U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2015, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,553 posts, read 3,288,164 times
Reputation: 3801

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolZombie View Post
Why are you pretending Christian fundamentalism isn't just as bad? They're the exact same thing. Only reason we don't have the Christian Taliban pushing their law is because normal people now outnumber the fundies in America fortunately. Our society wasn't much less puritan than Saudi Arabia 70 years ago.

You do however have a point that creeps like that who try to stop their sexual feelings are more frequent to end up molesting since in their minds they have no other outlet since they can't go out and publicly date a woman and sleep with her without being shamed.
Perhaps at one point Christian fundamentalism was just as bad. There was a time when witches were burned alive.

But the American Christian fundamentalist of today is not nearly as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists. The worst the Christians got are groups like the WBC, while Islam has ISIS. Objectively, who does more harm? That's not to say that we shouldn't want to stop Christian fundamentalists. We do. Anyone who adheres to an ideology as is unwilling to listen to alternative ideas is a dangerous person. This is true of all things. Unwillingness to changing your views if what allows things to deteriorate over time.


And to address that last part, that is an underlying issue with the sex offender registry. The thing makes sense within it's historical context, going back to witch hunts and public executions. Western society likes to make things theatrical. But for whatever reason, popular opinion and scientific research never seem to be not he same page when it comes to issues like this. Most studies suggest the registry does either nothing or actually causes more problems, and the overwhelming majority suggest that public notification laws are quite harmful.

And of course there's the broad reach of the registry. Everything from public urination to serial rape is placed on the registry and are generally given the same restrictions. I'm able to follow the logic that a child molester should live near a school, but I can't quite understand why the same would be true for some who took a leak in a park.

Then of course there are the backwards priorities. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the sheriff who took on Duggar's case was found to have child porn and given 56 years in prison. For a point of reference, Jerry Sandusky (molested at least 10 children over 15 years) was given 30-60, Eric Francis who raped a 9 year old girl who was in his custody got 40 years, and the average rape sentence is generally about 8 years (meaning plenty serve far less). And of course Duggar was given no legal punishment as a meager 3 year statue of limitations passed. So, somehow, the person with the longest sentence has never actually touched anyone. Jerry Sandusky could serve more, but at most, he'd only serve 4 years more, despite his crime being absolutely the worse crime. And actually, the guy with 40 years should probably be serving the most time overall, but somehow he got the middle ground. But something seems wrong with this picture when there is no consistent reasoning behind the prison sentences people serve. Dangerous or non-dangerous; it doesn't matter. That's how drug users and rapists can both get an 8 year sentence. People should be rioting in the street about things like this, but our brainwashing into being 'tough on crime' has caused us to abandon reason.

Criminal justice in this country needs reform, but in order to actually do that, we need to start being honest about what's happening. Of many of the problem, the treatment of sex offenders as a whole is unjust. The dangerous ones should be in prison, and the not dangerous ones shouldn't be on a list, then going back to the dangerous one's, they shouldn't be released until we are certain they are no longer dangerous. This should add up to there being no need for a registry, but rich suburban moms who get their news from the View or the Morning Show or whatever don't care. His name popped up, I don't care what he did, I want him out! If nothing else, the registry needs to be reserved for people who are actually a threat to other people. Rapists and molesters, and human traffickers. But who else really poses a threat?

The research says there needs to be a change, but those that bring us information don't need research. Politicians, news media, anyone on Facebook, they can all just make something up and pass it as fact. This is what causes us to have 2 million people in prison, with at least 1 million of them not really needing to be.

 
Old 05-23-2015, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Eastern NC
19,548 posts, read 17,793,600 times
Reputation: 17357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govie View Post
Without question. Liberals are the most very vile smear merchants.

(And coincidentally the most apologetic for the "troubled yoofs" they yack on about all the time.
Smear? The man molested his younger siblings when he was a teenager. Why are you so forgiving of a child molester and yet rally against those who don't hurt anyone but just break the law?
 
