Lurker > Dreaming_King

wolfy42 posted...

Sexual predators have created a society of fear.

The media sensationalizing and hyper focusing on horrific but ultimately extremely rare cases while largely ignoring more widespread but "mundane" cases of child abuse has created a society of fear. Negative emotions like fear, anger, and hatred are their bread and butter after all. I could even get into the research that suggests the extreme reaction people have towards certain cases of abuse is just as damaging to the child as the act itself, but that's an even touchier subject.

---

Nil-

LinkPizza posted...

I think that already exist... Well, sort of... I think there is a trailer park full of them. But I havent seen the video. I think its by one of the YouTube channels Ive been watching crime videos on...

There are laws in place in most states that restrict where sex offenders can live, usually within 1000 feet of a school, park, daycare, etc. Many larger cities deliberately do things like put down a single bench on the side of a street and classify it as a "park" to make the entire surrounding area off limits, that and letting anyone start a "daycare" regardless of if they have any qualifications or accreditation to further cut off parts of the area (totally kid safe).

The thing is, like the objectively proven thing, is that the chance of some guy snatching a kid off the street outside of a school/park, especially one within a close distance to his house is incredibly small and if we're talking someone already convicted of a sex crime almost 0%. The vast majority of cases of child abuse come from within the home or from a close family friend or relative. The laws passed to stop the almost non existent threat of stranger abductions by segregating sex offenders don't really do anything except create situations where they all get grouped together since most would be on some sort of probation or parole and be forced to live in a certain town or city even though the majority of the city is off limits to them. That and give easy votes to politicians for being "tough on crime" .

And then what happens next is people complain and ask why such a thing is allowed, letting so many criminals congregate where there are probably still kids running around anyways. There was a case in my town years ago where a little girl was dismembered by some mad man in such a place full of sex offenders, but the guy who did it wasn't one of them but that's all the media could focus on, this "secret" sex offender trailer park and how dangerous it must be. Not the unrelated child murder or anything.

---

Nil-

Mead posted...

I agree that even illustrations of minors in obvious pornographic depictions should be illegal and considered CP

it just encourages the mental illness and makes them more likely to harm a child as the illness progresses

Like I said, the people who are the most ignorant tend to be the loudest on this topic. Although I guess that sort of thing is pretty common actually.

---

Nil-

I find it strange that it's a given that pedophilia is always even linked to child molesting. I mean I know most of the people so passionate about the subject, calling for torturous death penalties for anyone accused of such a thing and so on, are generally ignorant of the actual facts and stats behind the crimes but still. A large percent of child molestation cases don't even involve someone who could be clinically diagnosed with pedophilia but instead by a "simple" opportunist sexual predator. Even for that group the vast majority aren't crazed sex demons that literally can't stop themselves from sticking their dicks in places they shouldn't go, but people with various mental and social problems who find themselves in a situation where they can exploit someone weaker than themselves. Chemical castration would do little but unnecessarily lower the quality of life for most of the people convicted of such crimes (why are we only talking about child molesting anyways? Shouldn't this apply to rapists as well?) which believe it or not is something that should be avoided if it can if the person is expected to rejoin society as a productive and reformed citizen.

wolfy42 posted...

I even consider virutal (anime etc) child porn should be illegal because it could escalate someone

Come on people, at least try to keep your emotions in check and actually think before you say something?

---

Nil-

deoxxys posted...

What about the 29/30 cops at his police station that didnt lie about having pig written on their McDonalds cup?
Do they get no recognition?

Why the hell should someone get recognition for not being a piece of shit liar? That's like the bare minimum you should expect from people.

---

Nil-

I would say staring at the bright light a magnifying glass makes when focusing sunlight is probably more dangerous than the burning aspect since most places aren't dry enough for it to cause a serious fire but the light is always there to damage developing eyes.

---

Nil-

Since we have a special year in 2020 I plan to start a special New Years Revolution that night even though I normally just sleep through it.

---

Nil-

I started playing Lifeline the other day, basically old school Resident Evil in space with aliens replacing zombies, very fun.

---

Nil-

So I rode my bike over to this little grocery store during my break at work to get some snacks and after an uneventful 3 minute ride lock up my bike in front. Some old crone comes up to me and says "You need to pay more attention to what you're doing, I nearly hit you back there" waving vaguely towards the parking lot with a nasty look on her face.

Taken slightly off guard I just asked what she was talking about but she ignored me and went into the store. That was her fatal mistake. If she had just explained herself I might have let it slide but ignoring me after a quip like that? I followed her in and said again louder, "So are you going to elaborate because I don't remember any close calls on the way here." She scoffed and I continued with my classic 180 attitude change "Are you sure you weren't seeing things you senile old bitch? You're certainly too old to be driving but I don't know if your brain is literally rotting yet."

She stopped in her tracks but didn't dare say a word back as I went about my shopping normally. I don't care who it is, man, woman, child, old husk, anyone who comes at me wrong is going to get the same treatment until they learn not to mess with me.

---

Nil-

TerranceC posted...

Like you countered the point with some ridiculous corner case, that isnt productive to the conversation.

If you think someone pointing out that one of your convictions you went on and on about so surely for several posts is in fact wrong-
TerranceC posted...

Unless we are talking about a burglary or something and not a public shooting, aiming a weapon at someone is illegal.

-isn't productive I don't know what you're on about. The goal of any conversation like this should be to move towards the actual best solution to the problem, not stubbornly only pursuing what you think is the best option. .Thus misinformation shouldn't be spread around just because it helps your point.

---

Nil-

_AdjI_ posted...

The central idea of the law quoted is not that you can never point a gun at anyone who isn't actively shooting people, it's that you can't point a gun at anyone without reasonable justification.

I know that. it was a response to this.

TerranceC posted...

Seriously what state do you know is it legal to point a firearm at someone before theyve done anything and they are not actively in your home or trespassing?

Until the gunman brandishes his weapon you cant just pull a gun on him preemptively

---

Nil-

TerranceC posted...

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Seriously what state do you know is it legal to point a firearm at someone before theyve done anything and they are not actively in your home or trespassing?

Until the gunman brandishes his weapon you cant just pull a gun on him preemptively, and after hes done so hes already got the drop on you.

There was this case.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-detained-walking-missouri-walmart-armed-rifle-wearing/story?id=64870120

tl;dr Guy walked into a Wal-Mart with body armor and some holstered guns to do some shopping, being completely within his state law and Wal-Mart's own policy. The only problem is he did this a few days after that Wal-Mart mass shooting so people panicked and some guy with a concealed gun pulled it on him and held him at gun point until the cops came to arrest him. They charged him with making a terrorist threat and last month he plead guilty to some lesser crime. The guy who held him at gun point wasn't charged with anything.

---

Nil-

TerranceC posted...

Had he simple ducked underneath the pew while drawing and readying his weapon so that he was ready to fire immediately out of cover, he couldve saved himself and likely taken out the other guy.

I realize your whole point is that people should get training to deal with situations like this, but I think this is really one of those things where you don't know how you're going to react in the moment and it isn't fair to look at it with hindsight over the internet in safety and far from the action. Some people rush gunmen with their bare hands and other times trained security runs off as soon as they hear shots fired, it seems like a crap shoot.

---

Nil-

RCtheWSBC posted...

No apology here. You came into the topic talking shit. It's rude to be negative for no reason.

Well good news then.
Now I have a reason to be negative.
And I won't forget it.

---

Nil-

RCtheWSBC posted...

lmao

Take a chill pill, my guy. No one made you click this topic to tell us how mad you are.

YOU"RE the one who took the first swing at me! You called me "Nancy", just because I was skeptical the movie was any good. I don't take kindly to that sort of insult. I will accept your apology though so we can call this even.

TerranceC posted...

He is upset because people dont like High IQ stuff like Rick and Morty he wants to talk about his Rick and Morty tattoos right above his left asscheek.

Another series I've never seen but already know sucks because of the types of people I see wearing merch from it on the street, the types you can just tell are rejects. How popular it is is another red flag too.

---

Nil-

RCtheWSBC posted...

