DVDizzy Forum

ajmrowland wrote:The worst part is I live in Wisconsin. I'm no longer a minor, but a lot of ppl I know are.

...?

Sex is a natural way of feeling pleasure and expressing your feelings, murder isn't. When a nipple gets a movie an R rating or celebrities make public apologies for having infidelities, you know their is something wrong with our culture. I don't think its morally right to cheat on your wife/husband/partner but I also don't think it's any kind of crime or any of our business.

I agree. Of course, I don't like to watch sex be used explicitly for the sake of it (to me, a lot of people try to use it for "shock value"--so shocking, we can take our clothes off!), but I agree that it shouldn't be treated any more harshly than violence.

And while I do find adultery sick (why cheat when you can just get divorced--or, better yet, find someone who doesn't care if you have sex with other people?) and should play into divorce proceedings, I don't think it should be a punishable crime. Yes, I was a little pissed off when Tiger Woods' press conference interrupted The View.

Lazario wrote: And as usual, it's because of one big reason...

America allows the law to be decided by the religious beliefs of SOME people. It's like Separation of Church and State never existed.

Agreed. I am all for separation of church and state. Keeping an adult from having a sex with a minor, I am all for. Though I do think the law needs some tweaking being you can be 18, still in high school, having sex with your 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend and be convicted of a sex crime. I think the law needs to be tweaked to allow a certain number of years between parties' ages to be lawful, consensual sex. I have seen 18 year olds convicted of sex crimes because they had sex with their 17 or even 16 year old partner. That is when the law can be abused. When parents and the local government take over and convict an 18 year old when their 17 year old partner is clear about how it was consensual and that is not what they want. Its a victimless crime. If I am every on a jury in a case like that, I will most likely be saying not guilty.

I do agree, the church still has a lot of control in this country. Especially over sex and marriage. We are told who we are allowed to have sex with and marry and how we are allowed to have sex with them. Sodomy laws should all be gone. Anal sex is far from something new. And its done by both sexes, both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Those who support it try and push to keep it due to rape crimes, but rape covers ALL rape. There is no need to have a specific crime, unless you want to call it "forced sodomy". What next, make kissing illegal? Sodomy laws are 100% created for and by religious zealots who seek to control what people do in their own bedrooms. And sodomy laws are only forced on rapists and gays, never consensual heterosexuals.

Marriage is another thing that is dictated by church through the law. When I say I support gay marriage, then I hear those who don't tell me ridiculous things like, if we allow gay marriage, then we'll have to allow people to marry their dog. Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT! You can be a full blown "God does not exist, he is the lie, the Bible is a fairytale Atheist" and STILL get married!!!!! In other words, marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. Marriage is a legal contract connecting two people together, their assets, losses, and gains. Marriage allows many legal benefits. You have to be able to sign a CONTRACT and also give a verbal contract (vows) to be married.

So if someone wants to marry a dog or a horse or a donkey or even a rock...they can't. Because marriage, by a legal standpoint is between two sentient people who can voice themselves and sign their names. You can't have a contract with an animal.

Now the other thing those same people will bring up when I shoot them down with that is....bigamy. If we allow gay marriage we have to allow bigamy. And that's fine by me. Though I do feel, when it comes to bigamy, all parties should agree on the new wife/husband. But why should we control what adults do in their personal business?

Plain and simple...we shouldn't.

jpanimation wrote:Polish leader, 96 others dead in Russia jet crash
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_plane_crash

I heard it on the news this morning and have been thinking about it all throughout the day. This is a huge tragedy. I still cannot believe it actually happened.

Polish president Lech Kazynski has died from an airplane accident. But so have 96 other people, including the army chief, the Central Bank governor, three deputy secretaries and about a dozen members of parliament! With one horrible accident, almost all of Poland's entire political elite has been wiped out. It's so strange that they all traveled on the same plane --and that they traveled in an old Topolev plane, which are very untrustworthy. Regular citizens fly with the most modern planes, but government officials fly with old outdated airplanes? It's unexplicable.

