New Testingstan

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Zod wrote:He's willing to dismiss gun ownership as a right for purely arbitrary personal reasons.

Which has nothing to do with the sex-offender thread, which means dismissing him in that thread for idiocy in the gun-control thread is, wait for it, an ad-hominem attack.

So why is it suddenly so heinous to remove sex offenders ability to participate in Halloween? What's the difference if they both have the goal of protecting people?

Well, plenty of others have helpfully pointed it out in that thread, but I'll summarize here: Because it doesn't fulfill that goal. Because it hits a shit-ton more people than the types who randomly grab and fiddle kids (who are actually a tiny percentage of pedophiles, once again pointed out in that thread), because it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, because it feeds into a misplaced hysteria and draws attention away from the real problems, because it marks a lot of people on the inconsistent farce that is the sex-offender registry as social pariahs, fucking over whatever rehabilitation they made, and well over 90% of them didn't even get on there for being random-kiddie-fiddlers.

Is there anything I missed?

They problem is they're really two separate issues and that the sex offender registry is being used as a blunt object instead of a scalpel.

Flagg wrote:Why the fuck isn't NAMBLA illegal? Oni, do you know?

Just a guess, but...no criminal convictions or prosecutions? Repugnant free speech is still free speech, I suppose. At least here in the USA. Don't talk about Nazis in Germany though or Mr. Smug TEO Whatshisface will stomp all over your mouth with his hobnailed boots.

Oh and did I mention this TEO thread is about a city ordnance that originated in Cali-fucking-self-absorbed-half-psychotic-did-I-already-say-fucking-Fornia? The whole goddamn thread started with an insane position and just got worse from there.

Goddamned SDN. We should start a thread to bitch about it or something. Maybe not.

Zod wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:
...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Let me answer your point with a question. Do you believe violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?

Do you believe that tax evaders, people convicted of reckless driving one time twenty years ago, jaywalkers, building managers who didn't change the lightbulbs in the basement quick enough and were convicted of code violations, and the couple who got into an argument at a nice restaurant and were thrown out should not only be lumped in with those convicted of gun crimes and banned from buying guns, but also have to place a sign on their house that says they're violent offenders? Because that's what the analogy would have to be to be consistent with that law and Cartman's stance.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Zod wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:
...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Let me answer your point with a question. Do you believe violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?

Do you believe that tax evaders, people convicted of reckless driving one time twenty years ago, jaywalkers, building managers who didn't change the lightbulbs in the basement quick enough and were convicted of code violations, and the couple who got into an argument at a nice restaurant and were thrown out should not only be lumped in with those convicted of gun crimes and banned from buying guns, but also have to place a sign on their house that says they're violent offenders? Because that's what the analogy would have to be to be consistent with that law and Cartman's stance.

Would you disagree with it if the sex offender list consisted exclusively of child molesters and nobody in the other categories?

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Zod wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:
...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Let me answer your point with a question. Do you believe violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?

Do you believe that tax evaders, people convicted of reckless driving one time twenty years ago, jaywalkers, building managers who didn't change the lightbulbs in the basement quick enough and were convicted of code violations, and the couple who got into an argument at a nice restaurant and were thrown out should not only be lumped in with those convicted of gun crimes and banned from buying guns, but also have to place a sign on their house that says they're violent offenders? Because that's what the analogy would have to be to be consistent with that law and Cartman's stance.

It would be nice if you would just once, instead of answering a question with a question or ten, arguing the extreme example, and indulging in amateurish misdirection instead of actually making an argument, would just, well...

...actually make an argument. Preferably one not supported by thought exercises. 'Cause right now you're just coming across as a wannabe stark sarcastic wanker without the synapses to support a position.

Flagg wrote:Why the fuck isn't NAMBLA illegal? Oni, do you know?

Because they don't advocate criminal activities, but rather changing the law to make such activities no longer illegal.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Quackustra wrote:Dude said that if there were more prostitutes, there wouldn't be any pedophiles, because the only reason people molest children is sexual frustration in Jubjubes' internal world. I think this categorically disqualifies him from rightness.

And this is why I hate Jubs. I find myself agreeing with part of his position, but then he goes off the deep end and says something stupid like that.

