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  
•       •       •

24222 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
 
2013-03-17 10:41:27 AM
it's not HIS fault. it's the governments fault for MAKING a sex offender list in the FIRST PLACe

what did he do? urinate in public?
 
2013-03-17 12:18:06 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

what did he do? urinate in public?


Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.

Forcing others to buy things is something that I think is stupid. If you were doing a business deal and one party agreed to buy then pull out, then you have contract law to take care of situations like that.

I hate child sex offenders like other people do. THere are times that I wish that punishment would include gelding. But, you have to keep a cool head when dealing with justice.
 
2013-03-17 12:21:04 PM

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.
 
2013-03-17 12:25:46 PM

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.
 
2013-03-17 01:04:24 PM
Is Pennsylvania so farked up that someone asks for punitive damages as compensation for economic damages?
 
2013-03-17 01:12:04 PM

cman: 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.


So they're Republicans.
 
2013-03-17 01:12:28 PM
I'm not sure I understand here.  The guy molested a kid, got busted, did his time and now that he's out, he's moving back into the same neighborhood again?

I would have thought that this would have been easily averted by simply putting him into a half-way house across town?  Or arranging something with the convict's family to have them move elsewhere before he moved out?

Is there something else to this story that we're not hearing?  Why are both parties seemingly being obstinate and stupidly stubborn?
 
2013-03-17 01:15:58 PM
I don't think it's merely "upset about the sex offender next door"... the dude got in trouble in the first place because he *molested their daughter*.

I totally agree, he should have to pay for their house - that or move away himself.  It's cruel and highly unusual to make the little girl live next to this guy.
 
2013-03-17 01:16:07 PM

Infernalist: I would have thought that this would have been easily averted by simply putting him into a half-way house across town? Or arranging something with the convict's family to have them move elsewhere before he moved out?


He may have had to be in a halfway house on release but not for his entire life; eventually any freed felon (with the exceptions/restrictions that sex offenders have) are allowed to move anywhere, including their own house.
 
2013-03-17 01:18:58 PM
"I have never heard of that and the court may say it has no authority to order that," said Douglas Laycock

Then why do we bother to have courts anymore?  Nothing good comes from them anymore.
 
2013-03-17 01:19:00 PM

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.


They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.
 
2013-03-17 01:19:08 PM

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


Yes, think of people like Oprah Winfrey. Imagine what she could have accomplished.
 
2013-03-17 01:20:01 PM
How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?
 
2013-03-17 01:20:18 PM
"X people moving into the neighborhood drives down property values", we've heard that one before.Trolling
Although, seriously, how much money does an ex-con have that this isn't blood from a stone?
 
2013-03-17 01:20:46 PM
Anthony Sabino, an associate law professor at St. John's University, said forcing a person to buy someone else's home could be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

How cute! He thinks those amendments actually mean anything anymore. The courts will do whatever the f*** they want to do, and you'll bend over and take it.
 
2013-03-17 01:20:57 PM

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

what did he do? urinate in public?

Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.

Forcing others to buy things is something that I think is stupid. If you were doing a business deal and one party agreed to buy then pull out, then you have contract law to take care of situations like that.

I hate child sex offenders like other people do. THere are times that I wish that punishment would include gelding. But, you have to keep a cool head when dealing with justice.


Guy was 62 and accused of molesting and 11 year old, but only got 23 months in the prison.  Either he has an amazing lawyer or the case wasn't exactly airtight.
 
2013-03-17 01:21:44 PM

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?
 
2013-03-17 01:21:50 PM
I agree that making him buy the house probably won't work.  But why can't terms of his probation, etc include a provision prohibiting him from living within a certain distance of the victims, thereby forcing HIM to move?
 
2013-03-17 01:22:08 PM
With him living next door, it's impossible to sell their house. I get that. I'm not sure if forcing him to buy it is the right answer- moving him might be easier- but I can understand it.

Also, misleading headline is misleading. I read: someone living next to a sex offender was so upset about it that they had sex with him. Which would warrant a Strange tag.
 
2013-03-17 01:22:16 PM
This sounds like a job for Pope Francis!
 
2013-03-17 01:22:22 PM
 
2013-03-17 01:22:35 PM

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

what did he do? urinate in public?

Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.

Forcing others to buy things is something that I think is stupid. If you were doing a business deal and one party agreed to buy then pull out, then you have contract law to take care of situations like that.

I hate child sex offenders like other people do. THere are times that I wish that punishment would include gelding. But, you have to keep a cool head when dealing with justice.


Not just any child; the child of the people who are bringing this case so that she doesn't have to live next door to her abuser.
 
2013-03-17 01:22:45 PM
I guess you guys can't read good or something; the sex offender molested the homeowner's daughter. Now they can't sell the house.

/ I say hang 'em
 
2013-03-17 01:22:45 PM
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.
 
2013-03-17 01:23:23 PM

ha-ha-guy: Either he has an amazing lawyer or the case wasn't exactly airtight.


Pretty much this.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-17 01:24:14 PM
I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.
 
2013-03-17 01:24:52 PM
"Guy was 62 and accused of molesting and 11 year old, but only got 23 months in the prison."

"How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?"


One of you DNRTFA.
 
2013-03-17 01:25:43 PM
Why not just get a protective order on him where he can't live next to the victim?

/force him out
 
2013-03-17 01:26:20 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: ha-ha-guy: Either he has an amazing lawyer or the case wasn't exactly airtight.

Pretty much this.


Looking it up, it was the two of them alone in his basement to see a stuffed bear.  She claims he told her to take her clothing off.  No witnesses or anything.  He eventually got a plea deal and 23 months.  Pretty tough case with no actual contact to leave behind evidence and no witnesses.  Family is likely pissed that 23 months was the best the DA could do and now going all out in civil court.

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-16/news/mc-upper-milford-child-sex -a ssault-20111216_1_indecent-assault-upper-milford-township-man-jail-ter m 


Also:  http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/PA18795/Oliver-Larry-Beck.ht m l
 
2013-03-17 01:26:28 PM

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?
 
2013-03-17 01:28:55 PM

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.
 
2013-03-17 01:29:11 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?


The bigger question is, if the guy is such a threat we need to list him and inform potential buyers of his threat, why the fark isn't he still in jail?  If he isn't a threat, why are we still sticking a scarlet letter on him?
 
2013-03-17 01:29:57 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?


This. In no way could I endanger a child in that way. I would never be able to sleep again.
 
2013-03-17 01:32:54 PM

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.
 
2013-03-17 01:33:55 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.


And yet being financially liable is beyond what could be considered appropriate? Or is it just the whole buying the house thing.

Would you agree that suing for the value of the house before the incident and moving costs is fair?

Honestly, how do you sell to another family knowing there is a perv living next door to you?
 
2013-03-17 01:35:07 PM
"Molested" is not raped raped.
 
2013-03-17 01:36:04 PM

vpb: I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.


How about prison general population?
 
2013-03-17 01:38:50 PM

MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.


really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.
 
2013-03-17 01:41:20 PM

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.
 
2013-03-17 01:42:44 PM

vpb: I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.


If only there was some place where they could be interred, for their own protection of course, to live and work and contribute to society.

I nominate Oklahoma.
 