Old 05-23-2015, 11:15 AM
 
32,637 posts, read 16,684,887 times
Reputation: 17538
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
That isn't a quote of mine.
It's called a paraphrase.

Quote:
But you all know that you supported Bill Clinton, who was probably doing worse than Josh Duggar from the time he first heard the word, "sex."
And there we go again - "probably". You're making sh.t up to establish an equivalency.
 
Old 05-23-2015, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,553 posts, read 3,288,164 times
Reputation: 3801
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
Smear? The man molested his younger siblings when he was a teenager. Why are you so forgiving of a child molester and yet rally against those who don't hurt anyone but just break the law?
Important point made here. Many of the conservatives backing this guy are also among those who would utter the rather horrendous phrase "can't do the time, don't do the crime." Get caught with pot? Sucks to be you. Enjoy you're 5 year prison sentence.

But here we have someone who supports their political view, and they come to his defense.

I'm a forgiving person. I do believe that even child molesters deserve the opportunity to have a second chance, if they change their behavior and show remorse for what they did. Duggar appears to have done that. And I say this as a liberal who opposed Duggar's archaic view of the world.

But this highlights the underlying problem in American political thought: we're too black and white. Whatever side you're on, the other is the enemy. How and why did this happen? I personally feel we should all condemn Duggar's action, but still feel the desire to offer him some kind of forgiveness. I'd recommend he not volunteer as a Sunday school teacher at whatever church he attends, not because I think he's likely to do it again, but just because some punishments should exist for those who do bad things.

But you're too right. The conservatives, as a majority, are quick to condemn people for life, recommend excessively long prisons sentences, and always back the death penalty (often including child molesters as those who are eligible), but seem to be doing the opposite for Duggar. Of course, the liberals are pretty strict when it comes to sexual abuse, usually extending some sympathy to all other criminals with the exception of sex offenders (though many do seem to pity the 19 year old with his 17 year old girlfriend, and I've even met a few who back the child porn viewer as needing counseling, not prison).

As whole, we are too quick to make assumptions. We don't truly know what happened then, and we defiantly don't know if he's still likely to do it now. Based on what we do know, I'm leaning on saying he's very unlikely to actually do anything again.

But politics does seem to influence how we view others. It's not healthy.
 
Old 05-23-2015, 11:35 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
30,177 posts, read 16,665,894 times
Reputation: 22689
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
And, they love it when they can destroy lives of conservatives, especially if they are Christian.
Just because they call themselves Christian - does not mean they are. In my mind, they could not be further from anything Christ represented. By their actions, by their condemnation of others, by the people they associated with (child pornographer anyone); and by the fact that the parents are famewhores.

Let me make it clear - I can and do feel pity for this young man. He is the unfortunate by-product of his famewhore parents who could not possibly give 19 children the time and attention they need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
He didn't "molest" anybody.

What do you have to say about Lena Dunham?
He did though. Touching a child's vagina under the age of 10 is most certainly molestation. I don't know anything about Lena Dunham; have to google that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
Important point made here. Many of the conservatives backing this guy are also among those who would utter the rather horrendous phrase "can't do the time, don't do the crime." Get caught with pot? Sucks to be you. Enjoy you're 5 year prison sentence.

But here we have someone who supports their political view, and they come to his defense.

I'm a forgiving person. I do believe that even child molesters deserve the opportunity to have a second chance, if they change their behavior and show remorse for what they did. Duggar appears to have done that. And I say this as a liberal who opposed Duggar's archaic view of the world.

But this highlights the underlying problem in American political thought: we're too black and white. Whatever side you're on, the other is the enemy. How and why did this happen? I personally feel we should all condemn Duggar's action, but still feel the desire to offer him some kind of forgiveness. I'd recommend he not volunteer as a Sunday school teacher at whatever church he attends, not because I think he's likely to do it again, but just because some punishments should exist for those who do bad things.