I never cared much for Kacynzki. He was a very radical conservative, old-fashoned and out of touch with the 21st century. But obviously, this is a fate I wish nobody. (Well, that's not true. I wasn't sad about Eugene Terre'Blanche or Jörgen Haider...)

From the BBC:

President Lech Kaczynski and scores of other senior Polish figures have been killed in a plane crash in Russia.

Polish and Russian officials said no-one survived after the plane apparently hit trees as it approached Smolensk airport in thick fog.

Russian media reports said the pilots ignored advice from air traffic control to divert to another airport.

Poland's army chief, central bank governor, MPs and leading historians were among more than 80 passengers.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the crash was the most tragic event of the country's post-World War II history.

The Polish delegation was flying in from Warsaw to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre of thousands of Poles by Soviet forces during WWII.

The BBC's Adam Easton, in Warsaw, says the crash is a catastrophe for the Polish people.

He says Prime Minister Tusk was reportedly in tears when he was told.

After an emergency meeting of ministers, Mr Tusk, who runs the day-to-day business of government, said a week of national mourning had been declared with two minutes of silence on Sunday at midday.

Mr Tusk added: "The Polish state must function and will function".

A government spokesman said that according to the constitution there would be an early presidential election, and the speaker of the lower house of parliament, Bronislaw Komorowski, would be acting president.

In Warsaw, people gathered outside the presidential palace to lay flowers and light candles.

"I'm all broken up... it cannot be expressed in words," Ewa Robaczewska told Reuters news agency.

Pilot error?

The Russian emergencies ministry told Itar-Tass news agency the plane crashed at 1056 Moscow time (0656 GMT) as it was coming in to land.

Smolensk regional governor Sergei Antufiev told Russian TV that no-one had survived.

"According to preliminary reports, it got caught up in the tops of trees, fell to the ground and broke up into pieces," he said. "There are no survivors in that crash."

Polish TV worker Slawomir Wisniewski said he had seen the crash from his hotel near the airport.

"I saw through the fog, the aeroplane flying very low with the left wing pointing to the ground," he said.

"I heard something being broken and then that thudding sound. Two flashes of fire next to each other."

Russian media carried claims that the plane's crew were at fault for the crash.

"Flight controllers... suggested that the plane be forwarded to Minsk but as far as we know the crew took an independent decision to land the plane in Smolensk," Smolensk regional government spokesman Andrei Yevseyenkov told Russian TV.

Russian officials said 97 people were killed in the crash, including eight crew.

Polish officials said that 89 people had been scheduled to fly in the delegation to the Katyn commemoration, but one person missed the flight.

Mr Putin visited the crash site, after saying he would personally oversee the investigation into the crash.

"Everything must be done to establish the reasons for this tragedy in the shortest possible time," he said.

He was to meet his Polish counterpart, Mr Tusk, in Smolensk.

Russian officials said all the bodies had been recovered from the scene and were being taken to Moscow for identification.

Russia's Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said both of the plane's flight information recorders had been found and were being examined.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612825.stm

Siren wrote: Agreed. I am all for separation of church and state. Keeping an adult from having a sex with a minor, I am all for. Though I do think the law needs some tweaking being you can be 18, still in high school, having sex with your 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend and be convicted of a sex crime. I think the law needs to be tweaked to allow a certain number of years between parties' ages to be lawful, consensual sex. I have seen 18 year olds convicted of sex crimes because they had sex with their 17 or even 16 year old partner. That is when the law can be abused. When parents and the local government take over and convict an 18 year old when their 17 year old partner is clear about how it was consensual and that is not what they want. Its a victimless crime. If I am every on a jury in a case like that, I will most likely be saying not guilty.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think we do something like that in Pennsylvania (where if the couple is less than 2 years apart in age and one is 17+, it's still OK). Don't they do that in Florida?

