable society if everyone behaved reasonably well? If the penal colony was not segregated by sex, what would you do with the children that would inevitably result, who had committed no crime?

It's actually an interesting concept.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just because it's not politically acceptable doesn't mean it's impractical. Altho, maybe the better word would be "effective". For example, take a look at health care. The health insurance industry is bleeding every other economic sector, from GM to small businesses, AND it leaves a lot of people uninsured.... ultimately leading to higher treatment costs. That's hardly effective. So, when I'm considering solutions, I like to think about things that are EFFECTIVE. Why should I limit my thinking on the topic? That's like putting my brains in chains.

You know, one of the interesting things I find about FF fans is that altho they identify with Mal, Jayne, or some of the other major characters, they are most often like the older Tams- except not as rich.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, one of the interesting things I find about FF fans is that altho they identify with Mal, Jayne, or some of the other major characters, they are most often like the older Tams- except not as rich.

That's a sobering thought.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:13 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because it's not politically acceptable doesn't mean it's impractical.

Huh? And I get accused of living in a fantasyland?

For an undertaking of the size and expense you propose, government is the only body capable of providing financing, coordination, etc. Some laws would also have to be changed to enable it. If you want government support, you have to find a way to make it politically acceptable to both the government and the electorate (remembering that this is the same electorate who re-elected Bush and supports "sanctity of marriage" amendments in many states). If you don't have a way of doing this then your idea, no matter how laudable, will remain just an idea.

Quote:
Altho, maybe the better word would be "effective"... So, when I'm considering solutions, I like to think about things that are EFFECTIVE. Why should I limit my thinking on the topic? That's like putting my brains in chains.

I tend to look at it another way. It's better to posit an idea that actually stands a chance of being implemented, even if it's less than the ideal. To do this you have to recognize the possible problems with it, in relation to getting it done, and solve them. Maybe that's why my first response to some suggestions here is to spot the roadblocks. I don't disagree with the concept, I just want to make sure it works in the real world.

This may be a result of many years as a software tester. You test software by (amoung other things)trying to break it. You imagine everything an operator, user, administrator, etc. could possibly do wrong, and throw that at the system. Then you note the problems it causes, have them fixed, and hit it again until you can't break it any more.

Quote:
You know, one of the interesting things I find about FF fans is that altho they identify with Mal, Jayne, or some of the other major characters, they are most often like the older Tams- except not as rich.

I find Mal and Zoe, particularly, somewhat cynical and distrustful of authority, but willing to accept the reality of having to deal with it when necessary. Zoe is often the check on Mal's impractical plans. But they all have an optimism that allows them to keep going on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You know, if you really want to do something about the ugly world you see on the news, quit watching it. Turn off the goddamned television and its morbid fascinations and look at what's really going on in the world (it ain't on TV or in the paper, and it sure as hell ain't on the internet).

Go outside. Talk to people on the street. Take care of the people you love and help out people in duress. If you're still plagued by the knowledge that someone, somewhere out there is planning evil against the helpless, then go out in the world and help the helpless.

All most of us can do about this kind of stuff is just try to be good people ourselves - look after our children and friends and try to realize that the twisted, evil picture of the world presented by the media is a very, very tiny slice of what's really out there.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Extremely well said, thank you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Has anyone ever looked at why people get so over-the-top emotional about this stuff? At the risk of offending, I'll suggest that it's the very nature of sick, sexually related content that gets everyone so worked up. There are thousands of brutal murders every year, each deserving 'the appropriate level of outrage'. But they aren't peppered with the seedy sexual angle so they are largely ignored. It just irks me the way this type of thing turns ordinarily rational people into an angry mob and the justifications for it don't ring true.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

For me it's not the sexual content it's the children as victims. I'm a father now and the thought of my kids anywhere near this kind of monster burns me to the very core. I'm not over-protective to the point that I don't want them to enjoy life, and I know kids are kids and I can expect some broken bones and stitches and whatnot--all stuff they can recover from and that they brought on themselves in good fun (hopefully). But to think that an adult would prey on innocent kids to fulfill their sick urges...well honestly like I said it doesn't even have to be sexual. You heard the story of "Precious Doe" from Kansas City? 2 y.o. girl was beaten into a coma because she didn't want to go to bed, then left unconscious on the floor until she died a couple days later because her deadbeat parents were wanted criminals. When she died they beheaded her and ditched the body and head in separate places.