But again, my point holds: Just because he's an idiot about prostitutes doesn't mean he's right that further making convicted sex-offenders (under the ridiculously inconsistent laws which define what is a 'sex offender') social pariahs doesn't help them with rehabilitation, is statistically proven to have little to no effect on child-molestation rates, and actually likely hurts the cause by publicly singling them out as visible scapegoats to make people think the problem's solved and drawing their attention away from the vast majority of sexual abuse cases that involved close friends and family of the victim.

...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Y'know, shit that's been brought up in the first three pages of that thread, but that Cartman hasn't addressed in the slightest, despite them kind of wiping out his entire 'think of the children' hysteria. But hey, 'hur hur, stoopid fattie TEO nerds amirite'. Who cares if we're actually right or not, so long as we're over here making fun of them.

Oh and I can't believe I missed this gem in that thread:

Cartman, on page 2 wrote:Nice ad hominem motherfucker. Get the fuck out of the thread.

The irony, it burns.

Yeah, but that's something that other people have managed to bring up without being utter fucklords. I definitely agree with the basic points of sex-offender lists being ridiculous uses of state power to extend social control, and with the notion that the focus on strangers with candy in panel vans diminishes the ability to focus clearly on how child molestation happens, in much the same way that the "guy in an alley with a gun" story monopolizes our understanding of rape and diminishes the ability to focus clearly.

Count Chocula wrote:It would be nice if you would just once, instead of answering a question with a question or ten, arguing the extreme example, and indulging in amateurish misdirection instead of actually making an argument, would just, well...

...actually make an argument. Preferably one not supported by thought exercises. 'Cause right now you're just coming across as a wannabe stark sarcastic wanker without the synapses to support a position.

Ahh, the Chucklesula experience. Never quite the same twice!

Count Chocula wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Zod wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:
...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Let me answer your point with a question. Do you believe violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?

Do you believe that tax evaders, people convicted of reckless driving one time twenty years ago, jaywalkers, building managers who didn't change the lightbulbs in the basement quick enough and were convicted of code violations, and the couple who got into an argument at a nice restaurant and were thrown out should not only be lumped in with those convicted of gun crimes and banned from buying guns, but also have to place a sign on their house that says they're violent offenders? Because that's what the analogy would have to be to be consistent with that law and Cartman's stance.

It would be nice if you would just once, instead of answering a question with a question or ten, arguing the extreme example, and indulging in amateurish misdirection instead of actually making an argument, would just, well...

...actually make an argument. Preferably one not supported by thought exercises. 'Cause right now you're just coming across as a wannabe stark sarcastic wanker without the synapses to support a position.

You mean like the one I made two pages ago?

Zod wrote:Would you disagree with it if the sex offender list consisted exclusively of child molesters and nobody in the other categories?

To be perfectly honest: Yes, given the general culture in the US.

The ideal goal of the justice system is rehabilitation. Being on that list, as an offender, pretty much zilches anyone's chance at actually rehabilitating into society, because as Cartman's readily shown, Americans are more than willing to jump on the hysteria bandwagon and mark them as social pariahs just because they're on a list, with no actual idea what they've actually done and if and how much progress they've made towards curing problems they may or may not have.

The registry needs to go. The very tiny percentage of sex offenders who are actually the type to go out and fiddle random kiddies (as opposed to close friends and family members, which actually makes up the overwhelming majority of sex-offenders) need to either be better rehabilitated, or be restricted in ways that don't mark them as complete social pariahs that are safe targets for the ire and possible violence of all the Cartmans in the US. Perhaps something more akin to a parole-officer system, where instead of being on a publicly available list, they merely have to pass by any new living situations with their officer to make sure they're in compliance with the law, and if they make an unauthorized move, an immediate warrant is place for their arrest.

And if, after some time of this, psychiatric evaluation shows them to be rehabilitated, then they are let free, and the only records of their past misdeeds are kept in the same place as any other convicted felons.

Count Chocula wrote:It would be nice if you would just once, instead of answering a question with a question or ten, arguing the extreme example, and indulging in amateurish misdirection instead of actually making an argument, would just, well...

...actually make an argument. Preferably one not supported by thought exercises. 'Cause right now you're just coming across as a wannabe stark sarcastic wanker without the synapses to support a position.

