Court blocks release of sex offenders due out of jail

[strollingbones]

public urination is exposing one's self...you want some freak pissing in front of your kids?

NO. That's an extreme case, which I really don't believe is all that common. What about a person who simply couldn't get to a restroom in time and was in fact deep in the bushes? Is that a person who is deliberately "exposing oneself?" Sorry, I don't think so.

someone like that wont get arrested now will they? only someone that can be seen will be arrested

 

[Agnapostate]

Why does it even matter, other than the contamination factor?

 

[eots]

just sayin...I would..no need to be impressed at my normal parental behaviors

So in other words, your psychopathy isn't limited to your babbling on here?

I would only kick em with reasonable force..until they stopped...that shows a ability for compassion and empathy...not found in a psychopath

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why does it even matter, other than the contamination factor?

Your total disregard for children is appalling. And your disregard for the rights and mores of the public also is telling.

 

[Agnapostate]

I would only kick him with reasonable and force until they stopped...that shows a ability for compassion and empathy...not found in a psychopath

Shouldn't your efforts be more focused on those feds seen lurking outside Tower 7?

 

[Agnapostate]

Your total disregard for children is appalling. And your disregard for the rights and mores of the public also is telling.

Do you have a logically sound response to offer? Be sure to cite sources and provide reliable evidence.

 

[eots]

I would only kick him with reasonable and force until they stopped...that shows a ability for compassion and empathy...not found in a psychopath

Shouldn't your efforts be more focused on those feds seen lurking outside Tower 7?

no protecting the innocence and sanctity of children is always first..and I don't believe it is necessary to choose between the two...I can multi-task

 

[Agnapostate]

no protecting the innocence and sanctity of children is always first..and I don't believe it is necessary to choose between the two...I can multi-task

...But you still haven't posted any logically sound ethical defense of prohibiting "public indecency" and such. Your sole reliance has been on irrational dogma.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your total disregard for children is appalling. And your disregard for the rights and mores of the public also is telling.

Do you have a logically sound response to offer? Be sure to cite sources and provide reliable evidence.

You claim that being naked in public is no big deal. And as I recall your response to children was that seeing someone naked would not traumatize them enough to need years of therapy.

THIS society has mores and accepted behaviors. Naked in public is NOT one of them. YOU have no right under any Constitution or law to go naked anywhere you damn well please, nor have sex in public.

That would be WHY we have those laws and we do not repeal them. Sex in public is already a problem in some places because of male gays. They leave their unsanitary left overs in those places. This can cause disease and sickness. And since it tends to be PARKS where children are supposed to be able to play it endangers them since most young children have no idea what that crap is.

Your personal desires do not trump the Majorities distaste and the unsanitary problems of what you think is just fine.

 

[Agnapostate]

You claim that being naked in public is no big deal. And as I recall your response to children was that seeing someone naked would not traumatize them enough to need years of therapy.

THIS society has mores and accepted behaviors. Naked in public is NOT one of them. YOU have no right under any Constitution or law to go naked anywhere you damn well please, nor have sex in public.

You're evidently unfamiliar with the logical parameters of ethical discussion and debate, so let me begin by telling you the difference between "is" and "ought," or more clearly, the difference between a "descriptive" observation and a "prescriptive" recommendation. "This society" may indeed have "mores and accepted behaviors," but their mere existence does not function as an ethical justification of them any more than the prevalence of segregation and Jim Crow laws provided an ethical justification for them. Mere existence is far from being a sufficient justification.

That would be WHY we have those laws and we do not repeal them. Sex in public is already a problem in some places because of male gays. They leave their unsanitary left overs in those places. This can cause disease and sickness. And since it tends to be PARKS where children are supposed to be able to play it endangers them since most young children have no idea what that crap is.

Your personal desires do not trump the Majorities distaste and the unsanitary problems of what you think is just fine.

Then sanitation can function as your concern, though you still lack an ethical objection to "sanitary" forms of public sexual activity. For instance, your objection would clearly not retain even a slight semblance of logical soundness in the case of persons who "cleaned up" after themselves or endeavored to prevent any contamination from occurring in the first place. You're going to have to provide a more plausible objection, and one significantly more substantive than cries of "protecting the children." The conception of children being harmed through viewing sexual acts is a fairly recent societal phenomenon that has not existed for more than a few centuries. Of course, keeping in mind the difference between "is" and "ought," that alone does not function as an ethical argument, but it behooves you to provide one nonetheless.

Do you have a logically sound objection to express, based on empirical evidence that visual exposure to sexual acts psychologically harms children or anyone else?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You claim that being naked in public is no big deal. And as I recall your response to children was that seeing someone naked would not traumatize them enough to need years of therapy.

THIS society has mores and accepted behaviors. Naked in public is NOT one of them. YOU have no right under any Constitution or law to go naked anywhere you damn well please, nor have sex in public.

You're evidently unfamiliar with the logical parameters of ethical discussion and debate, so let me begin by telling you the difference between "is" and "ought," or more clearly, the difference between a "descriptive" observation and a "prescriptive" recommendation. "This society" may indeed have "mores and accepted behaviors," but their mere existence does not function as an ethical justification of them any more than the prevalence of segregation and Jim Crow laws provided an ethical justification for them. Mere existence is far from being a sufficient justification.