Talk about "special hell." I'm not a religious man but folks like that make me hope there IS a hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:13 AM

Yeah. I live near Kansas City, so I've heard about the Precious Doe thing repeatedly - and I don't even watch TV or read the paper. But it's been the buzz nonetheless. To be honest, that story, and the reaction to it, has been part of what's caused me to question the hysteria surrounding this kind of stuff.

The thing is, when I hear people tell me about it, it's as though they are getting some kind of secret thrill out of it. Now I'm not saying that any of them aren't moral repulsed by it. What I'm saying is that it seems to get them hyped up in a way that they crave.

I'm a father as well. I've raised two sons on my own and, if anything, I have been a little overprotective. But one of the things I've sought to protect them from is the kind of world view promoted by the media.

Personally, I don't think provoking outrage about these kinds of anomalies does a damn bit of good. It merely serves to raise the overall fear and stress of living and reduces the amount of trust we have in each other. If you think about it, with the billions of people on the planet, it's pretty amazing that things like this happen as seldom as they do.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I tend to look at it another way. It's better to posit an idea that actually stands a chance of being implemented, even if it's less than the ideal. To do this you have to recognize the possible problems with it, in relation to getting it done, and solve them. Maybe that's why my first response to some suggestions here is to spot the roadblocks. I don't disagree with the concept, I just want to make sure it works in the real world.

If Linus Torvalds took that approach, there would have never been Linux. If Stallman took that approach, there would have never been Gnu. If Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Madison took that approach, where would we be now?

Pere and mere Tam... they were pretty comfortable under the Alliance. They had a little authority, an estate, nice kids, hobbies and friends of similar station. But they were afraid of losing it, and unwilling to consider another paradigm- a paradigm in which their daughter was being mutilated by authorities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SargeantX-

I agree. I think we're all being convinced that "everyone" is vicious or at least untrustworthy because our media focuses on the most horrific, salacious details gathered from around the nation, and even the world. Coming at it from another viewpoint, I read in "Descent of Woman" that we think that humans are "warlike", "aggressive" "predators". But take those adjectives and apply them to the people we see every day- the "warlike" mail carrier, the "vicious" cashier. Those adjectives just don't apply to the vast majority of people that we see every day. This is a case where ideology has trumped our day to day experience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:50 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:

Honestly I haven't decided which would be the most effective: 1) a group that lobbies for new legislation, 2) a group that helps parents track known offenders, 3)or a group that puts political pressure on judges and prosecutors to impose maximum sentences. I think trying to do all three would reduce focus and chances of success.

(If this works, my italics)

1) Knee jerk lobby groups lead to bad laws. Its the one universal constant in every political system. If there is a group that takes a long term view (and given the emotive, understandably, nature of the subject, I doubt it), they may have some positive effect.

2) Otherwise known as lynch mobs.

3) Politics and the law should never, ever mix. The law defines the extent of the sentence, then the judges apply it - if you want a life sentence for every sexual offender then see (1) above, but how do you draft the law so it allows the 18 year old who gets caught up in the moment with his 17 year old, consenting (and by all accounts, statistically more mature) g/f to be distinguished?

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I tend to look at it another way. It's better to posit an idea that actually stands a chance of being implemented, even if it's less than the ideal...

If Linus Torvalds took that approach, there would have never been Linux. If Stallman took that approach, there would have never been Gnu. If Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Madison took that approach, where would we be now?

Depending on who writes their biography in these days of Old White Guy bashing, Jefferson and some of the other founding fathers had much more radical views than were actually put into place - the abolition of slavery, for example. They just knew that sort of stuff wouldn't fly in the late 18th century, and settled for what they could actually implement; no king - representative democracy - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (within then-acceptable wealth, gender, and race limits)- hoping that later generations would make improvements.

The fact that 90+% of PC users don't use Linux, and that I (relatively computer literate)have no idea, without some research, what Gnu is (aside for another name for the wildebeast) might suggest that they are less than earthshaking successes.

If you're talking about something that will fundamentally change the criminal justice system nationwide, or even in a particular locale, you have to convince a majority of the population.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SargeantX-

I agree. I think we're all being convinced that "everyone" is vicious or at least untrustworthy because our media focuses on the most horrific, salacious details gathered from around the nation, and even the world. Coming at it from another viewpoint, I read in "Descent of Woman" that we think that humans are "warlike", "aggressive" "predators". But take those adjectives and apply them to the people we see every day- the "warlike" mail carrier, the "vicious" cashier. Those adjectives just don't apply to the vast majority of people that we see every day. This is a case where ideology has trumped our day to day experience.

