If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Morning Call)   Upset about the sex offender next door? Can't sell your house? Then screw him   (mcall.com) divider line 181
    More: Interesting, sex offenders, child sexual abuse, Eighth Amendment, Megan's Law, Lehigh County, Douglas Laycock  
•       •       •

24225 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 1:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 05:44:18 PM
You would have a hard time selling your home if it's next door to a child molester. The victim has been victimized twice. Once physically and once financially. The molester should have to to purchase the home or move since he has ruined the neighbors ability to get the same price for their home as they would have gotten before a registered sex offender lived next door. The guy didn't just move in. This is no different than a wrongful death suit against someone who killed your child. Either way a life is changed forever. Why should the victim now be poorer for it?

For those who suggest that being molested doesn't change you forever, fark you. That comes back at you over and over. If affects your sexual relationship with your spouse. It affects your ability to trust. If can mess you up in ways you can't imagine unless you've experienced it.
 
2013-03-17 06:04:17 PM

namegoeshere: Nem Wan: Meghan's Law is the prerequisite for sex offenders having an effect on property values. Without the law there would not be that effect. Given the lack of proof that Meghan's Law has saved anyone from being molested, it's questionable whether it has any positive effects at all.

Moral question:  Would you be okay selling your house to a family with children knowing there was a convicted child sex offender next door without telling them about it?


If there was no Meghan's Law, I wouldn't know. I don't know about ones who aren't on the list, either.
 
2013-03-17 06:22:10 PM

Mija: You would have a hard time selling your home if it's next door to a child molester. The victim has been victimized twice. Once physically and once financially. The molester should have to to purchase the home or move since he has ruined the neighbors ability to get the same price for their home as they would have gotten before a registered sex offender lived next door. The guy didn't just move in. This is no different than a wrongful death suit against someone who killed your child. Either way a life is changed forever. Why should the victim now be poorer for it?

For those who suggest that being molested doesn't change you forever, fark you. That comes back at you over and over. If affects your sexual relationship with your spouse. It affects your ability to trust. If can mess you up in ways you can't imagine unless you've experienced it.


Here is the thing.  The victim is not poorer now then before.  The value on the home is irrelevant because you cannot buy things with houses.  Until a sale goes through the victim has the same amount of money in their bank account as before.  If somebody does not want to buy your house that is not your neighbors problem.  It means you are asking for more than anyone is willing to pay for it.  Houses are not money, they are places to live.  If you bought a house as a financial investment then fark you, you are the reason for the housing bubble in the first place.
 
2013-03-17 06:35:00 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: it's not HIS fault. it's the governments fault for MAKING a sex offender list in the FIRST PLACe


Well, only to the extent that it makes the house harder to sell.  Since he molested THEIR child, they probably were already aware of it.

Wouldn't a more sane response be for him to have to give him his house (it the court decides those damages are appropriate) and move somewhere else?  I'm not for restricting where pedophiles can live with blanket zoning, because they are really just more silly NIMBY projects that make them someone else's problem, but in the case where your victim is still living next door, you should have to move, and presumably he wouldn't have any moral compunction with hiding the fact that his house was a rape house and since he'd be moving whoever bought it wouldn't be moving next to a pedophile (well, unless there is another one in the neighborhood).  That said, in a neighborhood where he's a know quantity he may have a harder time re-offending.  And why isn't he still in jail?
 
2013-03-17 06:53:37 PM

memeorama.com

RacySmurff:
I think the sex offender should be hung

 
2013-03-17 07:15:09 PM

studebaker hoch: "Molested" is not raped raped.


No, but "molested" is foreplay to rape rape.

If they don't win their case, the girl should be allowed to throw rocks at his house until he moves or dies.
 
2013-03-17 07:19:44 PM
the house i rent is three hoises down from a man on megans law list. he is on there for molesting a child. my next door neighbor told me a few days after i moved in with my five kids. He went to explain that my landlords were having a hard time renting the place because of the list. The house has 5 bedrooms. Its made for a family with a lot of kids. The first few months I was really freaked out, but have since gotten over that knee jerk fear. I don't let the kids outside without me. I have come to the conclussion it is better to know the evil is there, and take precautions.
 
2013-03-17 07:22:41 PM

lack of warmth: studebaker hoch: "Molested" is not raped raped.

No, but "molested" is foreplay to rape rape.

If they don't win their case, the girl should be allowed to throw rocks at his house until he moves or dies.