While I do pity your condition, your inability to understand basic discourse is not my concern.

Zod wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Zod wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:
...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Let me answer your point with a question. Do you believe violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?

Do you believe that tax evaders, people convicted of reckless driving one time twenty years ago, jaywalkers, building managers who didn't change the lightbulbs in the basement quick enough and were convicted of code violations, and the couple who got into an argument at a nice restaurant and were thrown out should not only be lumped in with those convicted of gun crimes and banned from buying guns, but also have to place a sign on their house that says they're violent offenders? Because that's what the analogy would have to be to be consistent with that law and Cartman's stance.

It would be nice if you would just once, instead of answering a question with a question or ten, arguing the extreme example, and indulging in amateurish misdirection instead of actually making an argument, would just, well...

...actually make an argument. Preferably one not supported by thought exercises. 'Cause right now you're just coming across as a wannabe stark sarcastic wanker without the synapses to support a position.

You mean like the one I made two pages ago?

Dude, that was aimed at djinnkittynumbersomething, not you. Apologies if I left it open to misinterpretation.

Oh looky, kittykat discovered the word "discourse!" Too bad discourse /= debate.

Important thing to note- most psychological professionals believe that pedophilia (defined as attraction to prepubescent children or children in the early stages of puberty) can be successfully treated, although it may not be curable in the sense that the pedophile no longer feels urges or attractions. The biggest obstacles are that many pedophiles actively resist treatment (this may be because only molesters that get caught usually undergo treatment), and the treatments often require lifelong followup to help keep the pedophiles on a good path.

Count Chocula wrote:
Dude, that was aimed at djinnkittynumbersomething, not you. Apologies if I left it open to misinterpretation.

Oh looky, kittykat discovered the word "discourse!" Too bad discourse /= debate.

"There you go again" - Ronald Raygun

Count Chocula wrote:Oh looky, kittykat discovered the word "discourse!" Too bad discourse /= debate.

And if anyone knows the nuances of debate, it's Chuckles!

You're getting better though, dear, you're comprehending enough to be offended.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Zod wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:
...Not to mention that it's not just random-kiddie-fiddlers who get affected by this, but people who were caught urinating in public, 20 year olds caught dinking around with 17 year olds, and hypothetically, a minor caught taking nudie pics of themselves, as these are all people who can end up on those lists as well.

Let me answer your point with a question. Do you believe violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?

Do you believe that tax evaders, people convicted of reckless driving one time twenty years ago, jaywalkers, building managers who didn't change the lightbulbs in the basement quick enough and were convicted of code violations, and the couple who got into an argument at a nice restaurant and were thrown out should not only be lumped in with those convicted of gun crimes and banned from buying guns, but also have to place a sign on their house that says they're violent offenders? Because that's what the analogy would have to be to be consistent with that law and Cartman's stance.

I do if they molest children or rape people.

Quackustra wrote:Important thing to note- most psychological professionals believe that pedophilia (defined as attraction to prepubescent children or children in the early stages of puberty) can be successfully treated, although it may not be curable in the sense that the pedophile no longer feels urges or attractions. The biggest obstacles are that many pedophiles actively resist treatment (this may be because only molesters that get caught usually undergo treatment), and the treatments often require lifelong followup to help keep the pedophiles on a good path.

Count Chocula wrote:
Dude, that was aimed at djinnkittynumbersomething, not you. Apologies if I left it open to misinterpretation.

Oh looky, kittykat discovered the word "discourse!" Too bad discourse /= debate.

"There you go again" - Ronald Raygun

Quackster, nice infodump and I'm sure you have the citations. Exactly which side are you supporting? To paraphrase you-not-really-you:

"Who am I? Why am I here?" - Admiral (ret) James Stockdale

"I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me." - Fangorn

"Don't come around here no more"- Tom Petty

Quackustra wrote:Important thing to note- most psychological professionals believe that pedophilia (defined as attraction to prepubescent children or children in the early stages of puberty) can be successfully treated, although it may not be curable in the sense that the pedophile no longer feels urges or attractions. The biggest obstacles are that many pedophiles actively resist treatment (this may be because only molesters that get caught usually undergo treatment), and the treatments often require lifelong followup to help keep the pedophiles on a good path.