2013-03-17 01:43:07 PM
People who are having a hard time selling their house shold rent a sex offender to move in until the neighborhood coughs up enough money to buy the house. Capitalism at its best.
 
2013-03-17 01:46:41 PM

ha-ha-guy: antidisestablishmentarianism: ha-ha-guy: Either he has an amazing lawyer or the case wasn't exactly airtight.

Pretty much this.

Looking it up, it was the two of them alone in his basement to see a stuffed bear.  She claims he told her to take her clothing off.  No witnesses or anything.  He eventually got a plea deal and 23 months.  Pretty tough case with no actual contact to leave behind evidence and no witnesses.  Family is likely pissed that 23 months was the best the DA could do and now going all out in civil court.

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-16/news/mc-upper-milford-child-sex -a ssault-20111216_1_indecent-assault-upper-milford-township-man-jail-ter m 


Also:  http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/PA18795/Oliver-Larry-Beck.ht m l


Yeah, it wasn't an open and shut case, it was a plea.  It's possible it's from a man who felt he had no real defense, as proof of a negative is impossible.

BB gun shooting and 4 wheeler rides?  That's something our family does with the grandkids and nieces and nephews and such.

If there were any real proof, you'd think there wouldn't have been a plea bargain, that they'd nail him to the wall.

As such, I don't think further legal action against him is right in any sort of way.  Someone hard convicted, maybe that's different.  Even then, make him move, buy him out, etc.  He did serve his sentence and was released, he paid his debt as the courts saw fit.  No reason to put him thousands in debt after that.

Not sticking up for him.  If he's actually guilty he deserves worse punishment than he received.  I am simply standing up for our legal system, in this case, being enough.  Under the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you can't go to extremes in punishing people with no proof, even with a plea agreement.
 
2013-03-17 01:46:58 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Anthony Sabino, an associate law professor at St. John's University, said forcing a person to buy someone else's home could be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

How cute! He thinks those amendments actually mean anything anymore. The courts will do whatever the f*** they want to do, and you'll bend over and take it.


Yet getting put on a list is not....

/Not everyone on the list has diddled a child
 
2013-03-17 01:49:06 PM

vpb: I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.


Child molesters can go to hell.  We'll make the travel arrangements
 
2013-03-17 01:49:09 PM
I would think it would be easy to get a restraining order from the person who molested your daughter.  Couldn't a judge issue an order that would make him living in his home illegal, therefore forcing him to move? The family didn't do anything wrong, so they should not be forced to move.  And they certainly shouldn't have to live next to him.
 
2013-03-17 01:49:24 PM

omeganuepsilon: ha-ha-guy: antidisestablishmentarianism: ha-ha-guy: Either he has an amazing lawyer or the case wasn't exactly airtight.

Pretty much this.

Looking it up, it was the two of them alone in his basement to see a stuffed bear.  She claims he told her to take her clothing off.  No witnesses or anything.  He eventually got a plea deal and 23 months.  Pretty tough case with no actual contact to leave behind evidence and no witnesses.  Family is likely pissed that 23 months was the best the DA could do and now going all out in civil court.

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-16/news/mc-upper-milford-child-sex -a ssault-20111216_1_indecent-assault-upper-milford-township-man-jail-ter m 


Also:  http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/PA18795/Oliver-Larry-Beck.ht m l

Yeah, it wasn't an open and shut case, it was a plea.  It's possible it's from a man who felt he had no real defense, as proof of a negative is impossible.

BB gun shooting and 4 wheeler rides?  That's something our family does with the grandkids and nieces and nephews and such.

If there were any real proof, you'd think there wouldn't have been a plea bargain, that they'd nail him to the wall.

As such, I don't think further legal action against him is right in any sort of way.  Someone hard convicted, maybe that's different.  Even then, make him move, buy him out, etc.  He did serve his sentence and was released, he paid his debt as the courts saw fit.  No reason to put him thousands in debt after that.

Not sticking up for him.  If he's actually guilty he deserves worse punishment than he received.  I am simply standing up for our legal system, in this case, being enough.  Under the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you can't go to extremes in punishing people with no proof, even with a plea agreement.


I think an automatic protection order for the victim after a conviction makes sense and would have prevented him from moving back next door in the first place.
 
2013-03-17 01:52:31 PM
media.digititles.com
 
2013-03-17 01:53:04 PM

omeganuepsilon: ha-ha-guy: antidisestablishmentarianism: ha-ha-guy: Either he has an amazing lawyer or the case wasn't exactly airtight.

Pretty much this.

Looking it up, it was the two of them alone in his basement to see a stuffed bear.  She claims he told her to take her clothing off.  No witnesses or anything.  He eventually got a plea deal and 23 months.  Pretty tough case with no actual contact to leave behind evidence and no witnesses.  Family is likely pissed that 23 months was the best the DA could do and now going all out in civil court.

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-16/news/mc-upper-milford-child-sex -a ssault-20111216_1_indecent-assault-upper-milford-township-man-jail-ter m 


Also:  http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/PA18795/Oliver-Larry-Beck.ht m l

Yeah, it wasn't an open and shut case, it was a plea.  It's possible it's from a man who felt he had no real defense, as proof of a negative is impossible.

BB gun shooting and 4 wheeler rides?  That's something our family does with the grandkids and nieces and nephews and such.

If there were any real proof, you'd think there wouldn't have been a plea bargain, that they'd nail him to the wall.

As such, I don't think further legal action against him is right in any sort of way.  Someone hard convicted, maybe that's different.  Even then, make him move, buy him out, etc.  He did serve his sentence and was released, he paid his debt as the courts saw fit.  No reason to put him thousands in debt after that.

Not sticking up for him.  If he's actually guilty he deserves worse punishment than he received.  I am simply standing up for our legal system, in this case, being enough.  Under the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you can't go to extremes in punishing people with no proof, even with a plea agreement.


He was convicted, so he can own that conviction.  Still, it's interesting that they gave a plea deal.  Normally, DAs aggressively pursue child abuse cases to the bitter end.

I suppose it came down to 'he said/ she said' and I've seen more than a few stories of kids/women lying about abuse to deal with someone that they don't like.
 
2013-03-17 01:53:54 PM
Others have mentioned it, I'll reiterate. If they're a threat they should be in prison. If they're not a threat then there's no need for the list. If we're going to straight up admit the justice system is flawed and there are unfixable cracks in it thus necessitating such a list, then...well, I don't know, start setting up colonies for undesirables? How dystopian do you guys wanna get with this society?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-17 01:57:45 PM

Stone Meadow: vpb: I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.

If only there was some place where they could be interred, for their own protection of course, to live and work and contribute to society.

I nominate Oklahoma.


Sounds good to me.
 
2013-03-17 01:57:47 PM
"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
 
2013-03-17 01:58:56 PM
So much for formatting
 
2013-03-17 02:00:09 PM

ferretman: Yet getting put on a list is not....

/Not everyone on the list has diddled a child


No, they might just have raped some 85 year old woman.

I challenge everyone here to look up you local sex offenders registry and see what the VAST majority of people are on it for. After your dozenth "First Degree sexual assault of a child under 8" or "Aggravated rape of a person over 65" come back here and tell us about all the poor souls on it for pissing in public. Come on, what are you afraid of? It's right at your fingertips. Or, you can just keep repeating ignorant bullshiat. Either/or.
 