Now looky here, girl. You get your daddy to help build one of these...

www.thepirateking.com

And you gather up some of these from down by the river...

l.rgbimg.com

And then you have at it until the SOB next door leaves the county...or he's dead. Got it? ;^)
 
2013-03-17 07:26:09 PM

Stone Meadow: lack of warmth: studebaker hoch: "Molested" is not raped raped.

No, but "molested" is foreplay to rape rape.

If they don't win their case, the girl should be allowed to throw rocks at his house until he moves or dies.

Now looky here, girl. You get your daddy to help build one of these...

[www.thepirateking.com image 400x157]

And you gather up some of these from down by the river...

[l.rgbimg.com image 600x396]

And then you have at it until the SOB next door leaves the county...or he's dead. Got it? ;^)


I was picturing the scene from Forest Gump when Jenny threw rocks at the house she grew up in and Forest had the place bulldozed.

However your idea has merit.
 
2013-03-17 07:36:12 PM

cman: Jon iz teh kewl: cman: I hate child sex offenders like other people do. 

but it's not like they KEEP molesting

what do you hate about them? exactly.

SImple: they believe that what they feel is more important than others. They dont give a shiat on what the end results are for the victim. They destroy a life for a fleeting moment of pleasure.


Cman, you're better than this. John is a foolish troll, don't bite...
 
2013-03-17 07:41:27 PM
In old western days this molester would have been run out of town.  Sometimes the simplest answer is correct.
 
2013-03-17 08:40:37 PM

lack of warmth: Stone Meadow: lack of warmth: studebaker hoch: "Molested" is not raped raped.

No, but "molested" is foreplay to rape rape.

If they don't win their case, the girl should be allowed to throw rocks at his house until he moves or dies.

Now looky here, girl. You get your daddy to help build one of these...

[www.thepirateking.com image 400x157]

And you gather up some of these from down by the river...

[l.rgbimg.com image 600x396]

And then you have at it until the SOB next door leaves the county...or he's dead. Got it? ;^)

I was picturing the scene from Forest Gump when Jenny threw rocks at the house she grew up in and Forest had the place bulldozed.

However your idea has merit.


There is nothing so satisfying as the "personal touch"... ;^)
 
2013-03-17 09:12:50 PM

Bigdogdaddy: At least he didn't get all shooty over it.  I'd keep a loaded 45 handy and if he even came on my property.....

I probably would already have done it if he molested my kid.


Remember that case last year, where the father beat the crap out of the molester, and it turned out his precious little daughter lied through her teeth?  Oops.

STILL sure you want to open fire?

Oh, and, everyone posting about how the convict should go live in a halfway house...there probably aren't any.
NIMBYs don't want ONE offender next door, you think they're letting a houseful in?

As several folks posted, if he's too dangerous to let out of prison, keep him in...a list isn't going to do squat.

And moving these guys somewhere else?
That's what the Vatican did for decades...didn't really solve the problem.
 
2013-03-17 09:24:54 PM

FarkinHostile: see what the VAST majority of people are on it for.


VAST majority is not ALL. If there is one case then the law should be unconstitutional or would you be happy that a person who really doesn't deserve to be on 'the list', be on it?
 
2013-03-17 11:30:08 PM

Benjimin_Dover: Dead for Tax Reasons: "Any time a property owner engaged in an activity that ostensibly reduced surrounding property values, liability would attach,"Can the opposite be then argued as well?I improved my property, raising adjacent property values, therefore you must compensate me for increase

Exactly. The minute somebody comes to me about what I am doing is reducing his property values, I'll tell him that the only two times property values come into play is taxes and selling.  If he ain't selling, then I'd ask him to kindly thank me for keeping his tax bill low. If he was selling, I'd ask him to bring me the signed documents on what he sold it for and then I'd show him how to take the lower price and offset it with all the years of lower tax bills to see how much ahead he actually was because of me.


Someone ever came to me and said what I was doing on my property was lowering his property values.  I will look at him and say so what.  If I own land and want to do something on it I will do it and the only thing I am going be worried bout is making sure its legal and up to code form me to do what I want to do.  How it effect values of those around me I am not going care.
 
2013-03-18 01:12:30 AM

Chagrin: cman: Chagrin: cman: Chagrin: cman: They destroy a life for a fleeting moment of pleasure.

Yes, think of people like Oprah Winfrey. Imagine what she could have accomplished.

Wow, man. Either you are higher than I or my reading comprehension is complete shiat right now. Are you implying that if Oprah never had been raped that she would have never gone on to help others?

I was rebutting your claim that a sexual offense destroys a life. Not that hard to figure out.

I see nothing wrong with your idea. I just think its a dick move to use is for your argument. To put rape in any kind of good light kinda pisses a lot of people off.