But you're too right. The conservatives, as a majority, are quick to condemn people for life, recommend excessively long prisons sentences, and always back the death penalty (often including child molesters as those who are eligible), but seem to be doing the opposite for Duggar. Of course, the liberals are pretty strict when it comes to sexual abuse, usually extending some sympathy to all other criminals with the exception of sex offenders (though many do seem to pity the 19 year old with his 17 year old girlfriend, and I've even met a few who back the child porn viewer as needing counseling, not prison).

As whole, we are too quick to make assumptions. We don't truly know what happened then, and we defiantly don't know if he's still likely to do it now. Based on what we do know, I'm leaning on saying he's very unlikely to actually do anything again.

But politics does seem to influence how we view others. It's not healthy.
I could forgive the young man IF he has indeed sought the proper help and is not busy now molesting his own children. I pray he is not. If that is true - he could be forgiven. Perhaps a little sooner if he stopped preaching hate and lecturing the American public on family values. He needs to shut his mouth; disappear somewhere with a real job; and return later. Like Monica Lewinsky.

The parents? I feel absolutely no pity for them. None. Total famewhores knowing all along this could come out and be public knowledge. It seems a lot of people have known about it for quite some time. They failed as parents and failed to protect their daughters. I hope the one daughter that had expressed an interest in college will get out of there and never look back.
 
Old 05-23-2015, 12:10 PM
 
9,897 posts, read 6,859,438 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
You're misrepresenting the faith. That is not what it is "all about." But some evil people may fool themselves into believing they are "forgiven" when they are not believers at all. Just as living in a garage doesn't make one a car, regular church attendance and going to "confession" (a Catholic 'thing'), doesn't make one a Christian. Not all who call themselves Christians are. They fool themselves.

Paul addressed that very issue you mentioned in one of his letters (Romans 6:1-4), where he talks about Grace, and asks, "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefor buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we, too may live a new life."

And that is what Christianity is about. New life. It doesn't make us perfect. But we are aware of sin, and our lives are changed, so that sin is not a 'habit' of our lives, though we are not immune from sin.
I'm an atheist so I only know what they have represented themselves as, to everyone else.
As you said, Christians are not perfect
 
Old 05-23-2015, 12:54 PM
 
14,188 posts, read 6,449,555 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
He didn't "molest" anybody.

What do you have to say about Lena Dunham?
Oh he didn't? Would you like him to do to your daughters what he did to his sisters?
 
Old 05-23-2015, 04:03 PM
 
9 posts, read 4,942 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
I won't address the Catholic Church, which I have plenty of problems with, but this isn't a fair point in this example.

If your kid admitted to something like this to you, would you immediately report it to the police? They touched a girl inappropriately (which is wrong), and the first thing you'd do is turn them in, knowing what happens to sex offenders to today's world (life time registry status, so they'll never find a decent job, be alienated from their community, and have a generally miserable life, not to mention the fact that prisoners aren't to kind to child sex offenders)? I'm not really convinced I would, and if that makes me a bad person, so be it.

But don't turn this into what you're trying to do. The Duggard family wasn't ok with what he had done and they did do something about it, even if it's not what you think they should have done. Don't compare this example of a family trying to avoid having their first born son thrown in prison and on a public shaming list for ever to a culture that actually circumcises women so they won't enjoy sex and won't be promiscuous. They aren't even comparable. Hell, this cases isn't even comparable to the Vatican covering up it's sex abuses, which is a way worse dilemma.

Though, there is a lesson in both. Priests are celebrate and presumably, young Duggard wasn't allow to have much intimate relations with girls given his family's crazy religious views... maybe sexual repression makes people do crazy ****?