2013-03-17 02:01:24 PM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: If we're going to straight up admit the justice system is flawed and there are unfixable cracks in it thus necessitating such a list,


Obviously. Is it even a question anymore?
 
2013-03-17 02:01:50 PM

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.


Statistically speaking, pedophiles have a high margin of repeat offense.

Jon iz teh kewl: MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.

really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.


Actual molestation is quite an order higher than pornographic images.

Are you really as stupid as you appear to be or are you just trolling?

/and the way you come off here, I have to wonder just how much personal stake you have in pedophilia
 
2013-03-17 02:03:00 PM
Easton defense attorney Gary Asteak said the request would be a tough sell to a jury.

He has quite the ego in a courtroom.  He wears nice cowboy hats.  Seriously.  If there are any Farkers from the Lehigh Valley that have anything to do with the legal system, they will know his name as well.  They should have retained his services in his prime, not 25 yrs later.
 
2013-03-17 02:04:32 PM

MBrady: vpb: I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.

How about prison general population?


How about we just wall off New York City and drop them in there?
 
2013-03-17 02:04:32 PM

Infernalist: He was convicted, so he can own that conviction.  Still, it's interesting that they gave a plea deal.  Normally, DAs aggressively pursue child abuse cases to the bitter end.

I suppose it came down to 'he said/ she said' and I've seen more than a few stories of kids/women lying about abuse to deal with someone that they don't like.


I don't view "conviction" the same as I do a "plea bargain".  One is based on proof, and the other may come about for a wide variety of reasons, to include as I stated, a feeling of "no contest".

Add that to the pressure that's placed upon a suspect that he WILL be found guilty(even if he is actually innocent), a plea bargain sounds tempting.  I myself have plead "no contest" (public intox though), took my lumps and moved on.

On top of that, knowledge that false accusation does happen, leads to warranted leniency, imo.

Wise_Guy: I think an automatic protection order for the victim after a conviction makes sense and would have prevented him from moving back next door in the first place.


As I said, making him move isn't necessarily so wrong.  Making him buy their house is some sort of irrational.
 
2013-03-17 02:06:19 PM

Jimmysolson: MBrady: vpb: I don't like sex offenders, but you can't make it illegal for them to exist.  They have to go somewhere.

How about prison general population?

How about we just wall off New York City and drop them in there?


No, New York City has a purpose.

I suggest Detroit instead.
 
2013-03-17 02:08:15 PM

omeganuepsilon: Infernalist: He was convicted, so he can own that conviction.  Still, it's interesting that they gave a plea deal.  Normally, DAs aggressively pursue child abuse cases to the bitter end.

I suppose it came down to 'he said/ she said' and I've seen more than a few stories of kids/women lying about abuse to deal with someone that they don't like.

I don't view "conviction" the same as I do a "plea bargain".  One is based on proof, and the other may come about for a wide variety of reasons, to include as I stated, a feeling of "no contest".

Add that to the pressure that's placed upon a suspect that he WILL be found guilty(even if he is actually innocent), a plea bargain sounds tempting.  I myself have plead "no contest" (public intox though), took my lumps and moved on.

On top of that, knowledge that false accusation does happen, leads to warranted leniency, imo.

Wise_Guy: I think an automatic protection order for the victim after a conviction makes sense and would have prevented him from moving back next door in the first place.

As I said, making him move isn't necessarily so wrong.  Making him buy their house is some sort of irrational.


I'm baffled at the logic and wisdom of moving back into the neighborhood after his release.  Why in the name of God would he want to put himself back into the neighborhood after all that?  Wouldn't he WANT to live somewhere else?  Anywhere else?

The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation.  If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move.  This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.
 
2013-03-17 02:08:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: Wise_Guy: I think an automatic protection order for the victim after a conviction makes sense and would have prevented him from moving back next door in the first place.

As I said, making him move isn't necessarily so wrong.  Making him buy their house is some sort of irrational.


I was agreeing.  I just added the mechanism for the move.
 
2013-03-17 02:09:20 PM

Josbone26: How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?


My thoughts exactly. And it was a pretty bold move by said "Molester".
 
2013-03-17 02:10:10 PM

Moron Police: I agree that making him buy the house probably won't work.  But why can't terms of his probation, etc include a provision prohibiting him from living within a certain distance of the victims, thereby forcing HIM to move?


Make him buy the house, except call it a tax. Obamacare has proven you can make someone buy a product or service as long as it is called a tax.
 
2013-03-17 02:11:03 PM

JohnnyRebel88: Josbone26: How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?

My thoughts exactly. And it was a pretty bold move by said "Molester".


Well, according to the articles, she was 11, no touching was involved, and both sides dispute what actually happened.

No physical evidence was found and the DA offered a plea bargain.
 
2013-03-17 02:11:54 PM

Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.


Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.
 
2013-03-17 02:13:42 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.

really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.


Actually downloading child porn IS a crime idiot.
 
2013-03-17 02:14:27 PM

FarkinHostile: Eddie Ate Dynamite: If we're going to straight up admit the justice system is flawed and there are unfixable cracks in it thus necessitating such a list,

Obviously. Is it even a question anymore?


Well I meant in a sort of official capacity. It's one thing for us to sit on Fark and go "Dude, shiat's totally farked!", but it's another when the people running the system go "Yeah...shiat's pretty farked".

Knowhaimean, scro?
 
2013-03-17 02:14:48 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: 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.

Statistically speaking, pedophiles have a high margin of repeat offense.

Jon iz teh kewl: MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.

really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.

Actual molestation is quite an order higher than pornographic images.

Are you really as stupid as you appear to be or are you just trolling?

/and the way you come off here, I have to wonder just how much personal stake you have in pedophilia


There's a reason I keep him on ignore. He comes across as a retarded ignoramus with Tourette's that just says whatever shiat he decides would stir crap up. And he tries to be meow said the dog, but fails miserably.
 
2013-03-17 02:15:59 PM

iheartscotch: I guess you guys can't read good or something; the sex offender molested the homeowner's daughter. Now they can't sell the house.

/ I say hang 'em


Why would you want to hang the family? I think the sex offender should be hung, but the family's been through enough.
 
2013-03-17 02:17:16 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.


I agree 100%.  But then I've never stared down the barrel of something so horrifying.  I tell myself that I'd have fought, but I don't know for certain how I would react to someone telling me that I could do less than 2 years if I just signed a paper saying I did it.

I'm just saying...Right now, his refusal to leave is not the action of a guilty man.
 
2013-03-17 02:19:46 PM

kiwimoogle84: Agent Smiths Laugh: 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.

Statistically speaking, pedophiles have a high margin of repeat offense.

Jon iz teh kewl: MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.

really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.

Actual molestation is quite an order higher than pornographic images.

Are you really as stupid as you appear to be or are you just trolling?

/and the way you come off here, I have to wonder just how much personal stake you have in pedophilia

There's a reason I keep him on ignore. He comes across as a retarded ignoramus with Tourette's that just says whatever shiat he decides would stir crap up. And he tries to be meow said the dog, but fails miserably.


Yeah, I just cleared my ignore list figuring I could amuse myself with the idiots I had on it, but he's definitely looking like a good candidate for readmission.
 
2013-03-17 02:20:24 PM

Infernalist: JohnnyRebel88: Josbone26: How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?

