The Law Pedophile Avoids Prison!

[Sportman1987]

You actually interpreted what I said as meaning "all". If you are too dumb to understand the nuances of the English language and insist on taking everything literally then there isn't really much more that can be said. Except maybe, get a clue. Idiot.

Alright, you didn't mean literally mean 'all'. So where does that leave us? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - because if there were psychological differences which applied between the genders which affect everyone, there would be a good argument for treating the genders differently.

Since you admit the differences don't apply to everyone, how do you justify treating genders differently in court? Do you think the court should take into account generalisations based on gender, and assumingly orientation, race, culture etc when sentencing or not? That's the entire crux of what I've been arguing but each time you've ignored it.

You've clearly got nothing. Go **** yourself.

 

[bunsen burner]

Alright, you didn't mean 'all'. So where does that leave us?

Me right, you wrong.

 

[bunsen burner]

Since you admit the differences don't apply to everyone, how do you justify treating genders differently in court?

I've already told you:

Girls are far more affected than boys.

[I shouldn't have to reiterate that we are talking 30+yo adults with pubescents here, but I wouldn't put it past you to change the goal posts just because I didn't specifically reiterate what we are talking about]

Just because this isn't the case right across the board is irrelevant. There is no real way of knowing (most of the time) how affected the victim is - particularly because often the effect is delayed. So a judge must use a percentage play.

Pretty simple and logical concept I would have thought.

Do you think the court should take into account generalisations based on gender, and assumingly orientation, race, culture etc when sentencing or not? That's the entire crux of what I've been arguing but each time you've ignored it.

This has nothing to do with anything. All it shows is your black and white view and lack of flexible thought.

You've clearly got nothing. Go **** yourself.

Strange comment from a dumb arse who lacks the understanding of basic English.

 

[Sportman1987]

I've already told you:

Girls are far more affected than boys.

[I shouldn't have to reiterate that we are talking 30+yo adults with pubescents here, but I wouldn't put it past you to change the goal posts just because I didn't specifically reiterate what we are talking about]

Just because this isn't the case right across the board is irrelevant. There is no real way of knowing (most of the time) how affected the victim is - particularly because often the effect is delayed. So a judge must use a percentage play.

Pretty simple and logical concept I would have thought.

This has nothing to do with anything. All it shows is your black and white view and lack of flexible thought.

Strange comment from a dumb arse who lacks the understanding of basic English.

Proof that women are more affected? And how much of a discrepancy between genders should there be before judge make a "percentage play"? Do you think percentage plays should be made in other areas such as race, sexual orientation and culture? What a crock.

You call it black and white, I call it equality before the law regardless of who/what you are, a basic right IMO.

 

[bunsen burner]

Proof that women are more affected?

You're going to hide behind that are you? Who do you think you're kidding? You've just shown everyone how dumb you are.

 

[Sportman1987]

You're going to hide behind that are you? Who do you think you're kidding? You've just shown everyone how dumb you are.

Not hiding behind anything. You'd make a great politician, picking and choosing what to respond to. Fine, let's grant that on average women are more affected, even though that's only based on anecdotal evidence and assumptions about the female psyche. What about the other 4/5's of my post you ignored? Keep dancing.

 

[bunsen burner]

Not hiding behind anything. You'd make a great politician, picking and choosing what to respond to. Fine, let's grant that on average women are more affected, even though that's only based on anecdotal evidence and assumptions about the female psyche. What about the other 4/5's of my post you ignored? Keep dancing.

Keep dancing? You've already admitted you have been wrong twice, both points of which are pertinent to my stance. That would make me right, you wrong. All the other stuff is a straw argument that has absolutely zero to do with anything I have said.

 

[Sportman1987]

Keep dancing? You've already admitted you have been wrong twice, both points of which are pertinent to my stance. That would make me right, you wrong. All the other stuff is a straw argument that has absolutely zero to do with anything I have said.

Me being "wrong" about girls being affected more is just a concession to try and make you answer the points which actually matter. Whether girls are on average affected more or less has no bearing on my argument.

Me being "wrong" about you believing men and women all share common differences was to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if you meant it as a generalisation that in no way changes my argument, which is that the law should treat people the same way regardless of gender.

You keep bleating that gender should be taken into account since women are more affected by sexual abuse. OK, I hear you. My response is that if you are willing to do that, why not do the same with something like race or sexual orientation?c They aren't straw men. I'm not misrepresenting you. Each is a characterictic we're born into and have no control over. Feel free to make an argument as to why the courts should take into account something like gender, but not at the same time something like race. Does that not seem inconsistent to you? Only individual circumstances matter.

 

[bunsen burner]

Me being "wrong" about girls being affected more is just a concession to try and make you answer the points which actually matter. Whether girls are on average affected more or less has no bearing on my argument.

This not your argument. It's my argument. You challenged it. You were wrong. Not sure why you're upset that i'm not entering into your argument?

You keep bleating that gender should be taken into account since women are more affected by sexual abuse. OK, I hear you. My response is that if you are willing to do that, why not do the same with something like race or sexual orientation?

You're really showing your lack of intelligence here as you are unable to separate clearly different things. Race and sexual orientation have nothing to do with gender. They are different.