Negative-ass Nancy talking shit about something they don't even know about

Who the hell do you think you're talking to exactly? I've never seen it but just from the title alone I can tell it's a stupid, thoughtless "lol so funny" type of trash so popular with the masses these days. Come try and talk smack when get some taste.

---

Nil-

And? Plus I doubt it's really that good.

---

Nil-

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

The reason hate crime laws exist is to try and dissuade overt actions against classes of people who have traditionally been treated as less than human. The argument is that crimes which invoke stereotypes or prejudices about that class deserve harsher punishment because those views are used to justify the crime committed by the offender, since the victim is 'other'.

Wow you finally came up with an argument, color me surprised. It isn't a very good one but still.

So firstly it has been shown time and again that stiffer legal punishments don't actually dissuade the vast majority of criminals and even if we pretend they did for a second it would be near impossible in the vast majority of cases to even prove that particular bias existed at trial. Like is every crime against a black/gay/transgender person a hate crime? How could anyone prove there was a racial/homophobic/transphobic motive involved unless the suspect literally says "yeah I only did this because fuck those people" which isn't going to happen often regardless of if those are their true feelings how could a judge reasonably apply the law, by which I mean potentially adding several years to the suspects sentence.

Secondly I love how you openly say these laws exist to "protect" certain groups of people, effectively saying it's less important if anyone not in these groups (like White men) are the victims of crime, it's textbook racism and you don't even realize it. Another racist implication is that just because someone appears to be part of a given group they are. If a black guy moved to the States from say South Africa and was beat up here would his assailant still deserve this "retroactive retribution" in the form of a stiffer punishment just because the guy is black? Are we going to have a tier list of the groups who were treated the worst in history (according to who?) in every court house with mathematical formula for how much the court should care about them?

Thirdly another thing you've brought up ad nauseam is "we have hate crime laws for a reason...". I'll clue you in on what that reason is, it has nothing to do with "Justice" and everything to do with politicians who want to pass feel good laws to get easy votes from gullible chumps and so they can say they give a damn about certain groups of people. Because here's the thing, in every criminal court I've ever heard of the Judge has the authority to increase or decrease the sentence they give someone based on something called mitigating or aggravating circumstances. That is to say, even in a state like mine without hate crime laws if someone obviously did something for a racist or whatever reason and showed no remorse they could still give them a harsher sentence. Hate crime laws are entirely unnecessary from any point of view.

---

Nil-

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

Hate crime laws exist for a reason. If a person of one ethnicity commits a crime against someone of another ethnicity because they think that person is an asshole, that's one thing. If they do it specifically BECAUSE of the other person's ethnicity, that's another.

You keep repeating yourself but never answer my orginal question, WHY is it worse, WHY is it "another thing", WHY should the legal system/society say that when certain groups of people are hurt it matters more than when others are?

You know they tried passing a hate crimes law in my state this last year and thankfully it was shot down, justice should be blind and not favor some groups over others.

---

Nil-

Mead posted...

Running over people intentionally is horrible. Doing it because you dont like their ethnicity is worse.

It really isn't though, a crime is a crime. Regardless of why the lady did it she should get the same punishment or else are you saying that the safety of certain groups of people is more important than that of others?

---

Nil-

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

I doubt the racist white druggie would have said "Yeah, I ran over her because she was white."

Why does it matter though? Is there any justification for running over a 14 year old? If the lady was racist or not is completely irrelevant.

---

Nil-

Why does it matter that she's mexican exactly? Would it be less wrong if she was, say, White?

---

Nil-

What are you guys even talking about? I looked it up and only one state permanently takes away the right to vote from felons and like 8 have some hoops to jump through to get the privilege back. The vast majority of the country is fine with felons voting as long as they aren't literally in prison.

---

Nil-

I always hated family gatherings so now that I'm an adult I never go to them. I'll keep my phone handy if someone decides to call me and waste my time but that's it.

---

Nil-

Why would it be so strange that a woman, or anyone for that matter, would be upset that their significant other was "embarrassed" or otherwise reluctant to admit being with them? Maybe in the context of the show it makes sense to hide it, I don't know, but in most relationships that would be hella rude.

---

Nil-

mooreandrew58 posted...

What about unfindable.as in the criminals identity and guilt is pretty known but they can never find them. CB or JB cooperi think his name was. Stole a shitload of money highjacked a plane and dived out with a parachute. Was never found.

Hmm that sounds pretty rough unless they plan on leaving the country afterwards since there's always the chance some random guy will recognize them and report them. Committing a crime and not getting caught would be nerve wracking enough since you never know if the police will get a new lead, but knowing they know and can prove it was you would feel awful.

I guess it could be cool for say a prison escape where the guy is a crime boss and has a whole underground/organization to protect and hide him afterwards though.

---

Nil-

Extreme_light posted...

And 5 is kinda context based. Like say a raped man or woman kill their rapist, then with a good lawyer or whatever they could turn public opinion in their favor. In that case it's more like righteous justice than a perfect crime.

Nice analysis but for 5 I meant something like of a woman killing a man and claiming/inventing evidence he tried to rape her to get off on self defense and vilify the guy after his death to add insult to injury.

---

Nil-

Shadowbird_RH posted...

Assuming the second party is also an objective to be eliminated (albeit through indirect means), 3 would be the perfect crime. On the other hand, if the second party is just an otherwise innocent bystander, my choice is 1.

Hmm... let's say the second party is just someone convenient to pin the crime on like someone with a well known grudge against the victim, a ex-lover perhaps.

---

Nil-

I'll use first degree murder as the basis of all examples just for the sake of simplicity.

1. The unnoticed crime is one that is covered up so thoroughly that it is never even reported. This could come from falsification of evidence to suggest the murder was a suicide or a tragic accident of some kind.

2.The unsolvable crime is one that is clearly a murder but handled so masterfully that law enforcement can make no meaningful progress in finding the culprit or even any suspects.

3. The pinned crime is one where the true culprit covered their tracks well but also planted convincing evidence implicating a second party, giving law enforcement a clear target and possibly letting them "solve" and close the case.

4. The unprovable crime is one committed in such a way that purposely draws attention to the culprit who then produces an unimpeachable alibi or other evidence. Clearing them and taunting law enforcement simultaneously.

5. The "just" crime is one where the culprit openly admits their involvement but through clever manipulation and guile twist the victim into the villain and gain public support to have their name cleared.

The common perception of the perfect crime would probably be 1. or 2. but which do you like the best?

---

Nil-

What if she comes back from the dead after she's buried?

---

Nil-

Not sure what the actual term is but whatever, I'm talking about the guys who listen to people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, random youtubers, etc. etc. and adopt their views entirely as their own. Like I'm not even saying what these guys think or do is bad/wrong but the idea of letting some mildly charismatic internet talky guy do your thinking for you is just gross.

This comes up because my room mate and I had a debate about some "issue" that was supposedly a big deal in the conservative party right now and he had the upper hand. Afterwards I was curious about the state of the party wide debate since I don't follow politics and after googling around it turns out he was just regurgitating the spiel of one of these guys verbatim.

Honestly I thought men were supposed to be stupidly individualistic to the point they run off of their own thoughts and ideas regardless of how bad they might end up being, what happened to that?

---

Nil-

helIy posted...

Star Wars movies have always been consistently terrible, though, so this should come as no surprise.

This, Star Wars was never good.

---

Nil-

I'm transane, beyond the limits of normal or even hyper sanity.

---

Nil-

papercup posted...

Except for, you know, the obvious problems of inbreeding. But, yeah sure, there's exactly zero reason not to do this.

"incest" =/= inbreeding. Two cousins having a child would not increase the chance of detrimental mutations or disease by any noticeable amount.

There are plenty of unrelated couples who share similar negative traits like certain mental illnesses or mutations that are far more likely to be passed onto their children and yet that isn't illegal or frowned upon is it? There are even some fatal hereditary illnesses, the parents carrying them dooming their child to die young if they have one but that's fine right? Beyond that, what if two cousins just love each other but don't want children, or want to adopt? What would your argument against their union be then, that it's "icky"?

---

Nil-

ParanoidObsessive posted...

No. Literally. As in literally literally, not figuratively literally.