Fundamentalism is a poison, however, Islamic fundamentalism (in it's current state) is worse in literally everyday than Christian fundamentalism.
Yes, I wouldn't hide, lie and do nothing. Maybe I would start with a counselor or some type of evaluation. I would not negate the fact that my other children were hurt by it by pretending it didn't matter. A 14 year old is old enough to know ( even in their isolated universe) that it was a no no . He did it repeatedly. A youth sex offender is not on the registry the same way as an adult and likely wouldn't have even required registration. It also said in the article that his parents dodged phone calls of the investigators and then the statute of limitations expired.
As to all of you who think this is private business? I genuinely think that you'd feel differently if you had a child who came in contact with a minor who has this sort of history. I hope he's "better" and that he's been saved or whatever, but I think his God maybe should have protected the sisters in the first place. And if church personnel are mandated reporters, those tax dodging parents of his should have a consequence too. They're registered as a church.
I'm not speaking from a political or religious standpoint, just from the point of someone who had enough sense to turn someone in even if they were just "making mistakes" "being a kid" or whatever other euphemism you'd like to apply to maldaptive and disturbing behavior.
 
Old 05-23-2015, 04:16 PM
 
9 posts, read 4,942 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Well, you all defend Bill Clinton, don't you? Rapist, molester. Besides, what Josh Dugger has been accused of has been blown all out of proportion to what he actually did. Some have even used the word, "rape."

The worst he did was that he (to use today's terms) touched his sisters "inappropriately."

Gee, when I was 15 years old, my first kiss was from a girl three years older (she kissed me first) on a park bench by a lake. Today, she would be charged with corruption of a minor! A sexual predator!
I really hope no children rely on you for protection or safety. Your judgement is severely lacking.
Bill Clinton was an a#% and most democrats know that and it's really not even a remotely similar scenario to compare.
You clearly wanted the girl to kiss you.
A 4 -6 year old child was touched in the genitals by an older teen sibling. It was not a romantic or flirtatious situation.
Stop comparing things that aren't remotely similar. You should change your name, you spew nonsense.
 
Old 05-23-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,553 posts, read 3,288,164 times
Reputation: 3801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandapops View Post
Yes, I wouldn't hide, lie and do nothing. Maybe I would start with a counselor or some type of evaluation. I would not negate the fact that my other children were hurt by it by pretending it didn't matter. A 14 year old is old enough to know ( even in their isolated universe) that it was a no no . He did it repeatedly. A youth sex offender is not on the registry the same way as an adult and likely wouldn't have even required registration. It also said in the article that his parents dodged phone calls of the investigators and then the statute of limitations expired.
As to all of you who think this is private business? I genuinely think that you'd feel differently if you had a child who came in contact with a minor who has this sort of history. I hope he's "better" and that he's been saved or whatever, but I think his God maybe should have protected the sisters in the first place. And if church personnel are mandated reporters, those tax dodging parents of his should have a consequence too. They're registered as a church.
I'm not speaking from a political or religious standpoint, just from the point of someone who had enough sense to turn someone in even if they were just "making mistakes" "being a kid" or whatever other euphemism you'd like to apply to maldaptive and disturbing behavior.
They didn't do nothing.

If prisons in the US were run by people who valued science and weren't searching for retribution, I'd probably let the institution deal with it. But we are not a smart country. I say that knowing I'll get flack as an 'America hater' and so be it. If being objective means I hate the country then fine. But look at prisons around the world and tell me we're doing the right thing. America has 41,000 people who have life without parole, while England has less than 200, despite having fairly similar crime rates.

A 14 year old doesn't deserve to be branded for life. 14 is young enough to make changes in their life. And yes, it's also old enough to know better, but that doesn't change the fact that he was 14. Judging the man now for bad behavior he did a decade ago is unreasonable and had he gone to jail, his life would have been far worse.

If you hadn't gathered by my opening point, I find the American justice system to be a disgrace, valuing retribution above rehabilitation. Both are important, but we deliberately ignore one over the other; and yet people ask why we have a 60% recidivism rate, and the solution is always do more of what we've already done. I value rehabilitation... for everyone. Criminal, victim, and society. Doing so is the only way to bring crime down. Throwing a 14 year old in prison, labeling him a sex offender for life... it's cruel. I don't like this man, I don't like his family, and I do not approve of what he's done, and if it were up to me, he would have spent some time institutionalized in a juvenile center for young sex abusers, but in my vision of the world, he's learn to focus on his good traits and reject his bad ones and not have to be on a public witch hunt list for everyone to see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top