Well, next time you start throwing around claims of "destroying a life" I'd ask that you stick to things like disfigurement, amputation, death, etc.



And I would refuse to comply with such a request as, unlike you, I can see that something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD destroy a life to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation.  Not in every case, perhaps, but in some cases, absolutely, yes.
 
2013-03-18 01:36:20 AM

ferretman: FarkinHostile: see what the VAST majority of people are on it for.

VAST majority is not ALL. If there is one case then the law should be unconstitutional or would you be happy that a person who really doesn't deserve to be on 'the list', be on it?


Hey! YOU! Stop all that making sense! Where do you think you are, in college? We're on the INTERNET! Now, go back out there and be sarcastic and purposely cruel to other people.
 
2013-03-18 02:12:09 AM

ciberido: Chagrin: cman: Chagrin: cman: Chagrin: cman: They destroy a life for a fleeting moment of pleasure.

Yes, think of people like Oprah Winfrey. Imagine what she could have accomplished.

Wow, man. Either you are higher than I or my reading comprehension is complete shiat right now. Are you implying that if Oprah never had been raped that she would have never gone on to help others?

I was rebutting your claim that a sexual offense destroys a life. Not that hard to figure out.

I see nothing wrong with your idea. I just think its a dick move to use is for your argument. To put rape in any kind of good light kinda pisses a lot of people off.

Well, next time you start throwing around claims of "destroying a life" I'd ask that you stick to things like disfigurement, amputation, death, etc.


And I would refuse to comply with such a request as, unlike you, I can see that something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD destroy a life to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation.  Not in every case, perhaps, but in some cases, absolutely, yes.


Only death destroys life, ffs.  If you want these things to be taken seriously, stop talking about them ridiculously.
 
2013-03-18 02:19:05 AM
Would it just be easier to shoot the bastard? It's not like you could find a jury to convict due to the history involved.
 
2013-03-18 03:47:35 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Only death destroys life, ffs.  If you want these things to be taken seriously, stop talking about them ridiculously.


We use "her life was destroyed" to mean "she suffered some severe trauma which will affect her the rest of her life."  I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how the English language works.

Being hyper-literal about the language serves no good purpose, but if it really matters to you that much, I could restate "Something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD destroy a life to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation" as "Something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD cause permanent life-altering trauma to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation."

Happy now?
 
2013-03-18 04:35:04 AM

ciberido: BarkingUnicorn: Only death destroys life, ffs.  If you want these things to be taken seriously, stop talking about them ridiculously.

We use "her life was destroyed" to mean "she suffered some severe trauma which will affect her the rest of her life."  I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how the English language works.

Being hyper-literal about the language serves no good purpose, but if it really matters to you that much, I could restate "Something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD destroy a life to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation" as "Something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD cause permanent life-altering trauma to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation."

Happy now?


Reading your posts COULD cause brain damage.
 
2013-03-18 06:26:38 AM

ciberido: BarkingUnicorn: Only death destroys life, ffs.  If you want these things to be taken seriously, stop talking about them ridiculously.

We use "her life was destroyed" to mean "she suffered some severe trauma which will affect her the rest of her life."  I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's how the English language works.

Being hyper-literal about the language serves no good purpose, but if it really matters to you that much, I could restate "Something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD destroy a life to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation" as "Something like rape or childhood sexual abuse COULD cause permanent life-altering trauma to the same degree as disfigurement or amputation."

Happy now?


No.  Now you're engaging in speculation.

As a general rule, sexual abuse (of which rape is a subset) significantly impairs the ability to function normally and to be happy.  The impairment is more like a wound than an amputation or ineradicable disfigurement.  Treatment hastens the healing process. It can be healed, but it leaves scar tissue.

Using words to mean anything you wish significantly impairs your ability to communicate  effectively.
 
2013-03-18 11:26:11 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Using words to mean anything you wish significantly impairs your ability to communicate effectively.


Squiggle fart blow obama head cash wind water heavy meaning

I see what you mean.
 
2013-03-18 11:31:53 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: "Any time a property owner engaged in an activity that ostensibly reduced surrounding property values, liability would attach,"Can the opposite be then argued as well?I improved my property, raising adjacent property values, therefore you must compensate me for increase


...or they could sue you because the assessed value of their property increased, causing their property taxes and homeowners insurance rates to climb...

So yeah... it's a dumb idea from any angle.
 
2013-03-18 11:57:13 AM

studebaker hoch: "Molested" is not raped raped.


Yeah, it's not all "rapey rape", just kinda "touchy rape".