On every single human being alive today's family tree, if you go back far enough, you will hit someone who is in every single tree. By the technical definition of the word, we are all cousins. The only relationship you will ever have with another human who is NOT your cousin is if they're even closer in degree (parents, siblings, children, etc).

And I'm not talking Biblical stories here, I'm talking legitimate science. Look up Y-Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Every human alive is related to every other human.

Very obviously the people here are using cousin in the most well known and common meaning of "the child of a parent's sibling". Any other meaning is phrased differently like second cousin. You can't be so obtuse you didn't realize this, or that fact that all humans are tangentially related is common knowledge right?

---

Nil-

If they liked each other and everything was consensual why let societal dogma dictate who they can and can't see? Them being cousins, especially since they weren't initially aware of the fact, was a nonissue.

---

Nil-

Anyone who thinks this is worth 15 YEARS is insane, maybe 15 months and compensation payments for the flag, but destroying someone's life over this is a sick joke.

---

Nil-

HornedLion posted...

Hes... Jewish?

Not really, messianic "Judaism" is some weird blend of Judaism and Christianity that only just popped up in the last few decades. Neither Jews or Christians like them and there are very few of them actually around.

---

Nil-

Did they not exchange pictures or something? I'm confused.

---

Nil-

Trying to tell people what they can and can't spend their own money on sounds like communism to me buddy.

---

Nil-

SunWuKung420 posted...

Lock him up. He'll find plenty of lovers in prison.

Cool that the mods don't care about rape jokes when they involve prisons.

---

Nil-

LinkPizza posted...

Whats the point of life if you cant be happy and enjoy it?

Joy should spring from following the teachings of God and his Holy Son, not indulging in base urges like a wild animal. Society has done their best to mold modern man into such an animal who knows nothing else but seeking the next temporary pleasure from the moment they are born so understandably the idea of doing anything else will seem strange to those raised outside of the Word.

---

Nil-

Keebs05 posted...

A religious nut job AND a hypocrite?

Christians don't (or shouldn't anyways) claim to be perfect and they acknowledge that they sin like everyone else to the point they deserve damnation if not for the grace of Jesus Christ. Working to help others in the grasp of sin while battling, and in this case falling to his own demons is far more commendable than just pretending that sin doesn't exist at all and openly living a hedonistic lifestyle.

---

Nil-

What gets me is the people who come up to me acting like I should know them and it turns out we went to high school or even middle school together. Like how much empty space do you have to have in your head to remember some guy you never talked to from several years ago?

---

Nil-

I would openly describe one of my favorite newer games, Risk of Rain 2 as addictive. It's a roguelike with a large element of luck involved in your runs that makes you feel like you could always do better if only you had found better items or whatever. I love it even though it isn't super deep and has no story to speak of which is usually my main thing.

That said when I say "addictive" I don't mean I play it so much it negatively impacts my life or anything, just that it's fun to play a lot of. I image most other people have a similar meaning in mind when they call a game addictive.

---

Nil-

helIy posted...

I looked it up, it's some weeb thing that was announced in 2016 to be an alexa-type thing, except it has a screen that displays a dumpy looking anime chick.

And it's still not out yet, after 4, going on 5, years.

Your Google-fu is weak young grasshopper, leave my dojo until the time you can find information that is actually true.

---

Nil-

Regardless of your personal opinions, I don't see how anyone can support a spineless coward that flip flops like this. Just like I always lose more respect for someone famous when they apologize for saying something "offensive" than when they said whatever it was in the first place, not that I inherently have much respect for famous people.

---

Nil-

Jen0125 posted...

Probably that she's white and it's a shocking, random crime that resulted in the death of a young person.

The U.S. is like 75% white, and I would say the majority of murders are shocking and if not random, inexplicable to the common person. As for age "young" is pretty broad. I'm sure there have been other crimes recently that fit those criteria that haven't gotten half the attention of this case.

---

Nil-

Am I allowed to ask why people care so much about this murder in particular? I'm not trying to be edgy or obtuse, but people get killed all the time, what is so special about this specific instance to make it national news?

---

Nil-

Assuming it had basically the same functionality as the current GTBX-1000 model and retailed for a standard Yen to USD conversion of about $1,400.

---

Nil-