• 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
Last I checked, we threw rapists and the likes in jail.

That's what a civilized society does.

We were not talking of rapists, but of pedophiles!

And they come out of jail and continue with their activities. Check out your statistics on how many pedos reoffend.

A society that does not protect its most vulnerable in order not to step on the toes of "human rights" of criminals can not call itself civilized!
 
Tell that to my nieces.

And pedophiles do get out of jail. Why do you think we have laws that require sexual devients to register in the area that they live in? And that more often than not such registries are open to the public?

Please, enough emotional outburst and appeal to emotion. The crime we are talking about is incredibly destructive and violent. But that doesn't excuse throwing all rules of civility and society out the window for Punisher style vigilantism.

You do realize that when the Libertarian is saying that maybe you're acting crazy, there's a problem right?
 
We were not talking of rapists, but of pedophiles!

And they come out of jail and continue with their activities. Check out your statistics on how many pedos reoffend.

A society that does not protect its most vulnerable in order not to step on the toes of "human rights" of criminals can not call itself civilized!

The recidivism rates for child molesters is similar to that of other violent crimes.
 
Please, enough emotional outburst and appeal to emotion. The crime we are talking about is incredibly destructive and violent. But that doesn't excuse throwing all rules of civility and society out the window for Punisher style vigilantism.

You do realize that when the Libertarian is saying that maybe you're acting crazy, there's a problem right?

Tell me, have you ever had a child close to you get molested? Until you do you do not have the right to tell me that I have a problem.
 
Tell that to my nieces.

And pedophiles do get out of jail. Why do you think we have laws that require sexual devients to register in the area that they live in? And that more often than not such registries are open to the public?

At least in your country these registers are open to the public, which can not be said about the situation in Britain.

And what did it take? A death of a child at the hands of a neighbour that got out of jail?
 
Tell me, have you ever had a child close to you get molested? Until you do you do not have the right to tell me that I have a problem.

I have every right to speak my mind. Don't think that just because I haven't experienced something personally that I can't understand it. And while I can understand the outrage and anger for such an act, we cannot allow that anger to destroy that which we have built. There are inherently many dangers to vigilantism, not limited to getting the wrong guy. It's why we have courts, it's why people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You are acting crazy in this case, sorry. It's absurd to start to promote the break down of society and the basis of the judiciary system based on isolated cases and appeal to emotion.
 
The recidivism rates for child molesters is similar to that of other violent crimes.


And that suppose to be of comfort how?

You still didn't answer a simple question: if your child was abducted, raped, used in kiddy porn then killed, would you be as politically correct and liberal thinking, or would you kill the pedo?
 
Perhaps I read the wrong case. Could you link it for me?

FindLaw | Cases and Codes. You are correct that the primary concern was with Christensen's privacy rights, as he was seeking the exclusion of evidence from his own criminal trial. However, as noted therein:

The State also suggests that there should be an implied exception to the act in the case of minor children, arguing that children have a reduced expectation of privacy because parents have an absolute right to monitor all telephone calls coming into the family home. The federal wiretap statute, which makes interception of communications legal where one party consents, has been interpreted to permit parents acting to protect the welfare of a child, to consent vicariously for their child to the recording of their child's conversations....The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now.

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.

One or two hundred? Try around 58,200 non-family kidnappings per year. While that may be insignificant compared to 300+ million people living in the US it is still no small number. And I don't know about you but if even one kid gets kidnapped and is later found dead that is one too many. No matter the statistical probability.

missingkids.com

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?

115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)

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

I wouldn't doubt it. It shows to me that the parent is far more likely to be concerned with their kids health and welfare than they are about wanting to hurt them. A person that wants to hurt their kid wouldn't spend that kind of money on them.

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.

As for the jealous husband bit that is an extreme example. Same with the lover.

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:

Tell that to the ones that are convicted.

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

I'm an American and I would happily pull the trigger towards any pedophile.

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:

Those who, in your words, "committed no actual criminal offenses", spend their time watching kiddy porn.

...and possession is a criminal offense. :roll:

You can split hairs all you want, just tell me: if your child was abducted and used in kiddy porn, and you had the chance to meet with the person/people who were doing it to your child would you be thinking of their "diagnoses" or how many "criminal offences" did they commit, or would you simply kill them?

Splitting hairs? I'm merely referring to accurate terminology. You inaccurately implied that the term "pedophile" was interchangeable with the term "child sexual abuser," which it is not. Pedophilia, as identified by the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a paraphilia in which a person experiences a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
 
And that suppose to be of comfort how?

You still didn't answer a simple question: if your child was abducted, raped, used in kiddy porn then killed, would you be as politically correct and liberal thinking, or would you kill the pedo?

Me wanting to kill the guy would have no bearing on what is to be done. I may want him dead, but there's court systems and sentencing by a judge; that's out of my hand. To maintain proper society and to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual we have to use the courts and accept the consequences of such.
 
Don't think that just because I haven't experienced something personally that I can't understand it.

But you can't.

I work with victims of crimes, I see how they suffer, and still I can't say I understand their suffering! The part I find the most difficult to understand is how do parents continue living after pedos had their way with their child and killed the child afterwards.
 
All of your comments are based on the same cheap and shallow appeals to emotion that the mass media's propaganda relies on. The rational aren't impressed by blubbering. :shrug:
 
But you can't.