My thoughts exactly. And it was a pretty bold move by said "Molester".

Well, according to the articles, she was 11, no touching was involved, and both sides dispute what actually happened.

No physical evidence was found and the DA offered a plea bargain.


She was 7 at the time.

FTA: Investigators said that in February 2011, Beck lured the victim, then 7 years old, into his house...
 
2013-03-17 02:22:39 PM

Infernalist: FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.

I agree 100%.  But then I've never stared down the barrel of something so horrifying.  I tell myself that I'd have fought, but I don't know for certain how I would react to someone telling me that I could do less than 2 years if I just signed a paper saying I did it.

I'm just saying...Right now, his refusal to leave is not the action of a guilty man.


Actually, I see it as the other way around. An innocent man would leave and rebuild his life somewhere that he wouldn't be persecuted further. A guilty man already knows he's guilty, and doesn't care. He's out and might even be planning something for this child. Knew of a guy in an old neighborhood of mine who fondled a boy in the park, got convicted, got released, and kidnapped that same boy two years later to finish what he started.

Not saying this is the guy's motivation, but anyone who wants to do bad things to little kids already isn't right in the head. We can't say for sure what his line of thinking is.
 
2013-03-17 02:22:45 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.


Sooo.. like gun owners and drug users?
 
2013-03-17 02:22:55 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.


Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.  Your lawyer is telling you to deal because even though it is he said, she said, the "think of the children" crowd will hang your ass out to dry in court.  Maybe you couldn't post bail or were remanded, so you're depressed and worn down from being in jail and the though of finishing out your life there is terrifying.  So the lawyer shoves a "I do not wish to contend" plea bargain down your throat.  You take it solely to avoid the risk of longer jail time because you absolutely can't do the time.  You spend the next 23 months in jail, hating yourself for caving in and pissed off how you were railroaded.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but you can construct a plausible narrative.
 
2013-03-17 02:24:33 PM

reillan: I don't think it's merely "upset about the sex offender next door"... the dude got in trouble in the first place because he *molested their daughter*.

I totally agree, he should have to pay for their house - that or move away himself.  It's cruel and highly unusual to make the little girl live next to this guy.


this.
 
2013-03-17 02:24:58 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: 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.

Sooo.. like gun owners and drug users?


Oh dear god I know you're trolling. Gun owners on average don't hurt ANYONE. Though, I can imagine little clay pigeon families and paper communities are absolutely heartbroken.
 
2013-03-17 02:25:30 PM

Wise_Guy: Infernalist: JohnnyRebel88: Josbone26: How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?

My thoughts exactly. And it was a pretty bold move by said "Molester".

Well, according to the articles, she was 11, no touching was involved, and both sides dispute what actually happened.

No physical evidence was found and the DA offered a plea bargain.

She was 7 at the time.

FTA: Investigators said that in February 2011, Beck lured the victim, then 7 years old, into his house...


Then someone on one of those articles can't count worth a damn.

kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.

I agree 100%.  But then I've never stared down the barrel of something so horrifying.  I tell myself that I'd have fought, but I don't know for certain how I would react to someone telling me that I could do less than 2 years if I just signed a paper saying I did it.

I'm just saying...Right now, his refusal to leave is not the action of a guilty man.

Actually, I see it as the other way around. An innocent man would leave and rebuild his life somewhere that he wouldn't be persecuted further. A guilty man already knows he's guilty, and doesn't care. He's out and might even be planning something for this child. Knew of a guy in an old neighborhood of mine who fondled a boy in the park, got convicted, got released, and kidnapped that same boy two years later to finish what he started.

Not saying this is the guy's motivation, but anyone who wants to do bad things to little kids already isn't right in the head. We can't say for sure what his line of thinking is.


Maybe so.  I can't say that's how most guilty men act, but each man is different.  There's no way of being certain as to what happened in that basement, and it's all history now.

Looking at the situation now, I have to say that it's a horrible horrible mess and I'm glad to be nowhere near it.
 
2013-03-17 02:27:08 PM
keep this in mind. most likely the house he is in is his mothers house, not his. they can't force his mother to sell her house. and if she wants him to live there then they can't do much about it.

next, in the off chance that some fool judge orders the guy to purchase the house, then who would finance it and does he even have a job? in this country you can sue someone for a million dollars but they never have to pay you if you win unless you put a lien on their property.
 
2013-03-17 02:27:28 PM

Infernalist: Wise_Guy: Infernalist: JohnnyRebel88: Josbone26: How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?

My thoughts exactly. And it was a pretty bold move by said "Molester".

Well, according to the articles, she was 11, no touching was involved, and both sides dispute what actually happened.

No physical evidence was found and the DA offered a plea bargain.

She was 7 at the time.

FTA: Investigators said that in February 2011, Beck lured the victim, then 7 years old, into his house...

Then someone on one of those articles can't count worth a damn.

kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.

I agree 100%.  But then I've never stared down the barrel of something so horrifying.  I tell myself that I'd have fought, but I don't know for certain how I would react to someone telling me that I could do less than 2 years if I just signed a paper saying I did it.

I'm just saying...Right now, his refusal to leave is not the action of a guilty man.

Actually, I see it as the other way around. An innocent man would leave and rebuild his life somewhere that he wouldn't be persecuted further. A guilty man already knows he's guilty, and doesn't care. He's out and might even be planning something for this child. Knew of a guy in an old neighborhood of mine who fondled a boy in the park, got convicted, got released, and kidnapped that same boy two years later to finish what he started.

Not saying this is the guy's motivation, but anyone who wants to do bad things to little kids already isn't right in the head. We can't say for sure what his line of thinking is.

Maybe so.  I can't say that's how most guilty men act, but each man is different.  There's no way of being certain as to what happened in that basement, and it's all history now.

Looking at the situation now, I have to say that it's a horrible horrible mess and I'm glad to be nowhere near it.


Yeah, it's all speculative, but I hope this family finds comfort somewhere and everyone can get on with their lives.
 
2013-03-17 02:27:29 PM

Agent Smiths Laugh: 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.

Statistically speaking, pedophiles have a high margin of repeat offense.

Jon iz teh kewl: MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.

really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.

Actual molestation is quite an order higher than pornographic images.

Are you really as stupid as you appear to be or are you just trolling?

/and the way you come off here, I have to wonder just how much personal stake you have in pedophilia


i really love it.  just to be honest
 
2013-03-17 02:28:37 PM

gravebayne2: keep this in mind. most likely the house he is in is his mothers house, not his. they can't force his mother to sell her house. and if she wants him to live there then they can't do much about it.

next, in the off chance that some fool judge orders the guy to purchase the house, then who would finance it and does he even have a job? in this country you can sue someone for a million dollars but they never have to pay you if you win unless you put a lien on their property.


Actually though, if it is his mother's house it makes a restraining order easier to get since you're not banning the guy from using his own property, you're just banning him from staying with one family member.  It is his primary residence of course, but he doesn't own it, so you aren't denying him access to his property.
 
2013-03-17 02:33:20 PM

ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.


Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.
 
2013-03-17 02:40:01 PM

FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.


My grandfather was the sort to do things like that, and he wasn't a freak of any sort.  It wasn't uncommon for him to take 3-4 of the neighborhood kids with him when he went fishing on the creek.  The only problem we had was when he got drunk, he liked to push the little buggers into the water to watch them squawk at the cold water and laugh his ass off.  Only one kid ever got upset by that.

We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.
 
2013-03-17 02:40:02 PM

Nickninja: I would think it would be easy to get a restraining order from the person who molested your daughter.  Couldn't a judge issue an order that would make him living in his home illegal, therefore forcing him to move? The family didn't do anything wrong, so they should not be forced to move.  And they certainly shouldn't have to live next to him.


I was thinking that would be the really easy answer to this.
 
2013-03-17 02:40:54 PM

Infernalist: I'm baffled at the logic and wisdom of moving back into the neighborhood after his release.  Why in the name of God would he want to put himself back into the neighborhood after all that?  Wouldn't he WANT to live somewhere else?  Anywhere else?

The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation.  If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move.  This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.


Not only that, in our economy it may not be feasible/reasonable to move if he own's his house.  Employment could also be a huge factor, especially with his newly obtained record.

FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.


Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.
 
2013-03-17 02:41:38 PM

Infernalist: JohnnyRebel88: Josbone26: How in the hell did he only get 23 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old?  And then he's allowed to move right back in to the house next door to the victim?  WTF?

My thoughts exactly. And it was a pretty bold move by said "Molester".

Well, according to the articles, she was 11, no touching was involved, and both sides dispute what actually happened.

No physical evidence was found and the DA offered a plea bargain.


Due to the lack of jail time, I thought he was just taking a leak and she saw it.  What matters is his intent and unfortunately we will never know what that is unless he confesses.  I believe children need to be protected and went to school for this, and hate to saying this, but I believe Megan's Law is a little loose.  For example, a 19 yr old that has sex with a 16 yr old.  I am guessing that in some states that is frowned upon and will end up on the list.
 
2013-03-17 02:42:10 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Agent Smiths Laugh: 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.

Statistically speaking, pedophiles have a high margin of repeat offense.

Jon iz teh kewl: MBrady: 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.

They don't? If given the the chance, they absolutely would.

really?  just cause i downloaded child pornography once and deleted it doesn't make me a criminal OR pedophile.  those are just words.  designed to scare.

Actual molestation is quite an order higher than pornographic images.

Are you really as stupid as you appear to be or are you just trolling?

/and the way you come off here, I have to wonder just how much personal stake you have in pedophilia

i really love it.  just to be honest


You just outed yourself as a troll.
 
2013-03-17 02:42:13 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: 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.

Sooo.. like gun owners and drug users?


So you equate gun owners to drug users? Thank you, now I can just assume everything you say is incredibly stupid, incipid, and wrong. You have proven in 6 words how ignorant and farked up you truly are, at least you are efficient.
 
2013-03-17 02:42:22 PM

FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.


Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.
 
2013-03-17 02:43:01 PM

kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.


This is no way to run a society.
 
2013-03-17 02:43:42 PM

ha-ha-guy: Actually though, if it is his mother's house it makes a restraining order easier to get since you're not banning the guy from using his own property, you're just banning him from staying with one family member. It is his primary residence of course, but he doesn't own it, so you aren't denying him access to his property.


that's a pretty good way to keep him out of the neighborhood and i never thought about that. depends on state laws i suppose though.
 
2013-03-17 02:44:19 PM

kiwimoogle84: Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.


RTFA:

Investigators said that in February 2011, Beck lured the victim, then 7 years old, into his house by saying he wanted to show her a bear's head mounted in his basement.
 
2013-03-17 02:44:41 PM

Infernalist: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

My grandfather was the sort to do things like that, and he wasn't a freak of any sort.  It wasn't uncommon for him to take 3-4 of the neighborhood kids with him when he went fishing on the creek.  The only problem we had was when he got drunk, he liked to push the little buggers into the water to watch them squawk at the cold water and laugh his ass off.  Only one kid ever got upset by that.

We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.


Ok, 3-4 kids at once out to a public place? Not so creepy. A single child TO YOUR BASEMENT? Surely you can't overlook what that screams to the public.
 
2013-03-17 02:47:54 PM

ha-ha-guy: kiwimoogle84: Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

RTFA:

Investigators said that in February 2011, Beck lured the victim, then 7 years old, into his house by saying he wanted to show her a bear's head mounted in his basement.


Pardon me, I saw the word bear and skimmed ahead. I assumed it would be something that might actually appeal to a child. That's even creepier. "Come see my taxidermied dead grizzly!" That's just weird.


And Infernalist- are you agreeing or disagreeing? I agree it's a farked up way to be, but for every one guy who actually gets a bonor for kids, there's two more who really didn't do anything wrong and the moms are quick to call the police.
 
2013-03-17 02:48:45 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.


It is a sad truth. I will not get within 10 feet of a strangers kid unless his/her life is in danger. Not worth the risk with how paranoid our society is. It has become a society where everyone means you harm. There was a story on here just yesterday about a mother that called the police on a grounds keeper at her kid's school because she didn't recognize him. They guy did nothing wrong and had to go through this crap because of some paranoid soccer mom. No thanks, I want no part of that.
 
2013-03-17 02:50:24 PM

kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

My grandfather was the sort to do things like that, and he wasn't a freak of any sort.  It wasn't uncommon for him to take 3-4 of the neighborhood kids with him when he went fishing on the creek.  The only problem we had was when he got drunk, he liked to push the little buggers into the water to watch them squawk at the cold water and laugh his ass off.  Only one kid ever got upset by that.

We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.

Ok, 3-4 kids at once out to a public place? Not so creepy. A single child TO YOUR BASEMENT? Surely you can't overlook what that screams to the public.


Is there something inherently evil about basements?

My god, stop being so scared and simply teach your kids not to be stupid.  Not all old men are perverts and not all situations are dangerous.

Or not.  Honestly, I'm just glad that my kids are grown and I don't have any kids in my neighborhood.  You people are farking insane when it comes to kids, thinking that anyone/everyone is a threat.

Protip: Most molestations are committed by family members on family members.  Not strangers.
 
2013-03-17 02:52:52 PM

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

what did he do? urinate in public?

Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.

Forcing others to buy things is something that I think is stupid. If you were doing a business deal and one party agreed to buy then pull out, then you have contract law to take care of situations like that.

I hate child sex offenders like other people do. THere are times that I wish that punishment would include gelding. But, you have to keep a cool head when dealing with justice.


As a homeowner and landlord I don't think this is extreme.  I think it's a natural progression of events that began when the person decided to commit a crime and molest a child.  Just because the court portion of the event is over does not mean that the event is done evolving.
I have worked very hard at repairing and remodeling this building.  I deserve every cent that I can get out of it should I decide to sell.  If you impinge on my ability to consummate a sale there's going to be trouble and it's going to be legal and I will do my best to have the full force of law on my side.
I chose this building very carefully.  I made certain there were no sex offenders in the neighborhood.  When I rent the apartment I make sure there is no ambiguity regarding the school less than 1000 feet away and that to attempt to rent from me as a convicted sex offender is against the law.
This is not a trifling subject for me.  I have worked too damn hard for too damn long to have some mental defective screw this up.
It's nearly all I have left and I'm not going to give up and roll over just for an idiot like that.
So no, not extreme at all.  I do agree that it's a tough place to be in but, my sympathy does not reach that far.
 
