Prosecutor Arrested In Sex Sting Involving 5 yr old Girl

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
That was why I put them in that order.

O, I c.
I read it again.

Quote:
Other victims, you were a victim, you just haven't realized it yet, might have reversed the two.

Well, Joe, I am kind of old now.
A lot of years & decades have gone by since those days.
I better hurry up and get some symptoms,
if I 'm not going to blow the whole deal of understanding that.

Any advice, Joe ?

Quote:

Joe(Just because they were women doesn't mean they weren't pedophiles.)Nation

Right.
Pedophile means " child lover ";
if my dog ( named King ) loved me when I adopted him
when I was about 9, I guess he was a pedophile; ( and a homosexual, to boot ).

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Revenge? To my mind; writing off opinions like my own to revenge is a big lazy Strawman that makes it easier for the self-righteous apologists to demonize a perfectly rational reaction to heinous behavior.

So you in turn apply the labels self-righteous and apologists, ignoring that nobody is being an apologist for the pedophiles and that this is just your ugly slur.

Quote:

Weep all you wish for the self-dispatched sorry excuse for a human. I will not. Rather I'll give him the props he deserves for doing the most decent thing he could have done as his final act. Revenge has NOTHING to do with it.

I don't weep for the pedophile, and don't think anyone else here fits this your own straw man either.

In my case what makes me sad is the mob-mentality demonstrated by decent folk here. It makes me sad to see awful societal harm advocated in the name of a cause I care about more than those espousing such vitriolic knee-jerk reactions that border on a lynching mentality.

0 Replies

David wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
Joe(Just because they were women doesn't mean they weren't pedophiles.)Nation

Right.
Pedophile means " child lover ";
if my dog ( named King ) loved me when I adopted him
when I was about 9, I guess he was a pedophile; ( and a homosexual, to boot ).

That's a joke, right? Right? No?

Hmmm. You seem to forgotten the definition YOU provided from M-W just a few posts ago.
So, now pedophilia is a perversion while pedophiles are just really good huggers or maybe loyal canines??? Wha?? If your dog was both a pedophile and a homosexual, please refrain from sharing any of your personal experiences with King here.

Joe(it just doesn't pass the ick test.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

David wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
Joe(Just because they were women doesn't mean they weren't pedophiles.)Nation

Right.
Pedophile means " child lover ";
if my dog ( named King ) loved me when I adopted him
when I was about 9, I guess he was a pedophile; ( and a homosexual, to boot ).

Quote:
That's a joke, right? Right? No?

Do u DOUBT that it was a joke, Joe ?
( Actually, it was 2 jokes. )
He was not a pedophile.
He was no homo.
Please do not impugn his memory.

Quote:
Hmmm. You seem to forgotten the definition YOU provided from M-W just a few posts ago.
So, now pedophilia is a perversion while pedophiles are just really good huggers or maybe loyal canines??? Wha?? If your dog was both a pedophile and a homosexual, please refrain from sharing any of your personal experiences with King here.

Joe(it just doesn't pass the ick test.)Nation

He was not icky.
He was wholesome n virtuous.
David

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

That was why I put them in that order.

Other victims, you were a victim, you just haven't realized it yet, might have reversed the two.

Joe(Just because they were women doesn't mean they weren't pedophiles.)Nation

Joe, allow me to put aside, for the moment,
all efforts to be convivially entertaining,
and to put aside all humor.

I discern that u posted in sincerity
your belief that I was a victim of the 17 and 23 year old girls
with whom I joined sexually, at their instance, when I was 11.

May we know
upon what evidence u reached that conclusion ?

Will u share the reasoning that moved u to confidence
in that belief ?
I am genuinely interested to know that.

David

`

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In too great a percentage of cases, no matter how benevolent the intentions of the powers that be, the release of child molesters results in recidivism. While some may believe that every life has value (I don't), I cannot for the life of me understand a belief that places a greater or even equal value on the life of the victimizer than that of the innocent victim. This simply doesn't make sense.

You complain about others making straw man arguments, but what is this if not another straw man? Who here has claimed that a child abuser's life is of greater or equal value as that of his victim's?

0 Replies

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You more enlightened folks can look down your noses at me all you wish, but I'll continue to view the self-removal of pedophiles as the single most decent thing they can do for the team. His last act was in all likelihood the most noble thing he's ever done.

I don't wish to look down my nose at you. Indeed, I find it sad that you leave me no choice but to do so.

0 Replies

by the time you folks finish aruging this issue the victim will have attained legal status and be f*cking on it's own. Laughing

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

by the time you folks finish aruging this issue the victim will have attained legal status and be f*cking on it's own.

And this would be relevant how?

(Looking dwn my nose at BPB)

http://img.dogphoria.com/web_2007_03_2ddc3ebe-583a-43d7-86fc-d5ccabc28e30.jpg

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Who here has claimed that a child abuser's life is of greater or equal value as that of his victim's?

I value each life equally, and may well have said so. Therefore, although I don't value the abuser's life more highly than the victim's, I satisfy your and O'Bill's "greater or equal".

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
by the time you folks finish aruging this issue the victim will have attained legal status and be f*cking on it's own.

And this would be relevant how?

(Looking dwn my nose at BPB)

mind your business jessica....

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Who here has claimed that a child abuser's life is of greater or equal value as that of his victim's?

I value each life equally, and may well have said so. Therefore, although I don't value the abuser's life more highly than the victim's, I satisfy your and O'Bill's "greater or equal".

I understand that position, but I believe O'BILL was indulging in the traditional rhetoric of the "law-and-order" crowd that a person's "value" is dependent on whether that person is good or bad. From that perspective, an abuser's life always has less value than a victim's because the abuser is a worse person than the victim. Saying, then, that an abuser's life is of equal value to a victim's life is to say that the abuser is just as morally good as the victim. Of course, if this is not an accurate summary of O'BILL's position, he is free to correct me.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Who here has claimed that a child abuser's life is of greater or equal value as that of his victim's?

I value each life equally,
and may well have said so.
Therefore, although I don't value the abuser's life more highly
than the victim's, I satisfy your and O'Bill's "greater or equal".

I differ, in my opinion, Thomas.

I believe that a victim 's life is more worthy than the predator;
( as a general rule: if an assassin were stalking Stalin or Hitler, or Karl Marx,
then the potential victim 's life wud be worth less than
that of the predator, in my vu ).

David

P.S.:
1 ) Will u tell us Y u value each life equally ?

2 ) If a violent predator & his victim were each in distress,
appealling to u for rescue from mortal danger,
and u cud only save the life of one of them,
wud u flip a coin to choose which ?

Will u share you vu on this ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

1 ) Will u tell us Y u value each life equally ?

I don't think that would be useful. The way you view the value of a life, and compare the value of lives, is one of those fundamental, axiomatic things that one can't really argue about.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

2 ) If a violent predator & his victim were each in distress,
appealling to u for rescue from mortal danger,
and u cud only save the life of one of them,
wud u flip a coin to choose which ?

I would probably save the victim. In your scenario, I am presented with two morally equal choices, so I must use something as a tiebreaker for my decision. Why not the predator/victim status?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
1 ) Will u tell us Y u value each life equally ?

I don't think that would be useful.
The way you view the value of a life, and compare the value of lives,
is one of those fundamental, axiomatic things that one can't really argue about.

Thank u for answering so swiftly.

Can u tell us anything at all
of how u reached your fundamental, axiomatic decision
concerning the equality of all lives ?

David

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Who here has claimed that a child abuser's life is of greater or equal value as that of his victim's?

I value each life equally, and may well have said so. Therefore, although I don't value the abuser's life more highly than the victim's, I satisfy your and O'Bill's "greater or equal".

I understand that position, but I believe O'BILL was indulging in the traditional rhetoric of the "law-and-order" crowd that a person's "value" is dependent on whether that person is good or bad. From that perspective, an abuser's life always has less value than a victim's because the abuser is a worse person than the victim. Saying, then, that an abuser's life is of equal value to a victim's life is to say that the abuser is just as morally good as the victim. Of course, if this is not an accurate summary of O'BILL's position, he is free to correct me.

If a person's life value = 10 points by virtue of being born; I think it would be fair to deduct 10 points for each instance of child molestation, yes. As you know well; I see no value whatsoever in maintaining the lives of heinous criminals until death. One man's traditional rhetoric is another's common sense. An innocent child is infinitely more valuable than that of the pedophile.

Thomas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You more enlightened folks can look down your noses at me all you wish, but I'll continue to view the self-removal of pedophiles as the single most decent thing they can do for the team. His last act was in all likelihood the most noble thing he's ever done.

I don't wish to look down my nose at you. Indeed, I find it sad that you leave me no choice but to do so.

Rest assured; I am equally baffled that you think your position puts you on higher ground. You will not soon see me rethinking whether or not the life of a pedophile is anywhere near as valuable as the life of an innocent child. Good riddance to him.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Who here has claimed that a child abuser's life is of greater or equal value as that of his victim's?

I value each life equally, and may well have said so. Therefore, although I don't value the abuser's life more highly than the victim's, I satisfy your and O'Bill's "greater or equal".

I understand that position, but I believe O'BILL was indulging in the traditional rhetoric of the "law-and-order" crowd that a person's "value" is dependent on whether that person is good or bad. From that perspective, an abuser's life always has less value than a victim's because the abuser is a worse person than the victim. Saying, then, that an abuser's life is of equal value to a victim's life is to say that the abuser is just as morally good as the victim. Of course, if this is not an accurate summary of O'BILL's position, he is free to correct me.
If a person's life value = 10 points by virtue of being born; I think it would be fair to deduct 10 points for each instance of child molestation, yes. As you know well; I see no value whatsoever in maintaining the lives of heinous criminals until death. One man's traditional rhetoric is another's common sense. An innocent child is infinitely more valuable than that of the pedophile.

Thomas wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You more enlightened folks can look down your noses at me all you wish, but I'll continue to view the self-removal of pedophiles as the single most decent thing they can do for the team. His last act was in all likelihood the most noble thing he's ever done.

I don't wish to look down my nose at you. Indeed, I find it sad that you leave me no choice but to do so.
Rest assured; I am equally baffled that you think your position puts you on higher ground. You will not soon see me rethinking whether or not the life of a pedophile is anywhere near as valuable as the life of an innocent child. Good riddance to him.

Bill,
I MUST agree with your point of vu,
not only as to pedophiles who choose to commit suicide,
but I wish to include all violent criminals
( robbers, burglars, murderers, car thieves, kidnappers, pickpockets )
who opt to save the citizens tons of money
by ending their earthly lives.
I agree with u, with enthusiasm.

A few questions, tho,
( to more clearly understand your position ):
U wrote :
" If a person's life value = 10 points by virtue of being born;
I think it would be fair to deduct 10 points
for each instance of child molestation, yes. "

1 ) Does that mean that u r equating child molestation with murder ?

2 ) Looking back over your own life,
will u agree that it wud have been much worse
if u had been the victim of murder,
than being groped,
or sexually uniting with a good looking adult chic ?

For my own part,
at the age of 11, I had a 17 year old girl,
and a few months later a 23 year old girl
successfully approach me with sexual motives.

I erotically enjoyed it then,
and I look back on each of those experiences
with fondness now; I wud not give them up.
Technically, thay were each pedophilia,
but much, much better than my getting murdered.
( This was very consensual each time; no violence. )

I remember each of the girls fondly
and want nothing bad to happen to them,
especially not suicide, nor any diminution of their lives.

David

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If a person's life value = 10 points by virtue of being born; I think it would be fair to deduct 10 points for each instance of child molestation, yes. As you know well; I see no value whatsoever in maintaining the lives of heinous criminals until death. One man's traditional rhetoric is another's common sense. An innocent child is infinitely more valuable than that of the pedophile.

It really might be that I've a Christian faith and live in a civilised surrounding and/or that I'm a social worker and/or that I worked in a prison, at a court as ell as a probation officer .... that I disagree here.

It might be that I just think differently.

In Texas, they seem to follow what Bill thinks. Or not?

0 Replies

The Who would you save question is a totally useless. There is no way to measure the value of someone's life: Could ComSig David answer the following and state his reasons:

A pedophile and his victim are in mortal danger. The pedophile is an intelligent cultured man who loves the good life, good food, hunts, writes and paints. He has a loving wife and three kids who are doing well in school. He is a gifted scientist and in ten years time will discover a cure for cancer. The victim is just a young Arab boy and his name is Osama Bin Laden. Who would you save?

0 Replies

Prosecutor Arrested In Sex Sting Involving 5 yr old Girl

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know