No, I'm proposing that I'm right and you're wrong.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm proposing I'm right and your confused.

Or I'm wrong and your confused.

No matter.

Either way, your confused.

That's what I think :-)

In any case, molesters need to be put away for life.

....Unless we beleive that it's ok for our kids to get molested by filthy perverts.

Then we can let 'em out and tell 'em; "Have fun. Be more careful. Don't get caught. Kill your victim(s) or something."

And I'm proposing that I'm right and you're wrong. Wrong is more emphatic than confused. A commitment to death sentences shows more anger than a commitment to a life sentence. I'm more opinionated than you, and therefore I am objectively correct. There is no other reality and anyone who disagrees with me is confused or else they like child molesters.

Hmm.... that sound reasonable for some reason. Could it be that matters of public policy are based on opinion, rather than some declaration of one's opinion as objective truth?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

This isn't about anger. It's about how much value we, as a society, put on protecting our children. How much value we, as a society, put on protecting our next generation(s).

While anyone can fantasize about what they'd like to do with someone like Joseph Duncan if given the chance, that's not what it's about.

Your proposals consistently show confusion about this.

Which I beleive is intentional. You're having fun or trying to play cat-n-mouse.

SOMETHING.

Mmm hmm

Here's what we know:

This is about how much value we, as a society, put on protecting our children. How much value we, as a society, put on protecting our next generation(s).

From what we're seeing OCCUR, we do not value our children or our next generation(s) very much.

This isn't opinion, it's fact based on much evidence.

Cat and mouse? I guess you could call it that. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what's to be done with violent child predators (which encompass only a tiny portion of the sex crimes against children - mommy/daddy/uncle/etc are usually to blame). I'm illustrating a point to you by demonstrating the futility of presenting your opinion as some kind of objective fact.

You say that it is an objective fact that we should do X. I say it is an objective fact that we should do Y. Both of us dressing up our opinions as objective fact and calling any dissenters 'confused' isn't particularly productive. And, attempting proof by repetition and increased volume is even less so.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

The following is NOT my opinion however:

This is about how much value we, as a society, put on protecting our children. How much value we, as a society, put on protecting our next generation(s).

This is about a societies values. A societies obviously declining values.

So, what I'm saying:

X = put convicted molesters behind bars for life.

I'm still unsure exactly WHAT you're saying:

Y = ?

Are you SERIOUS when you say we should shoot them ? While I, personally, can't disagree with that, I just don't see that happening. Maybe death by lethal injection for the worst creeps like Gacy:


JOHN WAYNE GACY -- THE CLOWN THAT KILLED


Or Joseph Duncan:


Blogging The Fifth Nail


Joseph Duncan - The Trial of Joseph Edward Duncan


What exactly IS Y ?

A trite aphorism about moral values and children is not your opinion, but objective fact? I wasn't aware there was some agreed-upon, objective litmus test for societal values and children. Somebody call ISO

And by the way, they aren't "our" children - I don't have any children.

First of all, I'm relatively impervious to misleading vividness. I don't need to read about predator outliers to understand that there are people who do extremely heinous things - the specific nature of those heinous things doesn't influence my opinion on legislation as I'm not really given to substituting emotion for rational consideration.

Secondly, "Y" (what I think) is that you can't really have any sort of catchall, oversimplified policy that does right by everyone. I don't really think summarily executing perverts without a trial is the way to go, as this would be a good example of the "legislating from the bench" conversation we had a couple days ago (or whenever). Specifically, that's unconstitutional.

I don't think a one-size-fits-all penalty for child molesters necessarily makes sense. There are a lot of mitigating factors - additional violence involved in the crime, crime of 'opportunity' versus premeditated, whether or not the perpetrator is a "serial predator", etc. If you treat all offenders, violent or not, with life sentences, you're essentially encouraging them to murder the children so that they cannot testify as witnesses. If you're going to jail for life anyway, what do you have to lose?

If we could agree upon a reliable way for determining whether or not someone is an incorrigible serial predator, then I would say that life in prison or possibly execution for even one offense would make sense. We're talking here about a person who is anti-social to a degree that his very existence is irreconcilable with society at large. His happiness and well being is absolutely contingent upon victimizing others.

However, I suspect that this describes only a tiny minority of people who commit this sort of crime. I realize that people tend to get all mushy because "ohmygod think of the innocent children" is a hot potato of taboo, but we don't necessarily lock up anyone who rapes adults or who viciously assaults people or who robs stores with a weapon for life. The current idea is that these people might be 'rehabilitated'. But, if we're going to make the exception for children, then we should apply it across the board. Lock up all the people you've mentioned for life if you're going to do it to Uncle Creepy. I'm not sure that's a reasonable solution, but at least it's consistent.

But, all of this recent fixation on serial perverts is kind of strange. It seems to me that the ubiquitous presence of non-stop news networks has created this phenomenon. Adults molesting children has been going on since there have been adults and children - but now you see it all over the news whenever it happens anywhere. This creates the impression that things have suddenly gotten worse when it seems more likely that things are better when they used to be. Hey, at least now when a kid comes home from church choir practice, they're believed instead of punished when they tell a story about Father Feelgood getting all grabby in the confessional booth.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

There is nothing "trite' about what I've said. No "aphorism." Only a fact.

A society or culture that ceases to value and protect it's offspring, it's next generations, is not on a path that will allow it to continue strongly through time.

This is a fact. A fact you'd have us dismiss by telling us that it's nothing but a "trite aphorism."

Ridiculous.

That you do not have any direct offspring doesn't necessarily mean that you will be completely indifferent to children. If you happened to be walking down the street and saw a toddler being approached by a snarling pitbull, you'd shrug your shoulders and walk off then.

Maybe that's what you'd do ?

Doesn't sound right.

