I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore
POSTED BY: JCKnife
UPDATED: Thursday, August 17, 2023 17:53
VIEWED: 13532
PAGE 6 of 12
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 (-:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Well this thread sure when downhill fast.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer:Quote:
GEEZER: I'm afraid that you added the hyperbole (in your parentheses above)Quote:THESE ARE YOUR WORDS - nothing added. This is not my hyperbole, it's YOURS. Stop lying.
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer:
Quote:These are YOUR WORDS - IN ORDER. Nothing added, nothing taken away, nothing rearranged. Stuff it.
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
As for your other comments:
Quote: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.
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?
So many phony dillemnas, so little time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME