[deleted. pander bear said it already and said it better]
alasdair
alasdair
What, to you, might be an "obvious" distinction between busting people for real crimes with real victims, and harassing people for stupid crimes, might not be so obvious to the rest of society. After all, RICO laws were enacted to go after major organized crime syndicates that were doing some pretty scary stuff. Nowadays they're used mostly to bust small-time narcotics traffickers. This is what we call "the slippery slope" - out here, in the messy world of reality, it's not uncommon to find.
Pander Bear said:Oh, did that ever happen on this show you don't seem to watch?
no, because there was no girl, and there was no crime.
Pander Bear said:one dog can't win, place, and show! You need to bet in three dogs for that. Its called the trifecta!
PB went to see a dog race last weekend in florida, so he's schooled in the finer points .![]()
spaceyourbass said:More important issues? Do you support child molestation?
Benefit said:Also, the fact that this show has lead people in this very thread to the following conclusions:
1. That sexual predators preying on children in chat rooms is an endemic or widespread problem
2. That this show has had any effect on curbing the activity of online sexual predators
is highly irresponsible.
Mariposa said:. It's not enough to convict in and of itself, and the PeeJ folks are concentrating on evidence that does not meet standards for a criminal convictions... and doing so on TV. Creepy, unfortunately, doesn't in and of itself mean guilty.
spaceyourbass said:I am very liberal in many ways. Gay marriage, I'm all for it. Weed? Legalize it, don't criticize it. But I'm from Georgia and have lived in South Carolina for most of my life. Around here, a piece of shit child molester might not get the God damn privilege of a TV show or a trial.
simply trying to discuss the issue form a different angle is not "defending child molestation" and your attempt to characterize it thus polarizes and trivializes an important discussion.spaceyourbass said:Anyone defending child molestation in any way is NOT putting the CHILDREN first.
alasdairm said:simply trying to discuss the issue form a different angle is not "defending child molestation" and your attempt to characterize it thus polarizes and trivializes an important discussion.
if that's truly how you feel, you should be dead against 'tcap' because it's a tv show which puts ratings first. putting ratings first is not putting the children first - they can't both be first.
there are many things in this country which like to be seen top be putting children first but actually are not. and they know it. and they love it because, if you attempt to discuss the issue from any angle other than pro-them, they immediately accuse you of "not putting the children first", claim the moral high ground and end the discussion.
it's always been clear to me - and, i believe, to any reasonable observer - that describing such cynical nonsense as "putting the children first" does a huge disservice to the very thing it claims to protect.