True. I think a lot of this is just that the media needs to fill space (think of the number of news and pseudo-news hours there are available just on television now) and will report the most sensational events in nauseating detail just to fill time and draw market share. The very fact that news programs are rating-driven causes me to shudder.

Another facet is the habit of stereotyping. All men are this, all women are that. All Democrats act this way and all Republicans that way. NRA members are shoot-first gun nuts and Sierra club members are vegan tree huggers. People fall into this habit because it's more convenient to go in with pre-conceived notions than having to spend time actually getting to know individuals and their beliefs. Catchphrases are much easier to yell at those faceless (your prejorative label here).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:32 PM

HANITRADER

Here is information for you... Off the top of my head I cannot think of a specific "grassroots" organization (say for instance, MADD-Mothers Against Drunk Driving), however, just about every county does have many agencies where you can lend a hand in helping those child survivors with the aftermath. Oftimes there are some state facilities which work with child survivors of trauma, however, most of these agencies are non-profit organizations. In either of the aforementioned facility types, the commitment to care varies greatly. Also, the requirements regarding staff education level and licensing vary greatly- thus the quality of the care-givers varies state-to-state. Finally, there are a few for-profit facilities around, where the bottom-line is profit- my advice, avoid these.
So, where do you go? These facilities which attempt to "recover" these kids are generally called "Group Homes" where they are monitored by a Psychiatrist, therapists, and direct-care 24 hour staff. The direct-care staff usually have a BS degree or the equivilant in work experiance. Many of these Group Homes are run by folks that do lobby the State Government.
My suggestion- Contact your local Department of Social Services and express your concerns and ask how you can help. Check the "Yellow Pages" under mental health. I worked the mental health arena for 12 years, as well as in the medical world, and as much as it pains me to say it, physical and sexual abuse of children and adolescents is way more prevelent than you likely realize. At times, I often felt those abused far outnumber the untouched kids. It really does break the heart. I've since left the field in the last year and have moved on to teaching at the college level. If you're interested in more info, just respond and I'll post a response. Or, you can go to my profile and leave a message with you r e-mail address and I'll write back.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

China, Brazil, German provinces and French ministries have standarized on Linux. 30% of servers worldwide are running Linux. Apparently yu haven't been looking outside the USA.

AFA Jefferson et al and freedom of thought. I realize that action is always constrained by necessity, but thought is free. Some morons in Kansas pushing intelligent design should not keep me from thinking scientifically.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

1) Knee jerk lobby groups lead to bad laws. Its the one universal constant in every political system. If there is a group that takes a long term view (and given the emotive, understandably, nature of the subject, I doubt it), they may have some positive effect.

2) Otherwise known as lynch mobs.

3) Politics and the law should never, ever mix. The law defines the extent of the sentence, then the judges apply it - if you want a life sentence for every sexual offender then see (1) above, but how do you draft the law so it allows the 18 year old who gets caught up in the moment with his 17 year old, consenting (and by all accounts, statistically more mature) g/f to be distinguished?

You have chosen your username wisely. [Gump]That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 11:46 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
You have chosen your username wisely. [Gump]That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

Wow. Inciteful (sic) comeback.

I can't believe how wrong I was, but your reasoned argument has shown me the error of my ways.

Where do I sign for the posse?

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 12:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I showed this thread to someone who doesn't nmly read FF website, altho he loved the show! He said- "They {vengeful ppl} are becoming just what they're attacking- impulsive, emotional and violent".

Hmmm... I thought that was a good point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

1) Knee jerk lobby groups lead to bad laws. Its the one universal constant in every political system. If there is a group that takes a long term view (and given the emotive, understandably, nature of the subject, I doubt it), they may have some positive effect.

2) Otherwise known as lynch mobs.

3) Politics and the law should never, ever mix. The law defines the extent of the sentence, then the judges apply it - if you want a life sentence for every sexual offender then see (1) above, but how do you draft the law so it allows the 18 year old who gets caught up in the moment with his 17 year old, consenting (and by all accounts, statistically more mature) g/f to be distinguished?

You have chosen your username wisely. [Gump]That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

I'm afraid I'm hearin' the same voices Knife. No offense.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:27 AM

We seem to be suffering from a lack of common sense in today's society--that's what a lot of "zero-tolerance" policies amount to: taking common sense out of the equation and, god forbid, not forcing an adiministrator or decision-maker to make a (GASP!) value judgement!