I do agree, the church still has a lot of control in this country. Especially over sex and marriage. We are told who we are allowed to have sex with and marry and how we are allowed to have sex with them. Sodomy laws should all be gone. Anal sex is far from something new. And its done by both sexes, both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Those who support it try and push to keep it due to rape crimes, but rape covers ALL rape. There is no need to have a specific crime, unless you want to call it "forced sodomy". What next, make kissing illegal? Sodomy laws are 100% created for and by religious zealots who seek to control what people do in their own bedrooms. And sodomy laws are only forced on rapists and gays, never consensual heterosexuals.

They did try to force one on the straights, actually. I think it was Georgia (big surprise). A gay couple sued after they were prosecuted for sodomy, but the Supreme Court said they had no case, since straight couples couldn't do it either, so it wasn't discrimination.

Marriage is another thing that is dictated by church through the law. When I say I support gay marriage, then I hear those who don't tell me ridiculous things like, if we allow gay marriage, then we'll have to allow people to marry their dog. Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT! You can be a full blown "God does not exist, he is the lie, the Bible is a fairytale Atheist" and STILL get married!!!!! In other words, marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. Marriage is a legal contract connecting two people together, their assets, losses, and gains. Marriage allows many legal benefits. You have to be able to sign a CONTRACT and also give a verbal contract (vows) to be married.

So if someone wants to marry a dog or a horse or a donkey or even a rock...they can't. Because marriage, by a legal standpoint is between two sentient people who can voice themselves and sign their names. You can't have a contract with an animal.

Now the other thing those same people will bring up when I shoot them down with that is....bigamy. If we allow gay marriage we have to allow bigamy. And that's fine by me. Though I do feel, when it comes to bigamy, all parties should agree on the new wife/husband. But why should we control what adults do in their personal business?

Plain and simple...we shouldn't.

Amen, sister. Amen.

Sadly, Florida has no such clause. My friend was black, his girlfriend was white...welcome to the South. Her parents weren't pleased and charged him with statutory rape. He is 31 now, still on the sex offenders list. There went his dream of being a teacher. He's not allowed anywhere near children, schools, etc. Even though he was 18 and she was 17 at the time. It wasn't like he molested a 6 year old. But that's what people see when they see him.

There were talks for a while, in Florida, to have a separate list for "offenders" of that nature. But it never came into fruition. We currently have two lists...sexual offenders and sexual predators. Sexual offenders are usually the lesser "evil". 18 year olds with 17 year olds, 1 time sex offenses, peeing in public, etc. Sexual predators are the actual criminals. They are the ones who people and children should fear. Rapists, child molesters, repeat offenders, etc.

But regardless, once you are on the sexual offenders list, it doesn't matter that it happened 20 years ago, your married, and living a normal life. Once people find you on that list, its a freaking witch hunt. They don't bother to read the actual crime and then do the simple math. They see a 40 year old man who at some time, slept with a 16 year old girl....forget the fact this took place back when he was 18 and they were steady boyfriend/girlfriend for several years. They don't look at that. They just assume, the crime happened yesterday and the guy is a dirtbag.

A few years ago in Florida, a mentally challenged man hung himself. A few years earlier, he exposed himself in the presence of a teenage neighbor. She reported it to the cops. I've worked with mentally handicapped people, some mental handicaps cause them to do this. Sometimes its acting out, sometimes is actual sexual needs coming to light, and other times, they just have no idea they are doing it or that its wrong. That's kinda the whole point of them being labeled disabled. Didn't matter what his family or doctors said at the trial, he was labeled a sex offender and added to the list. The family moved out of town to start a new. Someone in the neighborhood who checks the site often, saw he moved in, printed up posters of him, his picture, his crime, with a long list of nasty insults and posted it all over his neighborhood, even on his own mailbox. It was a witch hunt. He was harassed, screamed at, his parents were also verbally abused. And then one morning they discovered him dead. He killed himself. He couldn't continue to live like that. To be hunted down like a criminal.