You know.
 
2013-03-18 12:01:55 PM

BarkingUnicorn: No.  Now you're engaging in speculation.

As a general rule, sexual abuse (of which rape is a subset) significantly impairs the ability to function normally and to be happy.  The impairment is more like a wound than an amputation or ineradicable disfigurement.  Treatment hastens the healing process. It can be healed, but it leaves scar tissue.



So, basically you're saying that no amount of psychological trauma could ever equal (in terms of how it might reduce a person's long-term happiness or well-being) permanent physical trauma.  To give one example, a rape, no matter how horrible or brutal, can't possibly harm a person to the same degree as (or have severe long-term affects that could compare to) for example, losing a foot in an automobile accident.

Essentially an extreme form of the "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" boast.

You're wrong, of course, and there are countless studies that prove you're wrong, but it won't do any good to tell you that.   The very derp that causes you to make such easily-disproven claims will also prevent you from reading any studies I might link to, and would also prevent you from understanding or believing them if you did read them.

And, of course, you will insist that your beliefs are the product of purest logic, all available evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-03-18 12:29:33 PM

ciberido: BarkingUnicorn: No.  Now you're engaging in speculation.

<b>As a general rule</b>, sexual abuse (of which rape is a subset) significantly impairs the ability to function normally and to be happy.  The impairment is more like a wound than an amputation or ineradicable disfigurement.  Treatment hastens the healing process. It can be healed, but it leaves scar tissue.


So, basically you're saying that <b>no amount</b> of psychological trauma <b>could ever</b> equal (in terms of how it might reduce a person's long-term happiness or well-being) permanent physical trauma.  To give one example, a rape, no matter how horrible or brutal, can't possibly harm a person to the same degree as (or have severe long-term affects that could compare to) for example, losing a foot in an automobile accident.

Essentially an extreme form of the "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" boast.

You're wrong, of course, and there are countless studies that prove you're wrong, but it won't do any good to tell you that.   The very derp that causes you to make such easily-disproven claims will also prevent you from reading any studies I might link to, and would also prevent you from understanding or believing them if you did read them.

And, of course, you will insist that your beliefs are the product of purest logic, all available evidence to the contrary.


You apparently don't understand the meaning of "as a general rule".
 
2013-03-18 12:30:16 PM
...and I apparently (still) don't get along well with the new comment entry field...
 
2013-03-18 12:46:59 PM

AndreMA: ciberido: BarkingUnicorn: No.  Now you're engaging in speculation.

<b>As a general rule</b>, sexual abuse (of which rape is a subset) significantly impairs the ability to function normally and to be happy.  The impairment is more like a wound than an amputation or ineradicable disfigurement.  Treatment hastens the healing process. It can be healed, but it leaves scar tissue.


So, basically you're saying that <b>no amount</b> of psychological trauma <b>could ever</b> equal (in terms of how it might reduce a person's long-term happiness or well-being) permanent physical trauma.  To give one example, a rape, no matter how horrible or brutal, can't possibly harm a person to the same degree as (or have severe long-term affects that could compare to) for example, losing a foot in an automobile accident.

Essentially an extreme form of the "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" boast.

You're wrong, of course, and there are countless studies that prove you're wrong, but it won't do any good to tell you that.   The very derp that causes you to make such easily-disproven claims will also prevent you from reading any studies I might link to, and would also prevent you from understanding or believing them if you did read them.

And, of course, you will insist that your beliefs are the product of purest logic, all available evidence to the contrary.

You apparently don't understand the meaning of "as a general rule".



And you apparently don't understand the meaning of "could," so I guess we're even on that score.
 
2013-03-18 01:03:32 PM
I was referring to your statement "So, basically you're saying that no amount of psychological trauma could ever equal (in terms of how it might reduce a person's long-term happiness or well-being) permanent physical trauma." incorrectly attributing an absolute statement to Barking Unicorn when they very prominently stated "as a general rule" and implicitly allowed for exceptions.

No worries; I understand that this sort of black-and-white thinking is associated with PTSD.
 
2013-03-18 05:47:41 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Wanna find out if there are any sex offenders in your neighborhood?  Go here.


Doesn't cover everyone.  I know one that lives down the block from me that isn't on that list.
Again, don't care.  Good person, happened to have a bad circumstance when he was 19.  Fortunately he's well liked enough in the community that those of us that know him as a person and not as a boogey-man statistic accept him as a fellow human being.

I do, however, like how tough and afraid of everyone else people are here on Fark (HOORAY FOR GENERALIZATIONS)..
 
Displayed 31 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report