No one wants to lock up 18-yr-old Junior having consentual fun with 17-yr-old Mary. But if we can't agree that those who seek out, rape, and murder pre-pubescent children are evil, and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the purposes of both eradicating them from our society and discouraging others from following through with the same notion, then we have something fundamentally wrong. Actually YOU do. I'm not afraid to say it.

I have to keep reminding myself that this board is read worldwide. I hope that those of you waffling on the side of the child-killers are not U.S. citizens.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Evil"?? What do you mean by "evil"? Possessed of the devil? Baselessly cruel? Willfully deviant?

I read your words, but I feel like we're speaking different languages. I would appreciate an explanation- thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:01 AM

This is a perfect example. I state that child-rape-murderers are "evil" and I get questioned on it? WTF? I really didn't expect debate in THIS thread. I'm quite disappointed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Since when is a question a debate? So many people have so many different connotations for the word "evil" that I'm trying to figure out if you mean "intentional" or "horrifically cruel", both, or something else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
We seem to be suffering from a lack of common sense in today's society--that's what a lot of "zero-tolerance" policies amount to: taking common sense out of the equation and, god forbid, not forcing an adiministrator or decision-maker to make a (GASP!) value judgement!

No one wants to lock up 18-yr-old Junior having consentual fun with 17-yr-old Mary.

Totally agree with this part, but...

Quote:
...if we can't agree that those who seek out, rape, and murder pre-pubescent children are evil, and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the purposes of both eradicating them from our society and discouraging others from following through with the same notion, then we have something fundamentally wrong. Actually YOU do. I'm not afraid to say it.

Afraid to say what? That child-murderers are bad and ought to be punished?? What courage!

What takes a bit more courage, in my estimation, is to do what MVP did, to stand up to emotional, mob mentality and call for some rational discourse.

Lobbying for a bunch of ill-conceived laws isn't going to do a damn thing to prevent such a thing from happening. The last I checked, murdering children was already illegal. I'm assuming the punishment is already quite harsh as well.

Quote:
I have to keep reminding myself that this board is read worldwide. I hope that those of you waffling on the side of the child-killers are not U.S. citizens.

See... this is why I didn't speak up earlier. I've tried to remain respectful and, in all reality, I do understand the emotion behind your post. I have children of my own and the risks are indeed frightening. But if you're going to accuse me of 'waffling on the side of child-killers' just because I doubt the wisdom of your proposal, well, that's beyond insulting.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Here is an example of "evil" child rapists/ killers- Alejandro Avila, who raped and smothered Samantha Runion. The picture is that this man gained gratification from molesting young girls and that he chose his own gratification over a little girl's life.

Now... how do we keep this from happening again to some other kid? Maybe finding why it happened will lead us to some postive steps.

First of all, I rather doubt that he would be detered by the death penalty. As SargeantX has pointed out, these crimes are already illegal AND they carry stiff penalites. It didn't seem to deter Avila. Since the crime was committed in broad daylight in front of a witness, and only half-hearted attempts were made to hide the body and get rid of evidence, it seems that the LAST thing that Avila had in mind was getting caught and punished.

Then there is Avila's history. According to the defense lawyer, when he was young Avila was "Beaten like a boy and raped like a girl". That's not to say that every child who is beaten and raped becomes a monster, but is sure skews the percentages.

What would I do with people like Avila? I've said it before- put him away for life and study the h*ll out of him. Why did HE become a criminal, and not somebody else with the same history? How can we prevent it from happening to someone else? How can we distinguish the truly incorrigible from the treatable? (PET scans? personality tests? pupil dilation?) How can that pathology be treated? How might we use that information to screen and treat (if possible) people who are arrested for lesser crimes BEFORE they go on the commit even greater ones?

It all seems pretty straighforward. It may not serve the purpose of getting your blood racing and your outrage exercised, but I think would serve the purpose of protecting society better than the death penalty or even life in jail.