That would be WHY we have those laws and we do not repeal them. Sex in public is already a problem in some places because of male gays. They leave their unsanitary left overs in those places. This can cause disease and sickness. And since it tends to be PARKS where children are supposed to be able to play it endangers them since most young children have no idea what that crap is.

Your personal desires do not trump the Majorities distaste and the unsanitary problems of what you think is just fine.

Then sanitation can function as your concern, though you still lack an ethical objection to "sanitary" forms of public sexual activity. For instance, your objection would clearly not retain even a slight semblance of logical soundness in the case of persons who "cleaned up" after themselves or endeavored to prevent any contamination from occurring in the first place. You're going to have to provide a more plausible objection, and one significantly more substantive than cries of "protecting the children." The conception of children being harmed through viewing sexual acts is a fairly recent societal phenomenon that has not existed for more than a few centuries. Of course, keeping in mind the difference between "is" and "ought," that alone does not function as an ethical argument, but it behooves you to provide one nonetheless.

Do you have a logically sound objection to express, based on empirical evidence that visual exposure to sexual acts psychologically harms children or anyone else?

To bad for you, I don't need to play your games. THE REALITY is it is the law and will remain the law for the foreseeable future. Laws I support.

 

[Agnapostate]

To bad for you, I don't need to play your games. THE REALITY is it is the law and will remain the law for the foreseeable future. Laws I support.

Then you'll follow the current administration's policies without complaint, right? Because the president was legally elected, after all, and his edicts therefore are "the law," in a sense. Or are you going to be inconsistent and claim that ethical and political criticism can diverge from the law in that case?

 

[Ocean56]

Your total disregard for children is appalling. And your disregard for the rights and mores of the public also is telling.

Do you have a logically sound response to offer? Be sure to cite sources and provide reliable evidence.

You claim that being naked in public is no big deal. And as I recall your response to children was that seeing someone naked would not traumatize them enough to need years of therapy. THIS society has mores and accepted behaviors. Naked in public is NOT one of them. YOU have no right under any Constitution or law to go naked anywhere you damn well please, nor have sex in public.

That would be WHY we have those laws and we do not repeal them. Sex in public is already a problem in some places because of male gays. They leave their unsanitary left overs in those places. This can cause disease and sickness. And since it tends to be PARKS where children are supposed to be able to play it endangers them since most young children have no idea what that crap is. Your personal desires do not trump the Majorities distaste and the unsanitary problems of what you think is just fine.

Ooooooooh, the "male gays" phobia again. Why am I not surprised. @@ So if ANYONE happens to appear in public naked for ANY reason that is non-sexual, you want that person locked up for 20 years or more as a "sex offender?" Give me a break! Just because YOU have serious neurotic issues with the naked human body doesn't mean all of us do, or "should."

 

[Ocean56]

Who said it was common? Something doesn't have to be common to be a crime. And yes, that person is still deliberately exposing himself in public.

IF the person is deliberately standing in front of a group of people to do this, be they children or adults, then YES, that person is still exposing himself in public. And no, I don't believe that makes such a person a "dangerous sex offender" if that is all the person has done. Has that person HURT, harmed or injured anyone by doing so? Nope.

Okay, first of all, who said anything about "dangerous"? Where are you getting all these extra qualifiers you keep tacking on? First you're babbling about "common", and now you're babbling about "dangerous".

Second of all, who the hell are YOU to tell me I haven't been harmed by being forced to see someone's johnson whether I want to or not? Where do YOU get off defining harm for other people? I consider it a serious violation of my mental privacy to have stuff like that shoved on me without my consent.

[But that is NOT what I asked. I asked about "what about a person's going deep in the bushes to relieve him/herself because he/she couldn't get to a restroom in time" and you purposely avoided the question and made it something else entirely. That's called a false argument, or to put it another way, "apples and oranges."

I didn't make it anything else. It's not private enough. If it was a perfectly acceptable, private area for you to relieve yourself, the city would have installed toilets back there. I suggest you learn some more thorough toilet training and plan a little better.

First of all, I don't go to huge public parks, for the reasons I just cited. I am very WELL toilet trained, thank you, but have no intention of having to "hold it" forever because some morons decided not to build one or two more restroom facility buildings to make it easier for people to get to. So I avoid those places.

Second, if you're THAT traumatized just because you happen to see a male penis, you probably have more serious issues, which may require psychiatric care, not a person's being locked up for 10 or 20 years because a neurotic like yourself happened to see it.

 

[Ocean56]

Why does it even matter, other than the contamination factor?

Your total disregard for children is appalling. And your disregard for the rights and mores of the public also is telling.

Some neurotic members of "the public" would outlaw spitting on the sidewalk and other ridiculous things if they could, just because it ticks them off. So you'll understand why I don't entirely buy the "rights and mores of the public" argument.

I'm not in favor of sex in public, it's a bad idea, for several reasons. Nor am I in favor of relieving oneself in public, in full view of others. IMO, it takes a mentally deranged person to do one or the other. But I'm not in favor of draconian laws to lock them up either, as some are.