Should Dateline be allowed to continue 'catch a predator'?

[you quero oxys]

I think you could find one that does something crazy in a desperate attempt to escape. I get what you mean though, most of those guys have got to be gutless pussies preying on impressionable young girls.

 

[Benefit]

But seriously, Chris Hansen probably wrote that wikipedia article.

 

[spaceyourbass]

Where's the evidence that the show hasn't decreased the amount of child molestation in the country? There is none.

 

[Pander Bear]

Just like there isn't any evidence that it has decreased it. Therefore, moot point. KTHNX

 

[alasdairm]

Where's the evidence that the show hasn't decreased the amount of child molestation in the country? There is none.

salmon live up trees and eat pencils. where's your evidence that they don't? there is none.

please. please. please. please, let's not introduce this awful debate technique in here again...



alasdair

 

[Doctor-G]

^^^Thank you

 

[DarthMom]

while the show is blatantly distasteful in it's crass version of journalism, there is no sympathy on my part for any of the men on there that are guilty of being sick fucks. so i will reserve my pity for other scenarios, and not waste my time worrying about a show like this.

 

[SA]

while the show is blatantly distasteful in it's crass version of journalism, there is no sympathy on my part for any of the men on there that are guilty of being sick fucks. so i will reserve my pity for other scenarios, and not waste my time worrying about a show like this.

DarthMom very graciously (and psychically) typed out my thoughts for me. Thank you, sister.

 

[Pander Bear]

DM, aren't you indifferent to female teachers sucking-off underage boys? Or am I misremembering something?

 

[Lady Codone]

For whoever said, "the young girls should be exposed for asking for sex," that's really null and void due to the fact that underage girls can't "consent" to these acts because of their age. That's the whole point! It doesn't matter how flirty, slutty, promiscuous, or manipulative an underage person is, the point is they can't consent to such activities, period. The word 'consent' implies knowledge and full understanding of consequences, something a child is not mentally or emotionally equipped to handle, hence the laws against lude acts with children.

 

[spaceyourbass]

salmon live up trees and eat pencils. where's your evidence that they don't? there is none.

please. please. please. please, let's not introduce this awful debate technique in here again...



alasdair

See this is what you do...argue about one little part of my argument instead of the issue.

If you can't provide evidence that the show hasn't reduced child molestation, then I made a point. I have already logically proved that the show reduces child molestation. If you'd care to tell me why I was wrong, I'd love to know.

 

[alasdairm]

See this is what you do...argue about one little part of my argument instead of the issue.

If you can't provide evidence that the show hasn't reduced child molestation, then I made a point.

q.e.d.



i've provided my opinion of why i believe this program pays lip service to the issue it claims to care about. i don't need to repeat it.

I have already logically proved that the show reduces child molestation. If you'd care to tell me why I was wrong, I'd love to know.

i can't see where you logically proved anything.

alasdair

 

[Pander Bear]

this is why they should continue to teach logical fallacies in general composition classes.

 

[spaceyourbass]

i can't see where you logically proved anything.

Nor can I see where you did

As far as the show not decreasing online molestation, I disagree. The show damn sure isn't increasing the amount of online predators. This is obvious, no? The show helps police put online predators in jail. In jail, they can't be online predators. The show decreases the amount of online predators, if only for the time that the guys are in jail (hopefully a long, ass pounding with no lube amount of time). This is basic logic.

go for it

 

[DarthMom]

DM, aren't you indifferent to female teachers sucking-off underage boys? Or am I misremembering something?

no, a more accurate statement of my feelings is that i would worry less about a teenage son of mine banging an older lady than if it was my daughter. females have the short end of the stick when it comes to self confidence and sexuality. our culture isn't one to bring up a happy little girl with this sort of pedo action going on. on the other hand, the boy can still grow up a productive happy guy.

i know a few guys who can laugh about their tryst with an older lady, and i know women who hate themselves for the same.

it sucks, blame it on t.v. blame it on video games, blame it on religion, or don't place blame, but understand there IS a difference. if you disagree, sorry, but i think you would be nuts to not see it.