2013-03-17 02:53:45 PM

Infernalist: We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.


Yeah, for many this is true, but considering how common sexual assault of children is, it is most reasonable to require that people, oh, not try to get 7 year old children into our basements, alone and without their parents knowledge. If one of my friends dis such a thing, I'd slap them in the head for being so goddamned stupid, and if they got in trouble I'd have no sympathy. It's akin to hanging out with a serious drug dealer, and when they get raided you get charged for being there. You are stupid if you do it, and deserve no sympathy.

omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.


He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.
 
2013-03-17 02:54:15 PM

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

what did he do? urinate in public?

Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.


It's extreme because the pervert is still alive.  He molested a child and got a couple of years for it.  He should have been put to death for what he did.  Child molesters don't care about their victims.  All they're concerned about is a few minutes of pleasure.  It's common knowledge that child molesters can't be cured.  They don't want to stop what they're doing.  The only way to ensure they can't cause any more trouble is to put them to death.
 
2013-03-17 02:54:42 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.


No, I'm with kiwimoogle84 on this one. If I see a kid or teenager in need of help or stranded by themselves or what-have-you, too bad, so sad, but I ain't helping. I don't even want to be near a potential situation where I might possibly have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
 
2013-03-17 02:54:49 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

My grandfather was the sort to do things like that, and he wasn't a freak of any sort.  It wasn't uncommon for him to take 3-4 of the neighborhood kids with him when he went fishing on the creek.  The only problem we had was when he got drunk, he liked to push the little buggers into the water to watch them squawk at the cold water and laugh his ass off.  Only one kid ever got upset by that.

We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.

Ok, 3-4 kids at once out to a public place? Not so creepy. A single child TO YOUR BASEMENT? Surely you can't overlook what that screams to the public.

Is there something inherently evil about basements?

My god, stop being so scared and simply teach your kids not to be stupid.  Not all old men are perverts and not all situations are dangerous.

Or not.  Honestly, I'm just glad that my kids are grown and I don't have any kids in my neighborhood.  You people are farking insane when it comes to kids, thinking that anyone/everyone is a threat.

Protip: Most molestations are committed by family members on family members.  Not strangers.


*has no children.

Is there something inherently dangerous about CANDY? No, but we still repeat the old adage don't take candy from strangers, don't we?

Regardless, I even as an adult don't like basements, and I just don't think neighbor men should take a kid alone somewhere unless he's trusted.

You are right about the family member point though.
 
2013-03-17 02:56:33 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.

Yeah, for many this is true, but considering how common sexual assault of children is, it is most reasonable to require that people, oh, not try to get 7 year old children into our basements, alone and without their parents knowledge. If one of my friends dis such a thing, I'd slap them in the head for being so goddamned stupid, and if they got in trouble I'd have no sympathy. It's akin to hanging out with a serious drug dealer, and when they get raided you get charged for being there. You are stupid if you do it, and deserve no sympathy.

omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.


Offering to show a child a bear's head in a basement is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as a crime.

Hanging out with a drug dealer is not a crime and should not be treated as a crime.

Neither of them are 'smart' ideas, but they're not criminal, either.  And that 'common' assault on children is mostly being perpetrated by family members, not strangers.

But, that's not quite as scary as the concept of the ooga-booga stranger at the door.
 
2013-03-17 02:57:03 PM

Glancing Blow: There is a growing movement to force registered sex offenders from neighborhoods; build a small park.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id= 90 29894
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-se x- offenders-away.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22756779/communities-use-po ck et-parks-force-out-sex-offenders?source=rss


I like it.  The city ought to take his house to build one.
 
2013-03-17 02:57:54 PM

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

what did he do? urinate in public?

Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.

It's extreme because the pervert is still alive.  He molested a child and got a couple of years for it.  He should have been put to death for what he did.  Child molesters don't care about their victims.  All they're concerned about is a few minutes of pleasure.  It's common knowledge that child molesters can't be cured.  They don't want to stop what they're doing.  The only way to ensure they can't cause any more trouble is to put them to death.


Please read the articles.  No touching was involved, it degenerated down to a 'he said/she said' case with no physical evidence of anything happening and the DA offered a plea bargain.
 
2013-03-17 02:58:27 PM

reillan: I don't think it's merely "upset about the sex offender next door"... the dude got in trouble in the first place because he *molested their daughter*.

I totally agree, he should have to pay for their house - that or move away himself.  It's cruel and highly unusual to make the little girl live next to this guy.


You're right.  However the government's only concern these days is the rights of the criminal.  To hell with the  victim.
 
2013-03-17 02:58:49 PM

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.
 
2013-03-17 03:01:43 PM
Infernalist:


Offering to show a child a bear's head in a basement is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as a crime.

Hanging out with a drug dealer is not a crime and should not be treated as a crime.



Perhaps not, but when you get arrested and charged with child molestation/drug possession, don't look to me for sympathy. It's literally criminally stupid at this point.

Neither of them are 'smart' ideas, but they're not criminal, either.  And that 'common' assault on children is mostly being perpetrated by family members...

...And people known to the child, like, oh, a next door neighbor? He was no stranger. That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

 
2013-03-17 03:07:58 PM

FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.


Wow, you'd have more doubt if he was convicted via hard evidence but plead not guilty?

That's rational...

I've got a video tape of you farking a chicken.  That's "talk".  That goes a bit more past he said/she said.  It's now "reasonable to believe" you did indeed fark a chicken.

Also, a plea of guilt is not the same as actual guilt.  I covered this in other posts. It can be, and often is, a sort of coercion of a confession.  It was meant to be a shortcut so that court not be held needlessly, but is now more commonly a process of legal threats and badgering.

GTFO chicken farker!
 
2013-03-17 03:09:07 PM
FarkinHostile:

...And people known to the child, like, oh, a next door neighbor? He was no stranger. That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

This is why the entire country is retarded.  Do you know why sex offenders just so happen to be relatives or someone that they know?

HERE IS THE ANSWER:

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE VICTIM.

fin
 
2013-03-17 03:11:49 PM

FarkinHostile: That actually adds weight to his being guilty.


It's irrational belief like this that has corrupted our justice system and why juries are so open to manipulation, because the unwashed masses are actually this stupid.
 
2013-03-17 03:14:03 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: "X people moving into the neighborhood drives down property values", we've heard that one before.Trolling
Although, seriously, how much money does an ex-con have that this isn't blood from a stone?


Same amount as most home buyers... but not to worry!  The government will back a loan for him.
 
2013-03-17 03:19:13 PM
RacySmurff:

 I think the sex offender should be hung, but the family's been through enough.

Who cares if he's hung or not? He should be castrated, then drawn and quartered.
 
2013-03-17 03:20:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.

Wow, you'd have more doubt if he was convicted via hard evidence but plead not guilty?

That's rational...

I've got a video tape of you farking a chicken.  That's "talk".  That goes a bit more past he said/she said.  It's now "reasonable to believe" you did indeed fark a chicken.

Also, a plea of guilt is not the same as actual guilt.  I covered this in other posts. It can be, and often is, a sort of coercion of a confession.  It was meant to be a shortcut so that court not be held needlessly, but is now more commonly a process of legal threats and badgering.

GTFO chicken farker!