As a parent, I do check the sex offenders/predators list. I check it once a month for anyone in the neighborhood, to check that a new person I am dating isn't on the list, etc. But other than a mental note and telling my daughter, "Don't talk to strangers, especially these strangers", there is no need to go out on a hunt after a sexual offender. I do what I need for precautions, but unless a serial child rapist moves next door, I am not going to go beating down someone's door. Especially if they had sex with a teenager, when they were a teenager. Its just ludicrous.

Just more reasons why I am strongly opposed to such a 'list'. Once a person has served his time for his crime, he shouldn't be confronted with his past actions for the rest of his life.

Goliath wrote:Just more reasons why I am strongly opposed to such a 'list'. Once a person has served his time for his crime, he shouldn't be confronted with his past actions for the rest of his life.

Even if the state didn't have such a list, regular people could make one. Afterall, criminal prosecution is public record. For instance, there is no state created list of animal abusers, but a national wide list does exist, created by a pet abuse website. Its allowed under freedom of speech.

So even if the states killed all their sex crime lists, believe me, they'd still exist and be heavily visited. Least the state funded one is very clear on the crimes. Its not really their fault people don't read it properly and do the simple math. I can see things be even worse if a bunch of soccer mom's made a website like that.

I really don't care that people read those lists wrong, or don't do the math... Just the existence of a list *at all* is morally reprehensible to me.

Yes, regular people could set up such a list, but wouldn't that be illegal? Probably not in the US. Interestingly, in The Netherlands there have been a couple of trials against (what you call) 'soccer moms' who made those kinds of lists, and they had to take down their websites. I believe there's still one up, but that one is based on a foreign server, where the state of The Netherlands obviously has no jurisdiction.

What are the thoughts here about that lady who returned her adopted son to Russia? It's sick, man.

I really don't care that people read those lists wrong, or don't do the math... Just the existence of a list *at all* is morally reprehensible to me.

I disagree. I would want to know, if I had children of my own, if there was definite proof of a pedophile/rapist next door. I wouldn't socially outcast him/her, but I wouldn't let my children be alone around him (or her). And I don't care if it sounds "archaic," I just want to know if my neighbors are sick or not. My children would be more important to me than a criminal's 'feelings.'

I mean, sex offenders are not allowed to work in schools. What, children should be more protected at school than at home?

And I would be the type of person to check out if they were just someone who committed statutory rape or not. Because I wouldn't consider statutory rape a real crime. It's usually just a case of a parent not liking who their teenager is sleeping with.

ajmrowland wrote:What are the thoughts here about that lady who returned her adopted son to Russia? It's sick, man.

I didn't think it was sick that she gave him back up (I heard he threatened to burn down her house, and threw something at her sister, etc.), but the way she did it was cruel to do to a child.

So, now there's two issues being discussed.... here are my thoughts:

1. I agree, statutory rape isn't really a crime. I mean, rape is rape, and if the person is unwilling, then it's rape. But teenagers, while maybe not always 100% responsible, are biologically adults, with the same hormones, desires, emotional wants, etc. If a teenager willingly has sex with someone, that isn't rape of any kind. It just shouldn't work that way.

2. Yeah, I have no idea what to say about that mom and the adopted son. I can see both arguements: She shouldn't have just abandoned him, anything could have happened to him, that was totally irresponsible. On the other hand, he does sound like some sort of Damien child, and I wouldn't feel safe with him in my house, either. There had to be some sort of happy medium.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I disagree. I would want to know, if I had children of my own, if there was definite proof of a pedophile/rapist next door. I wouldn't socially outcast him/her, but I wouldn't let my children be alone around him (or her). And I don't care if it sounds "archaic," I just want to know if my neighbors are sick or not. My children would be more important to me than a criminal's 'feelings.'