Your problem is that you have an ideal that you want to blanket over a lot of things but not taking into the fact that some of these smaller things need to be treated differently.

You are inflexible and thinking with your ideals rather than your logic. This goes hand in hand why I'm heaps smarter than you and you being completely owned in this discussion. Call it arrogance if you will but I'm sort of over conversing with a dumb arse who can't see the difference between emotional ideal lead thinking and logic.

They aren't straw men. I'm not misrepresenting you.

You have invented an argument that if I think a judge should consider consider gender then I must think a judge must consider race. I have never said this nor implied this yet you are bemoaning the fact I haven't taken the stance you want me to take. That is a straw argument.

You still can't see past your ideals and that age, gender, orientation, race are different concepts and may need to be treated differently.

I have never talked about this and don't care to discuss it. I made a point, you went for the smack down, you got gazumped by someone with way superior intelligence. So quietly grab your keyboard and **** off.

 

[Sportman1987]

You have invented an argument that if I think a judge should consider consider gender then I must think a judge must consider race. I have never said this nor implied this yet you are bemoaning the fact I haven't taken the stance you want me to take. That is a straw argument.

You still can't see past your ideals and that age, gender, orientation, race are different concepts and may need to be treated differently.

I have never talked about this and don't care to discuss it. I made a point, you went for the smack down, you got gazumped by someone with way superior intelligence. So quietly grab your keyboard and **** off.

Phew. Now we're getting somewhere. Ok, I've used race as a comparison because I believe it can be seen in the same terms as gender. It's something we're born into, have no choice over and in no way determines our behaviour or response to a situation. Therefore I think they should, in a legal sense be looked upon in the same way - which is that both are irrelevant when it comes to judging a case.

Now, you explain why you think gender warrants judges "generalizing" and making "percentage decisions" while race does not. Believe it or not I do realize that gender and race are different! Difference alone isn't a reason for one to be taken into account and the other not, you have to explain why!

 

[bunsen burner]

Read my post again. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

 

[Sportman1987]

Yep, just you trying to convince yourself that you're clever while avoiding your logical inconsistencies.

You're really showing your lack of intelligence here as you are unable to separate clearly different things. Race and sexual orientation have nothing to do with gender. They are different.

No s**t. My argument is that they're both something we don't choose and both in no way determines our behaviour. That's why both should be irrelevant when judging a case. If you think there should be some kind of seperation between the two, explain why and I'll be able to better understand your position and maybe learn something. But you "don't care to discuss it". You're a weasel.

Your problem is that you have an ideal that you want to blanket over a lot of things but not taking into the fact that some of these smaller things need to be treated differently

You are inflexible and thinking with your ideals rather than your logic. This goes hand in hand why I'm heaps smarter than you and you being completely owned in this discussion. Call it arrogance if you will but I'm sort of over conversing with a dumb arse who can't see the difference between emotional ideal lead thinking and logic.

I am, and I've explained why I'm taking a blanket approach. You explain why race & gender should be treated separately when judging a case. Explain why one should be taken into account and not the other. I'm being completely logical and consistent in my thinking when I say that something that someone is BORN INTO should have no bearing on how guilty they are or how harshly they are punished! Let me guess, you have a daughter right?

You have invented an argument that if I think a judge should consider consider gender then I must think a judge must consider race. I have never said this nor implied this yet you are bemoaning the fact I haven't taken the stance you want me to take. That is a straw argument.

You still can't see past your ideals and that age, gender, orientation, race are different concepts and may need to be treated differently.

Again, outline why. Maybe I'll learn from your amazing intelligence.

I have never talked about this and don't care to discuss it. I made a point, you went for the smack down, you got gazumped by someone with way superior intelligence. So quietly grab your keyboard and **** off.

Or just avoid it and have a narcissistic tantrum. Btw if you're going to reply, at least be fair enough to respond to each paragraph rather than selectively choosing them.

 

[bunsen burner]

Yep, just you trying to convince yourself that you're clever while avoiding your logical inconsistencies.

There are no logical inconsistencies in my point. You on the other have an ideal that you are trying to blanket across different concepts. This ideal is preventing you from looking at the situation logically. I've explained this to you very clearly but I'm not surprised you can't see it.

After all, you have already made an incorrect assumption and an incorrect statement that are pertinent to the issue and have admitted as much. Surely this must give you an inkling that you as a human being have limited logic?

 

[bunsen burner]

Or just avoid it and have a narcissistic tantrum. Btw if you're going to reply, at least be fair enough to respond to each paragraph rather than selectively choosing them.

Hardly a tantrum nor narcisicsm. I couldn't be bothered going around in circles with a dumb arse so I thought I'd cut to the chase and tell you want the core issue is.

 

[Chief]

bb, the ad hominem comments will stop. Now.

Read this: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=618999

Thank you.

 

[Chief]

Then you can show me where anyone has said or implied this:

while women are delicate flowers who couldn't possibly want some

The actual quote which you were saying nobody has said or implied:

I love how the stereotype of men being emotionless sex hounds , while women are delicate flowers who couldn't possibly want some, still exist.