 

[VerbalTruist]

I think that the show's intention is good, but the way they do it is inappropriate.

I say they let it go off the air.

 

[alasdairm]

Nor can I see where you did

i'm not the one making quantifiable claims. you claim you "proved that the show reduces child molestation". i'm asking you to back up your claim. it's that simple. either you offer some proof or we draw the obvious conclusion that you're just fabricating this.

i don't need to prove anything as i've made no such claim. i have, however, provided my opinion of what i believe are the driving forces behind the making of a show like 'tcap'. i could be be completely wrong and i'm the first to admit that.

you say the show reduces child molestation. prove it.

i did make one claim - that salmon live up trees and eat pencils. you have yet to disprove that i see.

q.e.d.



alasdair

 

[spaceyourbass]

I meant that I logically proved it's probability, in my opinion. I didn't mean I absolutely proved something with scientific evidence, just that I made a point in my favor.

The show puts potential child molesters in jail. In jail, they cannot molest children. While they are in jail, the number of potential child molesters is reduced. Two more people might decide to start trying to molest children for every one guy that goes to jail (although this is improbable because they see evidence that they too can go to jail). Still, the show has reduced the number of child molesters...there would then be 3 free child molesters instead of 2 free ones and one in jail. I am assuming that no one begins molesting children (or trying to) because TCAP helps the police put a guy in jail. I am assuming that no one can molest a child in jail.

It seems that you are against the show because ordinary citizens take the law into their own hands, or because they entrap individuals (which they don't according to the law at least), or because you believe in freedom of sexuality and the internet...why are you against the show again?

I am for the show because I believe it puts child molesters in jail. I believe that the online predators are not only looking for child sex on the internet, but that many of them also molest their own kids or the kids on the softball team, etc etc. I believe they have developed manipulative techniques that take advantage and of and psychologically scar innocent children. I choose not to watch the show because I don't find it entertaining. I respect what the show does, though.

Your salmon and pencils thing is a bit silly. I am trying to discuss this issue with a bit of logic because I cannot find any statistical evidence. Do you find my assumptions/opinionated conclusion to be completely out of line? If so, why?

Also, what does q.e.d. stand for?

 

[alasdairm]

Ihave already logically proved that the show reduces child molestation.

I meant that I logically proved it's probability, in my opinion.

first you proved it. now you've proved "it's probability". where will you move the goalposts next?

there's no doubt in my mind that, when tcap gets somebody arrested, there's one fewer potential molester walking the street. hell, if they threw a random guy off the street in jail you could argue the possibility that they've taken another potential molester off the streets.

i'm trying to place what they're doing in a wider context.

Your salmon and pencils thing is a bit silly.

of course it's silly - it's meant to be silly. it's designed to show how silly it is to make a claim and tell people that its validity stands until it's disproved.

Also, what does q.e.d. stand for?

it's latin for "quod erat demonstrandum"

alasdair

 

[Fausty]

I believe that the online predators are not only looking for child sex on the internet, but that many of them also molest their own kids or the kids on the softball team, etc etc. I believe they have developed manipulative techniques that take advantage and of and psychologically scar innocent children.

It seems to me that your true calling is missionary work - it certainly isn't cogent conversation.

I believe. . . I believe. . . I BELIEVE!!

8)

Personally, I prefer the "reality-based world," where my beliefs matter less than objective fact. This thread does, admittedly, serve as an effective testament to the uselessness of attempting to discuss something with someone who will confidently fall back on "belief" as the basic building block of reality.

SYB, while I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place on this one - nobody wants to see children sexually abused, particularly folks like me who were ourselves abused sexually as children - you spend more time defending your overblown "beliefs" than would be required to simply do a bit of research and sharpen your understanding and perspective. Note that I'm not suggesting that research would change your basic standpoint; rather, a bit more digging could well provide additional tools and information to more effectively present, explore, solidify, and extend that standpoint.

However, the wild, swinging, blind roundhouse punches of tenuous logic you throw, in these threads, obviate the potential for any genuine learning. And isn't part of what we do, when we discuss things with others, is seek to learn?

Peace,

Fausty