Yes I can.

I work with victims of crimes, I see how they suffer, and still I can't say I understand their suffering! The part I find the most difficult to understand is how do parents continue living after pedos had their way with their child and killed the child afterwards.

Humans can be rather resilient at times.
 
Splitting hairs? I'm merely referring to accurate terminology. You inaccurately implied that the term "pedophile" was interchangeable with the term "child sexual abuser," which it is not. Pedophilia, as identified by the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a paraphilia in which a person experiences a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

And what do you think they do with their "prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children"?

Please, answer me a question: if your child was abducted and used in kiddy porn, and you had the chance to meet with the person/people who were doing it to your child would you be thinking of the correct terminology, their "diagnoses" or how many "criminal offences" did they commit, or would you simply kill them?
 
And what do you think they do with their "prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children"?

Who knows. Are you clairvoyant? Can you predict the future? Can you see the future? Then you don't know ****. You can't punish people for things they may do unless there is overwhelming evidence that they are going to commit a crime.

Please, answer me a question: if your child was abducted and used in kiddy porn, and you had the chance to meet with the person/people who were doing it to your child would you be thinking of the correct terminology, their "diagnoses" or how many "criminal offences" did they commit, or would you simply kill them?

Appeal to emotion makes for very piss poor arguments best left ignored.
 
And what do you think they do with their "prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children"?

It depends. Some will engage in sexual interactions with prepubescent children, and others won't. I merely propose discriminating between those that do and those that don't.

Please, answer me a question: if your child was abducted and used in kiddy porn, and you had the chance to meet with the person/people who were doing it to your child would you be thinking of the correct terminology, their "diagnoses" or how many "criminal offences" did they commit, or would you simply kill them?

Well, comrade...there's a difference between having a gut instinct to do something and seriously and analytically developing public policy. That's why appeals to emotion fail. :shrug:
 
Me wanting to kill the guy would have no bearing on what is to be done.

And that's the whole point!

Pedos must be killed, whether by justice system, relatives of victims, a mob -- irrelevant! Those who gratify their perversions by torturing and raping children must be dead.
 
Well, comrade...there's a difference between having a gut instinct to do something and seriously and analytically developing public policy. That's why appeals to emotion fail. :shrug:

And that's why your politically correct libertarian ponderings on a matter are hollow.
 
I have every right to speak my mind. Don't think that just because I haven't experienced something personally that I can't understand it. And while I can understand the outrage and anger for such an act, we cannot allow that anger to destroy that which we have built. There are inherently many dangers to vigilantism, not limited to getting the wrong guy. It's why we have courts, it's why people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You are acting crazy in this case, sorry. It's absurd to start to promote the break down of society and the basis of the judiciary system based on isolated cases and appeal to emotion.

While you might have a right to speak your mind to do so without it having happened to you gives any arguement that you might put foward irrelevant.

As for the part in bold....You can never understand it. Don't even try to say that you do. It is one thing to say that you understand and quite another to actually understand because it did happen to you. It's like me claiming that I understand what it's like to jump out of an airplane just by watching it. While I might understand the basics I will never truely understand it until I experiance it myself.
 
When your child is living with you and under the age of 18 there is no such thing as "invasion of their kid's privacy". It is a parents duty and right to make sure that their children are not doing things that they are not suppose to be doing. It is such mentality as the quoted post that has allowed kids to think that they can get away with anything.

I'm glad you're not my father. :2wave:
 
And that's the whole point!

Pedos must be killed, whether by justice system, relatives of victims, a mob -- irrelevant! Those who gratify their perversions by torturing and raping children must be dead.

What about those who gratify their perversions and blood lust through murder and mob justice?
 
While you might have a right to speak your mind to do so without it having happened to you gives any arguement that you might put foward irrelevant.

As for the part in bold....You can never understand it. Don't even try to say that you do. It is one thing to say that you understand and quite another to actually understand because it did happen to you. It's like me claiming that I understand what it's like to jump out of an airplane just by watching it. While I might understand the basics I will never truely understand it until I experiance it myself.

It's dumb to claim I can't understand a situation without personally experiencing it. That's bull****. The human brain is capable of understanding and comprehending a large variety of situations.
 
All of your comments are based on the same cheap and shallow appeals to emotion

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!
 
And that's why your politically correct libertarian ponderings on a matter are hollow.

I'm an anarchist; nothing PC there! Moreover, I suspect that many of the self-described "libertarians" on this board would defent "parents' rights" as an element of their privateer ideology, though I'm glad to see that Ikari hasn't.

As for the part in bold....You can never understand it. Don't even try to say that you do. It is one thing to say that you understand and quite another to actually understand because it did happen to you. It's like me claiming that I understand what it's like to jump out of an airplane just by watching it. While I might understand the basics I will never truely understand it until I experiance it myself.

There are a substantial number of situations that you have never and will never experience, including many related to various political issues on this board, but that does not eliminate your ability to offer sound and cogent argument on those topics thanks to your conceptual awareness and knowledge of the topics alone. Have you ever had an abortion? Have you ever served in Congress? Have you ever authored an economic spreadsheet? No? If you still consider yourself capable of commenting on those topics, don't be inconsistent and advance the argumentum ad hominem elsewhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom