I know you're dim, but You realize that I'm not obligated to respond to every drooling dogpiler, right?

And the only solution you've offered is providing prostitutes, which is hilarious. Because adult prostitutes will totally sate the appetites of people who only gain satisfaction by having sex with children, right?

You must just like me then. I'm touched. You also called me a liar for pointing out that you failed to respond to them so I'll kindly ask you to take that back.

Points seem to miss you a fair bit don't they? I suggested that they're just as likely to help based on the fact that the current law does nothing. Having people wear clown noses helps as much as the law in question does.

I'm just blown away that anyone would actually defend a pedophiles right to invite children to their homes and give them treats. It's fucking warped, dude.

I'm blown away that you support taking away people's rights for something they might do. Should we ban them from the internet too, I mean, they could talk to kids online right? Or should we ban them from having girl scouts come by? What right should we take away from these people next?

Are you retarded or did you just kneejerk and feel the need to defend your position at all costs? Oh the plight of the pedophiles! The poor, poor, pedophiles! Weep for them!

Don't you want to take away people's guns because they might use them to kill other people? I was going to avoid this thread like the plague but I really couldn't just leave alone this awesome piece of bald hypocrisy.

I was waiting for this Zod, I really was. Why do you need laws like this is the parents are packing while little Timmy is grabbing candy from a few feet away. The scumbag reaches for your kid and you blow him away just like in the movies.

The reality is that guns have very little utility and you tend to be safer when they're removed. This law doesn't make anybody safer, instead it wastes resources that could go to something useful.



You admitted yourself that a lot of these people on the list aren't going to have done anything serious enough to warrant being on it. I guess it's better to further ruin the lives of these people on the off chance some pedo was thinking of grabbing kids of his front porch.

1) Yes, I did admit that. In fact I all but said it in the fucking OP.
2) Instead of a black and white outlook like you and others here have (which is hilarious since I'm being accused of that), I am for a modified more exclusive list. And you do in fact have to do something to get on the list, same as now.

Except that we all know that the lists won't be changed and this law will effect people that don't need more shit heaped upon them. You've still yet to show that this law will actually do anything or save anybody.

I'm literally banging my head into the desk at this point.

And you've already conceded that statistically speaking, the law would save 1 child every ten years per 120,000+ people.

Which makes it a colossal waste of time and money, and since those are finite in supply reduces the resources that could be spent on usefully protecting children from abuse.

By consuming resources that could be spent on, for instance, better responding to incidents of domestic violence (where a spouse is being abused there is an increased likelyhood that children are being violently or sexually abused) a law like this exposes to harm more children than it protects.

Think of the children Flagg.

[Mod mode on]


General Zod: This thread is not about gun control, so don't needlessly bring it into this thread. Don't pursue it further. Anything else about this tangent (by anybody) will be expunged.

Flagg: I suggest you take a step back, and think a bit before posting in this thread again. If you do, I want you to post a small summary of your argument, with some evidence/data to support it. "But, but, but ... PEDOPHILES! KIDS!" won't do it.

[Mod mode off]

Fair enough. I'm in the middle of moving so it may be a few days.

You still interested in trying to make your point here Flagg, or would you rather concede that you have no point outside of you think of the children bullshit?

My position: Let's not allow pedophiles to give kids candy on Halloween because it poses a risk to innocent children who may not have the best parents in the world and are allowed to go trick or treating without adult supervision.

Your position: Convicted pedophiles have the right to hand out candy on Halloween because only a small number of children are put at risk, and really we need to protect the rights of convicted pedophiles at the expense of childrens safety.

Nuff said.

So what about the harm caused to the people on these lists that we can all agree don't serserve this level of stigma?

What about the fact that by making people put of these signs and not participate in Halloween we're driving them further away from society and harming their ability to fix the issues that lead them to offend in the first place?

How many children do you think programs like these will actually save?

Wouldn't we make things safer by having police watching the children on halloween as opposed to watching the sex offenders?

Listen you dishonest piece of shit, I've said numerous times in this thread that I don't agree with the lists as they stand. Yet you keep bringing them up. Fuck off.


The fact that you think pedophelia can be "fixed" shows you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Fuck off.


More than doing nothing will.


Awfully inefficient. It's far easier and more efficient to just prevent them from handing out candy.

And as for people who don't hand out candy anyway (like me) who may get stigmatized by retards who can't use the internet, oh well.

Yet you support laws based on those lists even though you full well that there are no plans to revise these lists or to take people off of them.



So you're attempting to say that no mental illness or social ill can be changed? I'm sure all those psychologists studying this will be glad to know that you consider their field worthless.



How much? Can these resources be better spent on things that will cause greater change? Would it not be more effective to fine parents that let their kids trick-or-treat alone?



You've yet to show that there is a significant risk of children being pulled in off of doorsteps.



I should take out an ad in your local paper and see how you feel then. Good lukc getting a job again after that rumor gets around.

See if you weren't a dishonest little cunt and this was your issue, then I'd call it a day. But you wield this as a cudgel as if it means something when in reality you're against any lists at all.


Is there currently a way to cure pedophelia and guarantee the convicted pedophile will never reoffend? No? Then fuck off.


So let me get this straight... You would rather go out of the way to fine people for allowing children unsupervised where they might get molested than inconvenience convicted sex offenders? Blame the victim much?


You've conceded to at least 1 every 10 years per 120,000+ people.


Are you threatening to libel me? Anyway, seeing as how I'm not on any easily searchable online registry lists and will not have listed any convictions for sex crimes on my application...

You're right, because even the best of these lists is still going to be ineffective at actually stopping anything. If these lists were so effective you would see numbers indicating a lower number of reoffenders, but we haven't seen that at all.



So we should treat anybody that has ever done anything wrong as being evil because some people can't be helped? I suppose that we should just star executing people for drug related offenses so they don't start robbing peopkle for drug money. Or removing licenses for first time speeding offenses.



Your presuming these sex offenders are going to drag kids off their front steps and rape them. Guilty of presuming guilt much? Besides, these lists and candy laws only serve to give people a false sense of saftey. The real way to prevent the sorts of random rapes you're worried about is ensuring that parents actually watch their kids.



That was assuming that every Halloween rape was due to kids being pulled in off of some sex offenders door step. Even if you only factor in that only 50% of sex offenders recommit and that these lists flag people that weren't a risk to being you're going to be down to 1 every 20 years that this law can even attempt to help. That is already such a low number that doing pretty much anything else would be able to get the same results. When you factor in trick or treating only takes say 8 hours of a day we've now only prevented 1 molestation in 60 years. When you start to factor in the fact that most molestations aren't people pulling kids in of their front steps this law gets even more absurdly useless.



Oh, so you do awknowledge that false accusations can be harmful and less easy to get away from than you've suggested thus far. Concession accepted.

Your position is wrong. It's a waste of taxpayer money to combat a non-existent problem (stated by the police chief himself) by diverting cops from other areas and it gives parents the illusion their streets are safer. So, for no actual benefit, you're also further alienating a despised subgroup of criminal, giving them even less incentive to rehabilitate.

Let's start with the following facts:

1. Not every convicted sex offender is a pedophile. Given the legal definition of 'child', not even every person who commits 'crimes against children' is a pedophile.
2. The family members of these sex offenders, who live under one roof with them, are also denied their right to celebrate holidays. These people have committed no crime, and even if we allowed that every sex offender loses all their rights upon conviction - which certainly I don't - I see no reason why the wife, sister, or daughter of a sex offender - you know, these people also have children - have less rights than some other child.s.

Where is all that evidence that multiple people have asked you to provide?

And how is it possible that you got so offended earlier in this thread when people had the gall to accuse you of a black and white fallacy, and then CONTINUE to spew the same argument out? You still have not provided a single argument more sophisticated or thought out than "THE CHILDREN!!!!!!! OH DEAR GOD THE CHILDREN!!!!! WHY WILL NONE OF YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!"

---

"Spare me your space age technobabble, Atilla the Hun." -Zap Brannagan

"It means they could've done some freaky human/demon hybrid thing." -Nightstalker, on Nazis

It's funny because your position is "The pedophiles, oh the poor mistreated convicted pedophiles!" Seriousely, I'm done with this thread. If you honestly believe that convicted pedophiles have the right to give children candy, then fuck you.

Concession accepted.