• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should parents use a GPS tracking device to monitor their children?

Should parents use GPS tracking to monitor their children?


  • Total voters
    34
What about those who gratify their perversions and blood lust through murder and mob justice?


Murder of a pedophile is justice, and it doesn't matter how it came about.

Only a person who has no idea of what it feels to lose a child especially to a pedo can say what you just said.
 
Last edited:
A matter of abuse of a child is cheap and shallow in your opinion???? Or do you expect it to be devoid of emotions???!

We can lose our job and find another one, we can lose our house and buy another one, we can lose a loved pet and console ourselves by getting another pet... But once you lost a child, you never recover!

But you're trying to IMPRISON PEOPLE! You want to turn the country into a damn GULAG with all these tracking chips, a totalitarian fascist position if I've ever seen one!

FASCISM!

:2wave:
 
Murder of a pedophile is justice, and it doesn't matter how it came about.

No, no it's not. We used to do **** like this all the time, lynchings and such. Common practice. You know why they were stopped? Because they were not justice. And amount of rational thought will make that clear.
 
Murder of a pedophile is justice, and it doesn't matter how it came about.

Your claim isn't valid in any sense. There's nothing even superficially just about the murder of a non-criminal pedophile, for one thing, and even state-sponsored execution of rapists/child sexual abusers would be irrational, as it would provide a perverse incentive for such persons to kill their victims and violently resist attempts at police capture.
 
No, no it's not. We used to do **** like this all the time, lynchings and such. Common practice.

You were lynching blacks. We are talking of pedophiles.
 
You were lynching blacks. We are talking of pedophiles.

You're dealing with the same sorts of dangers and irrationalities, and while in the south there were many racially motivated lynchings it wasn't limited to just that. In many places, especially out west, the lynchings were based on accusation of crime people thought so "horrible" that there was no point in letting the judicial system getting involved.
 
That all you have for a retort? This is pretty sad.

It was not a retort, but a legitimate question. Usually teens who are just starting to test the waters of the big world think they know it all because at school they learned few libertarian slogans.

Are you 16 or thereabout?
 
It was not a retort, but a legitimate question. Usually teens who are just starting to test the waters of the big world think they know it all because at school they learned few libertarian slogans.

Are you 16 or thereabout?

Wait, I thought they were all utopian reds? :confused:
 
Why are you inquiring about someone's underage status on an anonymous Internet site, Elena? Just what is the nature of your character, exactly? :ninja: ;)

KGB pays bonus for details. ;)
 
It was not a retort, but a legitimate question. Usually teens who are just starting to test the waters of the big world think they know it all because at school they learned few libertarian slogans.

Are you 16 or thereabout?

Do you have a PhD?
 
But you're trying to IMPRISON PEOPLE! You want to turn the country into a damn GULAG with all these tracking chips, a totalitarian fascist position if I've ever seen one!

FASCISM!

:2wave:

Well, either pedos should be shot (preferably on a spot to save money), or I would not mind microchip my kids. One or the other. As it is now -- it's pedos paradise!
 
No. :)

Your turn.

Well it's my experience that lesser educated individuals are more prone to intellectual fallacy and poor debate skills. Given more to outbursts of emotion and failing to understand coincidence; they'll forge opinions which have dangerous consequences but have invested themselves so emotionally into the argument that they cannot divorce themselves from their own irrationalities.
 
Well, either pedos should be shot (preferably on a spot to save money), or I would not mind microchip my kids. One or the other. As it is now -- it's pedos paradise!

A Pedo paradise? That's absurd. It's anything but. With all the tracking, and databasing, and forever punishment we enforce on them. Paradise!? That's the ****tiest paradise ever.
 
However, even this is irrelevant if you attempt to make an ethical claim that minors have no right to privacy rather than a legal one, which would be prescriptive rather than descriptive. However, you would need to advance an actual argument to support this conclusion, which you have not done.

Since they declined to comment on the right to privacy of a parents child then you have no basis in law to support your position.

And I have advanced an arguement. What's more important? Your childs privacy or their safety? Should the right of the parent to protect their child be over ridden by some percieved violation of privacy? For decades now..if not centuries it has been understood that a parent can and often does go into a childs room and look around or listen in on a conversation that they have.

Do you gather not even the slightest clue that the definition of "abductions" is at least slightly different from the definition of standard kidnappings by virtue of the massive disparity between the two numbers alone?

In the context that we are talking about they are the same thing. The only difference is that one is "often with a demand for ransom"

Merriam-Webster defination for kidnap

Merriam-Webster defination of abduction

Your irrational dismissal of general trends is also irrelevant; policy is not formed according to isolated anecdotes.

I beg to differ. Ever hear of the program called "Amber Alert"? It was created due to an "isolated anecdotes".

That contention seems no more valid than mine, especially considering the extreme improbability of kidnapping of children by strangers, compared to the far greater probability of abuse of children by parents.

Ah but the OP is about a device that is made for both types of kidnappings. Both parental and strangers. The device could help even in the case of parental kidnappings.

For example: Parents get divoced. Parent A gets custody of child and Parent B is refused any contact with Parent A or the child. A few months go by. Parent B kidnaps the child. Unbeknowest to Parent B Parent A had gotten into the habit of placeing the device in the OP on the child. Due to that child is recovered and Parent B is sent to jail.

Well, as they say, "I don't know about you but if even one wife/female lover gets kidnapped and is later found dead that is one too many. No matter the statistical probability." :shrug:

So what's the problem with being prepared to prevent such atrocities?

The term "convicted pedophile" implies conviction because of one's status as a pedophile. That's the fallacious element of that post.

You said and I quote:

There's no such thing as a "convicted pedophile," because pedophilia is a paraphilia and mental illness rather than a legal offense.

If there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile" then how is it that we have convicted pedophiles? Poor wording on your part.

That's because of an authoritarian mindset that entails indifference to actual criminal activity. Execution of non-criminal pedophiles (particularly when all indications are that pedophilia is involuntary), is simply a fairly straightforward injustice. :shrug:

I have never heard that pedophilia is "involuntary" except by those that wants to make an excuse for it. Normally by the criminals themselves. Or by those that wish to make money off of it.
 
You're dealing with the same sorts of dangers and irrationalities, and while in the south there were many racially motivated lynchings it wasn't limited to just that. In many places, especially out west, the lynchings were based on accusation of crime people thought so "horrible" that there was no point in letting the judicial system getting involved.

That's why at the start I specifyed "CONVICTED", or caught in the act.
 
That's why at the start I specifyed "CONVICTED", or caught in the act.

Convicted requires the court hearing, at which point you can't just "shoot them". "Caught in the act" is subject to many failure modes. Including false reporting.
 
Convicted requires the court hearing, at which point you can't just "shoot them". "Caught in the act" is subject to many failure modes. Including false reporting.

A convicted pedophile can include those that have gotten out of prison. Which means that you can still catch a convicted pedophile molesting your child or a convicted pedophile can still kidnap a child.
 
Well it's my experience that lesser educated individuals are more prone to intellectual fallacy and poor debate skills.

Are you telling me you are still in nursery???!!! :shock: :lamo

Revisit this topic when you will get over your teen impediments.
 
Back
Top Bottom