Meow, I'd at least had a chance to see the evidence for his innocence. Taking a plea is saying "You have enough evidence to convict me, but I don't want to admit I did it or it looks so bad I can't win." In a case where I was accused of being a farking child molester, you better believe I'd plead not guilty. As little faith as I have in the Justice System meow, I'd still take a chance of telling my side and being found not guilty over a conviction unless I was, you know, guilty or close enough that I had to take a plea. Like if they had a videotape. That is not something you take a plea on. Not meow, not ever.
 
2013-03-17 03:24:30 PM
I don't like sex offenders but being unable to sell your house is your problem. Lower your price if no body is buying. Thats how the market works

There is no constitutional right to a specific property value. The whole concept of property values is bullshiat a made up excuse to discriminate against undesirables. (usually tend to be a different skin color but don't call them racists)
 
2013-03-17 03:26:38 PM
MBrady:

Actually downloading child porn IS a crime idiot.

Be careful not to cast your net too wide. I remember the bad old days before pop-up blocking was built into mainstream browsers and it was not uncommon to run without a plug in. Even Fark would occasionally get bait-and-switched by a shady advertiser and suddenly you would be looking at a NSFW image.

Point is, there are lots of ways to passively get an illegal image transferred to your IP address and into your mail or browser cache with no intent on your part. The case could be made by a prosecutor, and has, that this constitutes downloading and is a federal crime.

Before broadband and 4chan, usenet was how people passed around media. Files were posted as MIME-text, often split into multiple messages. You had to download, reassemble and decode files before knowing if the content matched the description. Due to relatively slow speeds and the cumbersome process, it was common to run a batch program to fill your bandwidth by continuously download a given forum in the background. The proto-chaners would troll the boards with the most offensive and illegal images they could get their hands on, the more innocent the topic the better. After a few days you might have a few hundred photography-enthusiast images and unknowingly be a child pornographer to boot.
 
2013-03-17 03:28:53 PM

omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

It's irrational belief like this that has corrupted our justice system and why juries are so open to manipulation, because the unwashed masses are actually this stupid.



To believe that 65 year old men shouldn't try to get 7 year old girls alone in their basement, and if they do they are likely up to no good?  Do you know it's not 1950 anymore and putting yourself in that situation is asking for it? THAT'S stupid, criminally so, just as hanging out in a house where you know there are 3 kilos of coke.

Pffft. That is the very least of what has corrupted our justice system. You're not a stupid guy, and you know it, too.
 
2013-03-17 03:30:24 PM

JohnnyRebel88: Easton defense attorney Gary Asteak said the request would be a tough sell to a jury.

He has quite the ego in a courtroom.  He wears nice cowboy hats.  Seriously.  If there are any Farkers from the Lehigh Valley that have anything to do with the legal system, they will know his name as well.  They should have retained his services in his prime, not 25 yrs later.


Does he still send out Christmas cards with his picture on them to everyone in the bar association?
 
2013-03-17 03:38:26 PM
Now you're just being obtuse.

FarkinHostile: Taking a plea is saying "You have enough evidence to convict me, but I don't want to admit I did it or it looks so bad I can't win."


Not necessarily.  As I outlined above, you can believe you'll get convicted, despite personal knowledge that you're innocent. If you had little faith in the justice system, as you claim, you'd recognize that as a possibility.

Instead, you choose to believe in guilt despite lacking any real facts.

That's why you're either a legit dipshiat, or a troll.  Despite your attempts to be cute with the Super Troopers reference, Poe's Law stands. that's the curiousity with poe's law.  Even zealots can back off and attempt to make nice or save face, so now, even an actual admission cannot be trusted.  At this point I'd need further review of your behavior elsewhere, though backing from others may suffice, for example.

Makes me wonder though, about user names.  FarkinHostile is relatively akin to letrole...That may bend poe's law, but doesn't break it I suppose. Some people just happen to pick a username that can be taken wrong.  Also, as is common, many trolls are also zealots.  They will instigate and make fallicious arguments knowingly, desperate to get you on their side even if they have to lie to do it.  You know, like politicians.

That is relevant, the difference between belief and being convinced, and the direct interplay of the two, how it's difficult, if not impossible(more common), to convince a character that their belief is wrong.
 
2013-03-17 03:42:10 PM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: Others have mentioned it, I'll reiterate. If they're a threat they should be in prison. If they're not a threat then there's no need for the list. If we're going to straight up admit the justice system is flawed and there are unfixable cracks in it thus necessitating such a list, then...well, I don't know, start setting up colonies for undesirables? How dystopian do you guys wanna get with this society?


The "amusing" part is the rate of recidivism, it's opposite what most people seem to think.
 
2013-03-17 03:42:44 PM

FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

It's irrational belief like this that has corrupted our justice system and why juries are so open to manipulation, because the unwashed masses are actually this stupid.


To believe that 65 year old men shouldn't try to get 7 year old girls alone in their basement, and if they do they are likely up to no good?  Do you know it's not 1950 anymore and putting yourself in that situation is asking for it? THAT'S stupid, criminally so, just as hanging out in a house where you know there are 3 kilos of coke.

Pffft. That is the very least of what has corrupted our justice system. You're not a stupid guy, and you know it, too.


To believe that simply being known to the victim adds weight to "guilt".  As per your actual quote.

FarkinHostile: He was no stranger. That actually adds weight to his being guilty.


Yeah, I'm leaning on intentional troll now, zealot still being  a possibility.

Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.
 
2013-03-17 03:52:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: Now you're just being obtuse.


No, you are, friend. You know how farking stupid it is to put yourself in that situation in this day and age.


Not necessarily.  As I outlined above, you can believe you'll get convicted, despite personal knowledge that you're innocent. If you had little faith in the justice system, as you claim, you'd recognize that as a possibility.

Sure, when the state has enough evidence that you look guilty, you might take a plea. I might, if it were the drug house situation, but child molestation? No, I'll have my day in court, on the stand, and let the chips lie where they will. Of course, since I don't lure....I mean invite, 7 year old girls into my basement to "look at bear heads", I'm pretty sure I won't have to worry about it.

 That's why you're either a legit dipshiat, or a troll.


Wow. Name calling? I actually expected better of you. You usually don't don't suck like this. Humph. Guess I'll have to change your farky.


Despite your attempts to be cute with the Super Troopers reference, Poe's Law stands.

(Laughing) Uh, didn't you call me a chickenfarker? I thought we were playing, having a little fun during this, but I see I must have hit a nerve. Probably because you got nothing.

 Makes me wonder though, about user names.

I have a little blurb about that in my profile.


FarkinHostile is relatively akin to letrole.

Uh, no. Not even close. I may not suffer fools gladly, but I say what I mean. Bluntly.


That is relevant, the difference between belief and being convinced, and the direct interplay of the two, how it's difficult, if not impossible(more common), to convince a character that their belief is wrong.

Physician, heal thyself.
 
2013-03-17 03:53:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.


That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>
 
2013-03-17 03:54:22 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>


I abandoned the thread once the obvious trolls came out.  It's SOP.
 
2013-03-17 03:54:49 PM

omeganuepsilon: Yeah, I'm leaning on intentional troll now, zealot still being a possibility.

Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.


So someone having a different opinion is beyond your ability to comprehend? I have been giving you WAY too much credit.

Shame.
 