Of course you put your children first. Who wouldn't do that? I would put the safety of children first, too. Above all else, they should be safe. But I'm still against those kinds of lists, because it doesn't allowed for people who have already been punished for the crimes they committed to built up a new life. I say this, because I have read studies that said that a person is far more likely to fall back into old criminal habits, when they're not able to pick up a regular life again. So for the safety of the children, it would be better if 'sex offenders' were able to resocialize. Structure, work and social acceptance would make them less likely to fall back into old habits. At least that's what I've read.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And I would be the type of person to check out if they were just someone who committed statutory rape or not. Because I wouldn't consider statutory rape a real crime. It's usually just a case of a parent not liking who their teenager is sleeping with.

But I think you're in the minority. I think most people would not bother to check any further than just seeing a person's name on such a list. That's when you get horrible stories like that handicapped kid who eventually hanged himself because he couldn't live with the fact that his past, very innocent, actions kept haunting him. The only way to prevent such tragedies, is to do away with those kind of lists.

Okay, we gotta get rid of these lists.

you get the wood and ill get the lighter.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

I really don't care that people read those lists wrong, or don't do the math... Just the existence of a list *at all* is morally reprehensible to me.

I disagree. I would want to know, if I had children of my own, if there was definite proof of a pedophile/rapist next door. I wouldn't socially outcast him/her, but I wouldn't let my children be alone around him (or her). And I don't care if it sounds "archaic," I just want to know if my neighbors are sick or not. My children would be more important to me than a criminal's 'feelings.'

I'm sure even you're going to think it's a little late for me to get involved, no less at this point when I'm sure you and the people you're disagreeing with have already ironed this point out, but... That was an incredibly ignorant, childish thing to say. Oh... and a major "NO DUH!" would be due from someone in the audience. What the hell would ever lead you to form the impression that anyone on this board would put children at risk in any way?!

That's one thing. Another is- how on Earth could you ever think a list will actually tell you whether or not "your neighbors" (funny how you see a subject mentioning people who have committed sex crimes in the eyes of the law and immediately think they're right next door to you!) are sick or not? A list won't get inside anyone's head. At best, it's a TINY bit of extra precaution being taken. But what about all the people who aren't on the list and have yet to commit their 1st sex crime? Or commit another and haven't been investigated by any cops yet; named by any prior victims yet? Or how do you know that just because their name is on the list they were actually guilty; how do we know some people haven't ple(a)d guilty just to get / keep their name out of newspapers? Lists don't tell you a thing. And you should know that. Instead, you're acting psycho-paranoid. And you're only talking hypothetically anyway.

We have to question things like this so we aren't rushed into any hasty actions just to please community-vigilante standards. You (because I don't see how adults are completely exempt to potentially being raped by "sexual predators") and your children should already know how to protect yourselves. If you don't have a system of dealing with strangers, how is knowing who the stranger might be going to help you when you're being attacked?

Disney's Divinity wrote:I mean, sex offenders are not allowed to work in schools. What, children should be more protected at school than at home?

You must have watched Disney's Too Smart for Strangers video one too many times. Unless I'm missing something and your neighborhood has a high rate of Adults knocking on the doors of houses when no other Adults are home, then answering the child's, "who's there?!", with an "I'm a friend of your Mommy's (or Daddy's); can I come in? I need to talk to you." To which the child is smart enough to open the door, because it could be that guy from that home-remodeling show on TV disguising his voice as someone the child's Mommy (or Daddy) knows to trick them. Or to which the child is foolish enough to open, thinking it's probably the guy from that home-remodeling show on TV. Or a singing-telegram come to wish the kid a Happy Birthday, even though it isn't their Birthday for another 2 months. Maybe it's a Pamela Anderson strip-o-gram and she's disguising her voice as a man to trick the kid, even though I don't think she offers that service- professionally.

That was an incredibly ignorant, childish thing to say.

I don't care. I thought I said that already.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

That was an incredibly ignorant, childish thing to say.

I don't care. I thought I said that already.

Ooooh, feisty.

You probably did. But you expect me to just leave it at that? That attitude of ignorance you displayed so proudly is one of the things that drives Americans to act out of outrage rather than actually think things through. More people get killed and more lives are destroyed your way than my way.

