Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I'm adding another element to this thread, age.

There was a big fuss a few years ago when a guy kissed a girl. The fuss wasn't from the participants, rather it came from the girl's parents as the girl (and guy) were in kindergarten at the time (this led to the guy being suspended).

For the boy, he was doing what comes natural for guys in expressing his fondness for the girl (a side issue is does the "punishment fit the crime?") And for the girl who was a willing participant, no punishment (but I'm sure her parents must have lectured her). So I'm saying that society needs an adjustment.

PhilX

Are you serious? Where did this happen?

I'm doing an internet check. As I said it's been a few years.

PhilX

I've located this story:

http://reallifeparentingblog.com/everyt ... dergarten/

http://fox4kc.com/2013/12/10/colorado-b ... d-to-file/

Thanks, but it's utterly depressing to find out it's true, although not particularly surprising.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Are you serious? Where did this happen?

I'm doing an internet check. As I said it's been a few years.

PhilX

I've located this story:

http://reallifeparentingblog.com/everyt ... dergarten/

http://fox4kc.com/2013/12/10/colorado-b ... d-to-file/

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Thanks, but it's utterly depressing to find out it's true, although not particularly surprising.

One of the sad parts to this story is this will remain on the boy's record for the rest of his life. I'm sure the girl is going to be emotionally affected for the rest of her life too.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Are you serious? Where did this happen?

I'm doing an internet check. As I said it's been a few years.

PhilX

I've located this story:

http://reallifeparentingblog.com/everyt ... dergarten/

http://fox4kc.com/2013/12/10/colorado-b ... d-to-file/

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Thanks, but it's utterly depressing to find out it's true, although not particularly surprising.

One of the sad parts to this story is this will remain on the boy's record for the rest of his life. I'm sure the girl is going to be emotionally affected for the rest of her life too.

PhilX

It was a very cruel and destructive thing to do to a child. Children are dumped in day care from small babies, so their parents barely know them, and don't remotely understand children. The result is over-reactive shit like the case in question.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Are you serious? Where did this happen?

I'm doing an internet check. As I said it's been a few years.

PhilX

I've located this story:

http://reallifeparentingblog.com/everyt ... dergarten/

http://fox4kc.com/2013/12/10/colorado-b ... d-to-file/

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Thanks, but it's utterly depressing to find out it's true, although not particularly surprising.

One of the sad parts to this story is this will remain on the boy's record for the rest of his life. I'm sure the girl is going to be emotionally affected for the rest of her life too.

PhilX

It was a very cruel and destructive thing to do to a child. Children are dumped in day care from small babies, so their parents barely know them, and don't remotely understand children. The result is over-reactive shit like the case in question.

I don't think it's the general rule VT (thankfully). I think it's more reflective on how PC society has become.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Yes, people do more often treat others with an unbalanced (hypocritical) treatment based on whether they find them attractive or not. I gave the contrasting pictures above to demonstrate this. My point is that for that guy there, I'd imagine he gets treated with even more violation and disrespect than the angelic innocent girl in the other regardless. And yet society only feels sorry for the doe-eyes girl but ignores what really is going on. ...

I doubt that 'society' only feels sorry for the girl but I'm interested in what you mean by 'what's really going on'?

When I said, "what's really going on", I meant that while we attend to the harms of the stereotype of women as helpless perpetual 'girls' as we often attribute concern for "women and children" when concerning tragedies, we forget that men too are as much victims in reality. In context to that image of the ape man (obviously just a Photoshop job), the likelihood that he would get abused over that innocent-looking girl is a thousand-fold. And what also gets ignored is how neglect by society also adds to this force even though most don't or won't accept this type of behavior as "abusive" when it actually is.

henry quirk wrote:I self-employ as a criminal/civil researcher.

translation from bullshit to english: i read a lot of random stuff on the internet, and write lots of random stuff on the internet

Roughly forty percent of the (abuse/rape/molestation) investigations I'm privy to were dismissed, or the accused was acquitted, because the accuser was a liar.

you read this somewhere on the internet so it must be true?

Kayla,

I get paid to go through courthouse archives, and to interview folks, to find information for use in civil and criminal proceedings.

Compared to you folks, I spend very little time on-line, for pleasure or profit.

The 40% assessment is mine, based on the cases I've researched.

If you don't care for my work or my conclusions, that's fine by me.

would you care to provide references and tell us more about your methodology

Of course women 'never lie' about such things. Just ask Rolf Harris. The English have always enjoyed a good old witch-hunt.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course women 'never lie' about such things. Just ask Rolf Harris. The English have always enjoyed a good old witch-hunt.

Are you suggesting that all the witnesses who testified against Rolf Harris perjured themselves?

Obvious Leo wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course women 'never lie' about such things. Just ask Rolf Harris. The English have always enjoyed a good old witch-hunt.

Are you suggesting that all the witnesses who testified against Rolf Harris perjured themselves?

I'm saying that I don't see where the 'crime' is, except that he might have been a groper back in the day. If that's the case then nearly every man I worked with in the 80s was a criminal by today's standards. Ever heard of the witch's of Salem? Of course several people can't possibly lie about the same thing. Odd that they all waited for the same moment to speak out. The whole thing is bullshit.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I'm saying that I don't see where the 'crime' is,

The crime is that the acts of which he was accused and convicted were committed against children.

Obvious Leo wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I'm saying that I don't see where the 'crime' is,

The crime is that the acts of which he was accused and convicted were committed against children.

Rubbish. One was a child, and the 'act' was hugging. I believe it was proven he wasn't even there at the time. She also said she remembered his big hairy hands, which was nonsense. Sorry, I don't buy that someone could be horribly traumatised by a hug that supposedly occurred when they were eight, forty six years ago. If you look at the case there is no actual evidence of anything. To totally destroy a person, along with his entire family, because of some collective guilt over Jimmy Saville and the sleazy celebs of that era is something only a sicko could approve of. What about all those under-age girls who threw themselves at the Rolling Stones and Beatles? I bet there isn't a British celebrity who's not wondering if he will be next. Every now and then the mob gets gripped by a feeding frenzy. In the nineties it was 'satanic cults', a paranoid hysteria that the US (surprise surprise) exported to the rest of the world. There are several cases of innocent people being jailed for the most bizarre crap imaginable.
Think about William Roache and the others who were found not guilty. What about all of their accusers? Could it be that they were lying? Harris has had ample access to children his entire career. There has never been so much as a hint of paedophilia. I just wish people would learn to think. The system is supposed to be based on the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's clearly far too difficult for the average juror to grasp. Gut feeling and media frenzy are so much more fun, and easier to understand.
This article presents the facts quite objectively, but try reasoning with a mob in the throes of hysteria.

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/curren ... able-doubt

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm saying that I don't see where the 'crime' is, except that he might have been a groper back in the day. If that's the case then nearly every man I worked with in the 80s was a criminal by today's standards.

the men you worked with grabbed women sexually without worrying about things like whether this was wanted

so now they are criminals

boo hoo

cry me a river

Kayla wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm saying that I don't see where the 'crime' is, except that he might have been a groper back in the day. If that's the case then nearly every man I worked with in the 80s was a criminal by today's standards.

the men you worked with grabbed women sexually without worrying about things like whether this was wanted

so now they are criminals

boo hoo

cry me a river

The women didn't exactly seem to mind very much. They certainly weren't 'traumatised'. That's beside the point here anyway. The point is that the case was NOT proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT! No one gives a crap what you think. It's irrelevant in a courtroom, or should be.