2013-03-17 03:55:19 PM

kiwimoogle84: With him living next door, it's impossible to sell their house. I get that. I'm not sure if forcing him to buy it is the right answer- moving him might be easier- but I can understand it.


"Two economics professors at Columbia Business School in 2008 studied the effect, finding that the value of homes within one-tenth of a mile * of a sex offender dropped by an average of 4 percent.  Jonah Rockoff, one of the study's authors, said the decrease was about 12 percent for properties next door to sex offenders. He said subsequent studies have shown similar results."

Evidently, it's not impossible to sell a house next door to a sex offender, if you'll just be realistic about  the price.  Then sue the sex offender for your net loss.   It's called "mitigating damages" and aggrieved parties have an obligation to do it.

* Kind of surprising how localized the fear factor is.
 
2013-03-17 04:02:14 PM

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.


Well, apparently Meghan's Law has helped to keep homes affordable.  I'm sure young families just starting out appreciate that.  Even childless homeowners might benefit in the form of lower property taxes.

Yin Yang, baby.
 
2013-03-17 04:05:44 PM

Infernalist: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>

I abandoned the thread once the obvious trolls came out.  It's SOP.


I don't think he is a troll, and I certainly am not, I just think he's got a stupid opinion of how this type of thing should go. He apparently thinks that 65 year old men should be able to freely and without consequence lure 7 year old girls alone to their basements. Nevermind what we all know about putting yourself in such situations, nevermind the other numerous accusations, nevermind the plea he took, nevermind the conviction, all of it means nothing. He could still be totally innocent, and that is the only thing that matters.
img.photobucket.com


"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "
 
2013-03-17 04:06:34 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>

I abandoned the thread once the obvious trolls came out.  It's SOP.

I don't think he is a troll, and I certainly am not, I just think he's got a stupid opinion of how this type of thing should go. He apparently thinks that 65 year old men should be able to freely and without consequence lure 7 year old girls alone to their basements. Nevermind what we all know about putting yourself in such situations, nevermind the other numerous accusations, nevermind the plea he took, nevermind the conviction, all of it means nothing. He could still be totally innocent, and that is the only thing that matters.
[img.photobucket.com image 600x324]


"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "


You're adorable.  Retarded, but adorable.
 
2013-03-17 04:08:25 PM
Infernalist:

You're adorable.  Retarded, but adorable.

That's why chicks dig me. I got the Corky vibe going.
 
2013-03-17 04:14:28 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>


If that's the case.
Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

The warming is undeniable, just looking at our polar regions.  If you want, there is an AGW thread up and running if you wish to discuss it further.  Or just continue to threadshiat and use an appeal to spite trick to make me look bad here, instead of you know, discussing the actual topic.
 
2013-03-17 04:14:34 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.


I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.
 
2013-03-17 04:16:21 PM

big pig peaches: Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.

I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.


How farked up is that?  Worst still, we accept it.
 
2013-03-17 04:17:03 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.


Guy is 65, has a mother as well as a wife.  They may have stayed in the house and have a lot to do with his unwillingness to move.
 
2013-03-17 04:29:02 PM

omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.


If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.
 
2013-03-17 04:30:04 PM

omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.

Wow, you'd have more doubt if he was convicted via hard evidence but plead not guilty?

That's rational...


Such nonsense is spouted only by people who have never faced anything more serious than a parking ticket.
 
2013-03-17 04:31:36 PM

Infernalist: big pig peaches: Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.

I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.

How farked up is that?  Worst still, we accept it.


You do what worls for you, we'll do what works for us. It's not like we are running around branding people as molesters just BECAUSE of their behavior, but erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing.
 
2013-03-17 04:32:40 PM

kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: big pig peaches: Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.

I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.

How farked up is that?  Worst still, we accept it.

You do what worls for you, we'll do what works for us. It's not like we are running around branding people as molesters just BECAUSE of their behavior, but erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing.


Yes, it is.
 
2013-03-17 04:33:10 PM
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.
 
2013-03-17 04:33:38 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.


How clever!  Absolutely scathing!
*feigns applause*
 
2013-03-17 04:35:25 PM
Wanna find out if there are any sex offenders in your neighborhood?  Go here.
 
2013-03-17 04:36:05 PM

omeganuepsilon: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.

How clever!  Absolutely scathing!
*feigns applause*


We both know what you are: a pseudo-sophist, someone who argues with everyone while simultaneously defending no position. It's not original, it's not impressive, and nobody cares except you.
 
2013-03-17 04:39:44 PM
All they have to do is open up a child care center in their home and he's forced to move. Problem solved.
 
2013-03-17 04:39:56 PM
Lets do this........ Classify the offenders..

Piss in Public? Who cares Level 1 - free to live everywhere.
Watch kittie porn? Level 2 - computer and such watched, no living restriction.
20 yr old Kid who bangs 16 yr old? level 2 other words - who cares

molester? Level 5 - Fark em - kids are going to grow up messed in the head
Rapist? Level 5 - fark em too, people who get raped change - their entire outlook on life change

Big difference between a "I gotta take a leak" and "hide yo kids hide yo wives".
 
2013-03-17 04:43:44 PM

Infernalist: Yes, it is.


This.

In this general discussion.

We have parent's that live in perpetual fear, and that begets fear in random strangers of being seen with their kids, or any kids.  Now, often, kids wandering an and do get hurt or injured, because we're caused to live in fear.  Assuredly lives have been ruined by false accusations, even without conviction.

Similar to the CPR argument.  People, and even businesses are now making it policy to not provide CPR out of fear of liability. Then people die when they didn't have to.  Lawsuits are held, etc, and strife is added to the lives of everyone involved.

A bit ridiculous, the things that living in fear of that magnitude can perpetuate.  That's why we have the term Nanny State, and it carries such derision.
 
2013-03-17 04:49:21 PM
Nothing a gallon of gas and a Bic wouldn't solve, huh?
 
2013-03-17 04:49:55 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.

How clever!  Absolutely scathing!
*feigns applause*

We both know what you are: a pseudo-sophist, someone who argues with everyone while simultaneously defending no position. It's not original, it's not impressive, and nobody cares except you.


Well, atleast it's creative, the pseudo sophist bit, even if not true.  You clearly care enough to comment on it.

Defending no position though?  I thought I was prettly plainly talking about how our justice system has problems, though it was created under a great principle, "innocent until proven guilty".
I also stated how attempting to make someone buy your house was a bit irrational.

It'd help if you actually read the threads, no wonder you have me marked with something that's simply not true.
 
2013-03-17 04:57:03 PM
"This is taking our litigious society to the most absurd extremes," he said. "Certainly, I think a jury in our community would treat [the suit] with skepticism."

Not in this sort of case. With this guy, the jury may ask the judge to order the Pedofork to buy not just the house next door but to buy out the whole damn block if the other owners want to sell too.
 
2013-03-17 04:58:10 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what did he do? urinate in public?


RTFA. He raped their kid.
 
2013-03-17 04:59:24 PM

Glancing Blow: There is a growing movement to force registered sex offenders from neighborhoods; build a small park.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id= 90 29894
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-se x- offenders-away.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22756779/communities-use-po ck et-parks-force-out-sex-offenders?source=rss


Came to mention this. Though the result is often homeless sex offenders. Kinda hard to track them when they don't have anywhere to live.
 
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 181 of 181 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report