Worshipper of the great, false God called rationality ?

That's rational is it ?

Lets look at the results of your version of "rational consideration." Just one of many examples. Which you can dismiss as "an emotional appeal" to justify your version of "rational consideration."

Joseph Edward Duncan III was out on a $15,000 bond in Minnesota for molesting a 7-year-old boy,

Joseph Duncan - The Trial of Joseph Edward Duncan

In other words, your brand of "rational consideration" had previously RELEASED him. He went on to:

...three people were killed in an Idaho home and their two children kidnapped. Six weeks later, Duncan was arrested...

Duncan has been charged in Idaho state court with three counts of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping in the deaths of Brenda Groene, Slade Groene, and Mark Mckenzie. He will also face federal charges for the kidnappings of Dylan and Shasta Groene and for Dylan's murder.

"rational consideration ?"

Doesn't sound that "rational" to me.

Ah, but this is "substituting emotion for rational consideration."

Well, fair enough. What YOU call "substituting emotion" for "rational consideration" seems confused to me. It seems that it would be a "rational consideration" to lock these KIND OF creeps up permanently. That would have meant that this event wouldn't have HAPPENED in North Idaho.

We've seen this many many times before.

But YOU would have us beleive that it's "rational" to continue letting these people out. That it's IRRATIONAL of us to lock them up for life

That it's IRRATIONAL of us to observe that when we release them, they DO IT AGAIN. Sometimes they add MURDER to their repertoire.

Ah, yes. That's right.

We cannot take and solve a very simple problem with a simple solution. It's a very COMPLEX problem. That way it's unsolvable.

This is one very small issue of more capable humans criminal activity-treatment of other, weaker and less able humans.

Very simple.

But lets not "oversimplify" this

Many do this AFTER we let them out anyways. These kinds of people do not ever get over their preference for sex with children. They're perverts. It's very clear. We HAVE a North America Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that PROMOTES this kind of perversity. It's just another disgusting form of "sexual preference." One that CAN still get your ass thrown in jail.

Temporarily.

WE have yet to learn that these folks are NOT prone to being "rehabilitated." They're not going to change.

It makes the most sense to lock them up for LIFE.

If we care about keeping our children safe that is.

That's just it. They don't SEE what they do as "victimizing others." Hell, according to NAMBLA, boys DESIRE to have sex with older men !!

I would say that any sexual molestation offense committed by an adult against a young child is good enough at determining whether or not someone is an incorrigible serial predator. No, I'm not talking about an 18 year old with his 16 or 17 year old girlfreind.

Yes, lets BE consistent.

The current idea that these people might be 'rehabilitated' is wrong.

Yes, society IS getting more aware of it.

Tired of it. Much of that has to do with newer ways of disseminating information of course. The entire country heard about Joseph Duncans deeds very quickly.

People are beginning to see that these kinds of sickos have no business being free to do what they do again and again and again.

Yes, that it involves kids DOES attract more emotion and anger. Emotion and anger that our society STILL has not yet realized how to take care of the issue.

It's NOT a complex problem like the middle east or anything. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. This is one of those times.

You dispute my claim that you use emotional appeals and misleading vividness with... emotional appeals and misleading vividness.

Let me present you with a rational argument...

Ohmygod-ohmygod-ohymgod, it's horrible!!!! Look at this monster and what he did!!!!! Look at these horrific pictures and tell me I'm wrong when I shriek "there-oughta-be-a-LAW!!!!!" Ohmygod-ohmygod-ohmygod won't somebody please think of the children?!?!? Oh the humanity!!!! Oh, we're all gonna DIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

... thank you for listening. As you can see, I've presented a clear and rational argument for public policy.

Dude... good Lord.

And, by the way, when you're referring to "my brand of rational consideration" as responsible for anything, you're not making sense. I'm not making statements about conclusions for matters of public policy. I'm talking about how you make your arguments (logical fallacies). You can (and are) making assinine arguments and happening to arrive at relatively reasonable conclusions (locking up predators for life). I'm not disputing your conclusion, per se. But presenting gruesome imagery to tug at emotion is irrational and silly when making an argument. If your argument is good, you don't need to do that.

Observe me making a "Thane" argument:

Our society is going to hell in a handbasket. Everywhere you turn, people are driving red cars - "homosexual" cars. If they weren't gay, they wouldn't be red. And, when people drive gay, people get hurt. Children get hurt.

Think it isn't a problem:

http://www.totalcarcrashes.com/wp-co...crash_0192.jpg

http://www.ferrarifaqs.com/wp-conten...enzo-crash.jpg

http://www.speedvisiontech.com/image...ar-crash-u.jpg

Oh, yes. It's a problem. The color of car we drive says a lot about us as a society. Are we content to drive such death traps? There were children in those cars. Children got their eyes poked out and their heads smashed in and their limbs torn off. And why? Because we selfishly drive red cars. These homosexual values are leading to the destruction of society. It's just a matter of time before we're speaking Chinese and eating fried rice because THEY are not driving red cars and THEY are going to take us over. Because we're gay. Because we treat our children badly. We need to WAKE up.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

We must socially engineer the next generation to provide for the Glory of the Motherland, eh, comrade?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

So you want to make an ass of yourself trying to make an ass of ME, nothing new :-)

....Ohmygod-ohmygod-ohymgod, it's sillyashell

It's been fun.

Not that you've actually address anything I've said

In any SENSIBLE ways :-)

It's Friday, so it is.

Oh Karma. Please award this person his just desserts if he ever has a kid. May his child be abducted by a previously convicted and released pedophile and be viciously raped and murdered.

Just being "rational" :-)

No, that's not nice is it ? But I wonder if you'd be so "rational" on the issue if Karma decided to award you what I've suggested ?

"Rational."

You've been "rational" alright