Why did you leave off the part about men being emotionless sex hounds? That's almost exactly what several people have been saying in this thread, extending it down to young teen boys.

 

[bunsen burner]

bb, the ad hominem comments will stop. Now.

Read this: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=618999

Thank you.

I've clearly attacked the relevant parts to my point and left out the straw argument. Not sure how you think that is ad hominem?

Fact 1: I did not say that all girls would be worse off than all boys as he claimed

Fact 2: Girls are more affected than boys

Fact 3: Race and gender are different things and should not necessarily be treated the same as he suggests.

If he keeps trying the straw argument trick after he's been busted misrepresenting me, I will call him names.

 

[bunsen burner]

The actual quote which you were saying nobody has said or implied:


Why did you leave off the part about men being emotionless sex hounds? That's almost exactly what several people have been saying in this thread, extending it down to young teen boys.

Because the two, in context, go hand in hand.

What the said poster claimed was widely said:

"Men are emotionless sex hounds, women are never promiscuous"

What everyone actually said:

"Men are emotionless sex hounds, women don't like being exploited"

Different. ie his claim was FALSE.

 

[Sportman1987]

I've clearly attacked the relevant parts to my point and left out the straw argument. Not sure how you think that is ad hominem?

Fact 1: I did not say that all girls would be worse off than all boys as he claimed

Fact 2: Girls are more affected than boys

Fact 3: Race and gender are different things and should not necessarily be treated the same as he suggests.

If he keeps trying the straw argument trick after he's been busted misrepresenting me, I will call him names.

Alright, if you're just going to cross your arms and say "Nope, strawman, not answering" we aren't going to get anywhere. I'm genuinely interested WHY you think race, gender and other inborn characteristics shouldn't be treated "the same" Just repeating that they should be treated differently doesn't help. It's like a Christian saying God exists .... because he exists. I want to know why you think that is!

I'm done. All I can say is that I find the idea of judges making "percentage plays" based on gender generalisations sexist & unjust for reasons I've been over.

 

[bunsen burner]

Alright, if you're just going to cross your arms and say "Nope, strawman, not answering"

I'm not sure why you expect to invent an argument for me and then to take it on?

Your logic is that "it's wrong to prejudge on race therefore it's wrong to prejudge on gender".

Totally flawed. Unfortunately you don't have the ability to separate race and gender from underneath you ideal umbrella. If you make that step maybe i'll be interested in talking further.

 

[Sportman1987]

I'm not sure why you expect to invent an argument for me and then to take it on?

Your logic is that "it's wrong to prejudge on race therefore it's wrong to prejudge on gender".

Totally flawed. Unfortunately you don't have the ability to separate race and gender from underneath you ideal umbrella. If you make that step maybe i'll be interested in talking further.

Ok, let's present it differently.

Courts should not take into account a defendants innate characteristics (which do not limit the capacity to reason) when sentencing.

Race and gender are innate characteristics which do not affect the capacity to reason

Therefore, courts should not take into account race and gender when sentencing.

Rock solid. Provided the premise is true, so is the conclusion. I've explained why I believe the premise to be true.

I've included the caveat "ability to reason" so mental illness is not included. Can you better explain why you disagree with the premise? Then I'm really done.

 

[bunsen burner]

How bout (for the 10th time):

Women are more effected in certain sex crimes. It the particular crime we are talking about there is a vast difference between how males and females are effected.

And guess what? The legal fraternity recognises that and acts accordingly.

There is absolutely no link between gender and race. Not sure why you are trying to link the two as if they should be treated the same?

 

[Sportman1987]

How bout (for the 10th time):

Women are more effected in certain sex crimes. It the particular crime we are talking about there is a vast difference between how males and females are effected.

And guess what? The legal fraternity recognises that and acts accordingly.

There is absolutely no link between gender and race. Not sure why you are trying to link the two as if they should be treated the same?

Alright, so back to square one. I maintain that women being more affected on average is irrelevant and potentially doubtful anyway since you've provided no sources, just stereotypical assumptions.

In fact, a quick google brings up this 2005 study, which concluded that:

The long-term impact of CSA on multiple health and social problems was
similar for both men and women ....

.... It was found that nearly 40% of CSA among men and 6% of CSA among women was perpetrated by a female;
this has been reported by others.47 Among male victims of CSA, the risk of negative outcomes was similar when
the gender of the perpetrator was compared. Thus, perpetration of CSA by a female appears to exert negative effects that are similar in magnitude to CSA perpetrated by males.

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Dube_(2005)_Childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdf

So, your idea that judges should take into account that women are more affected (Which was *ed to start with - how long could it possibly take for a court to individually assess the victim? You act like cases take 2 minutes and the judge is under pressure to make a quick decision and must rely on averages) was wrong anyway. Your entire premise of women being more affected is false. I'm going to go trust the American Journal of Preventive Medicine on this one.

Enjoy being smarter than everyone.

 

[bit_pattern]

You're posts have been excellent in this thread Sportsman, kudos

 

[Sportman1987]

You're posts have been excellent in this thread Sportsman, kudos

Thanks man.

[YOUTUBE]HwG98H-7xXg[/YOUTUBE]