I see it as the same as any other potentially damaging psychological compulsion. Hoarders, kleptomaniacs, anger-management sufferers, etc can also severely hurt quite a lot of people close to them when untreated, and often treating their condition is a lifelong battle that, even after years of successfully fighting their compulsion, they can slip right back into it.

Yet with all of these, one of the biggest aids to treatment is the support and effort of family and friends to help keep them on the straight and narrow, and often those that are social pariahs just retreat further into their psychoses and compulsions. Why would pedophilia be any different? But I suppose maintaining the outward illusion of being tough on them is more important than the fact that singling them out for isolation and social abuse will not only make their own condition worse, but also make other hidden pedophiles want afraid to step forward and confront their own problems after seeing what happened to the last one that got outed.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:Oh looky, kittykat discovered the word "discourse!" Too bad discourse /= debate.

And if anyone knows the nuances of debate, it's Chuckles!

You're getting better though, dear, you're comprehending enough to be offended.

Wow, you failed to make an argument yet again! Bravo. You have a special kind of myopia. You amuse me.

Quackustra wrote:"I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me." - Fangorn

"Don't come around here no more"- Tom Petty

"GIVE IT UP! HA!"

Quackustra wrote:"I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me." - Fangorn

"Don't come around here no more"- Tom Petty

"We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control." - Pink Floyd

"It's just you and your hand tonight." - Pink

Count Chocula wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:Oh looky, kittykat discovered the word "discourse!" Too bad discourse /= debate.

And if anyone knows the nuances of debate, it's Chuckles!

You're getting better though, dear, you're comprehending enough to be offended.

Wow, you failed to make an argument yet again! Bravo. You have a special kind of myopia. You amuse me.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Quackustra wrote:Important thing to note- most psychological professionals believe that pedophilia (defined as attraction to prepubescent children or children in the early stages of puberty) can be successfully treated, although it may not be curable in the sense that the pedophile no longer feels urges or attractions. The biggest obstacles are that many pedophiles actively resist treatment (this may be because only molesters that get caught usually undergo treatment), and the treatments often require lifelong followup to help keep the pedophiles on a good path.

I see it as the same as any other potentially damaging psychological compulsion. Hoarders, kleptomaniacs, anger-management sufferers, etc can also severely hurt quite a lot of people close to them when untreated, and often treating their condition is a lifelong battle that, even after years of successfully fighting their compulsion, they can slip right back into it.

Yet with all of these, one of the biggest aids to treatment is the support and effort of family and friends to help keep them on the straight and narrow, and often those that are social pariahs just retreat further into their psychoses and compulsions. Why would pedophilia be any different? But I suppose maintaining the outward illusion of being tough on them is more important than the fact that singling them out for isolation and social abuse will not only make their own condition worse, but also make other hidden pedophiles want afraid to step forward and confront their own problems after seeing what happened to the last one that got outed.

Also, pedophilia may be more malleable than most psychological disorders, judging by the normalization of pederasty in Classical Greece. So there may be some hope yet.

Count Chocula wrote:

Quackustra wrote:"I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me." - Fangorn

"Don't come around here no more"- Tom Petty

"We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control." - Pink Floyd

"It's just you and your hand tonight." - Pink

So I spent the day getting youth engaged in the political process. Felt pretty good, man.

Phantasee wrote:So I spent the day getting youth engaged in the political process. Felt pretty good, man.

Just steer them clear of NAMBLA, dude.

Between us my goal is to get more progressive minded people into the party to help with the overall shift leftwards we've been undergoing for the past year. It's working so far. I have good friends on the conservative end, but I don't think they'd support my efforts very much. Oh well!

Phantasee wrote:So I spent the day getting youth engaged in the political process. Felt pretty good, man.

Baks and kitty are so going to misinterpret what you just wrote. Brace yourself.

EDIT Flagg goddamnit stop typing faster than me! Ok fine, nevermind, rant away. BTW, you fucking shitstain asshole (it's been too long since we flung poo each others' way) I am most gratified that you do not stoop to rebut fellow posters with such inane smilies as



or



or, worst and most deviously creative and biting of all:



Good on you. It makes me proud!

EDIT by the way, Backs, when did you become kitty's batman?