I agree with Lazario and Goliath that the list is stupid and pointless. All it does is create paranoia among unratioanal people and develop fear without thoughly thinking about the other circumstance in it's possibilities.

It reminds me of all those old witch hunts(as someone puts it) or religious persucutions due to social moral acceptance. Siren's story is perfect example and result of the situation due to this.

I like Lazario point in that people need to learn to defend for themselves rather than fear mongering and/or feeling weak or hopeless. They act like if a predator is in the area, that's it, you're fucked. And if they're listed they have accuse to go out and attack that person without knowing any circumstance behind it.

btw there's news about anti-gay attack in Senegal where bunch of homophobic people went and undug a dead gay's grave, attack it and left it in pieces in front door of the victim's parents

Lazario wrote:More people get killed and more lives are destroyed your way than my way.

Wow. One of the stupidest things I’ve read all week. (And I’ve been reading Twilight for a Women’s Lit class)

You know, a year ago I might have been tempted to actually waste time to reply and defend myself, but, like I said, I just don’t care anymore. You and Goliath can blither blather bs for 10 pages all you want, I don’t have the patience or the desire to derail a topic for either of you. Run in circles by yourselves. My interest is dead.

The list is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. Crime is PUBLIC knowledge in MOST countries. You can legally do a background check on anyone. And if you know how to do it and where to look, you don't even have to pay for it. My mom was a formal PI's assistant and she instilled some of her stuff on me....and this was BEFORE the internet. Very easy to get backgroud info for free these days. I'm not talking about accusations, I am talking about these people have been convicted of crimes.

I see a perfectly good thing in these lists. For example, I want to know all the adults in my area who have molested young children. I want to know who these people are so I don't let my child near them, I don't hire them to do any sort of work in or around my home, etc.

To make compiling public knowledge into a list a crime, is impossible and stupid in itself. Why make criminal prosecution public, but make compiling that information together a crime? News organizations do it all the time to discuss sex crimes, they do articles, describing many different criminals, all who committed similar offenses. Blocking that infomation gathering and sharing...That is stepping on freedom of speech. And if USA is backwards in many areas, one area I agree on is freedom of speech. And that included sharing public knowledge.

Shall we make criminal prosecution something that happens behind closed doors, make it so juries and all those involved in the court proceedings swear to secrecy like its the CIA?

The best way to combat people abusing the list is educating people. Which I do in various parent and school groups, when the subject of these lists come up, I mention how I have friends on that list, who I completely trust with my daughter, because they are not pedophiles. I explain to them to not just look for a name and face, but their crime itself and the dates as well.

On the handicapped adult (he wasn't a kid), how about we do away with criminally prosecuting someone like that in the FIRST PLACE. How about ending statutory rape? You want to kill the wrong thing here. The list isn't the enemy. Its overzealous prosecutors and judges who are to blame. You are taking a couple of examples of how it can be used wrong and assuming its all wrong. When in actuality, most of the people on that list, are down right sickos. Most are adult men who had sex with kids 16 and under, and even more so who had sex or molested children 11 and under. I listed a few isolated incidents on how people use the list incorrectly. In a majority of cases, the lists can save lives.

I check it every year before Halloween too. Take a small list with me of the houses to skip, and we skip them. Technically, they aren't suppose to invite kids to their homes anyways. And I did call the cops on a local pedophile who did leave his light on and was giving kids candy. Cops came and took him away. He had previously been arrested and convicted for raping a 6 year old boy. Morally and legally, he was wrong to be participating in Halloween.

If you check the Florida list yourself, you will see, statutory rape criminals are few and far between. Sadly, most the criminals on there, are the monsters we should really fear. The ones who have molested and raped young children. Only a small fraction of people on there don't deserve to be.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

That was an incredibly ignorant, childish thing to say.

I don't care. I thought I said that already.

And Ignore User feature would be nice, wouldn't it?