You may consider this "waffling on the side of child killers" but I consider this advocating to protect society by the best, most effective means possible and that anything else is just gratuitous, ineffective, and puts society at greater risk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:22 AM

HANITRADER

OK- I'll go out on a limb on this... Quite a thread- everyone seems to agree that a problem exists. Solutions vary depending on idiology, yet most tend to lean in the same general direction. No soapboxes here, found out long ago they just don't support my weight. This discussion generated some intense emotions among folks, but all of this amounts to is alot of unfocused rage and angst and a sense of helplessness...
Here's a thought- take this heated passion and do something with it! Get involved, write letters, work with organizations, work with the victims- hell, work with the perpetrators, work in the community- resorces are out there- get involved!!!
It comes down to this: If our lives our abundant with something, we have an obligation to share our abundance with others. None here had life vaguely like Beaver Cleaver, but those among us who did grow up untouched, unmolested, or otherwise abused have an obligation to pass that on to others and to see that others have a life where the likelyhood of abuse is dimished.
Maybe this isn't your battle, or at least not the one you want to take on... I'm sure our lives are abundant in other areas that we are willing to share with others. IF YOU ARE ALLREADY INVOLVED AND SHARING YOUR ABUNDANCE... GOOD!!! If not, do it, you'll feel better for it- way better than just stewing in angst.

I think my old soapbox just caught fire... that's enough- take care all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:03 PM

Well said HT, and that WAS my original point--that I want to put my energy into action. Thank you. And Sarge, any insults hurled your way were probably an emotional reaction on my part (I'm loathe to apologize for that here, as this SHOULD be an emotional issue).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:19 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
No one wants to lock up 18-yr-old Junior having consentual fun with 17-yr-old Mary. But if we can't agree that those who seek out, rape, and murder pre-pubescent children are evil, and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the purposes of both eradicating them from our society and discouraging others from following through with the same notion, then we have something fundamentally wrong. Actually YOU do. I'm not afraid to say it.

I have to keep reminding myself that this board is read worldwide. I hope that those of you waffling on the side of the child-killers are not U.S. citizens.

Wow. You make George Galloway look good. Well, the senate committee did that, but there you go.

You seem to be ignoring, either because you're not reading properly or choosing not to see, what everyone who appears to disagree with you is saying - ain't no-one that I can see posted a response that's "on the side of the child killers" - or perhaps you can refer me to the posts I missed.

You even agreed with my own argument up there sparky, so you're waffling outside your own shores with me.

"must be punished to the fullest extent of the law..." - you then go on to say "by eradicating them", when even Jeb couldn't get that bit past the Florida law makers, 2008 ticket or no.

Others have eloquently explained that this is a crime to which the punishment does not, cannot deter, so limb 2 of your argument is dangling in the wind.

As to limb 1 - well if you catch and try a rapist/murderer (whatever the age of the victim) and the law allows capital punishment, well I may not cry out too loudly - the law as defined by the government at the time, not the mob.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:39 PM

HANITRADER

Something approximating... "- 10% of nothin' is... let me do the numbers... Nothin'"

When winning one's contention regarding one's perspective on an existing societal problem becomes more important to one than the problem itself, we have indeed ourselves become part of the problem.

Solutions begin only when the one steps outside of the problem and reaches out to another. The other then eventually reaches out to another, and so on, etc., etc.

Solutions come from empathy and are dynamic, creative, and powerful. Solutions derived out of cynicism, self-righteousness, and ego accomplish little.

Genuine aid only occurs when one accepts that other realities exist outside of one's self-generated and perceived safety-and-comfort zone and chooses to experience those other realities for what they are.

Folks is hurtin' out there while most folks are content to do nothing at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:13 AM

BARNSTORMER

Quote:
Originally posted by HaniTrader:

Something approximating... "- 10% of nothin' is... let me do the numbers... Nothin'"

When winning one's contention regarding one's perspective on an existing societal problem becomes more important to one than the problem itself, we have indeed ourselves become part of the problem.

Solutions begin only when the one steps outside of the problem and reaches out to another. The other then eventually reaches out to another, and so on, etc., etc.

Solutions come from empathy and are dynamic, creative, and powerful. Solutions derived out of cynicism, self-righteousness, and ego accomplish little.

Genuine aid only occurs when one accepts that other realities exist outside of one's self-generated and perceived safety-and-comfort zone and chooses to experience those other realities for what they are.

Folks is hurtin' out there while most folks are content to do nothing at all.

Excellent post HaniTrader!!!!!

I wish everyone felt the same way.

BTW, are you quoting someone else or are them
pretty words your own?
Does'nt really matter one way or another. If
others could see the truth in those statements there would be a hell of a lot less political
diatribes on the board to annoy everyone.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:12 AM