NationStates

Ifreann wrote:What in the fucking hell is happening right now?

Someone claiming child molestors should be punished for physical violence and posters acting as if asking for proof that molestors are pathologically violent is enabling molestation.

Celritannia wrote:"Ain't my fault guv, it's you lot"

Trump grade.

Gormwood wrote:

Andsed wrote:... Are- are you trying to argue molesting a child is not an inherently violent act? Because it comes off that way.

So child molestation always involves physically restraining a child against their will? That's like saying it's not rape if the victim is not screaming and struggling.

Rape even without physical restraint is still a violent act. Screaming and struggling are not required to make it a violent act.

But anyways that is missing the point.
Someone who committed a crime already is clearly willing to commit that crime at the time they committed that crime, and steps need to be taken to prevent them from doing so again, especially when the crime is this serious and prevalent.

Gormwood wrote:

Ifreann wrote:What in the fucking hell is happening right now?

Someone claiming child molestors should be punished for physical violence and posters acting as if asking for proof that molestors are pathologically violent is enabling molestation.

Maybe pick some other hair to split?

Gormwood wrote:

Ifreann wrote:What in the fucking hell is happening right now?

Someone claiming child molestors should be punished for physical violence and posters acting as if asking for proof that molestors are pathologically violent is enabling molestation.

Whenever you touch someone without their consent it is an act of violence. This is common law 101 Gauth.

Novus America wrote:

Gormwood wrote:So child molestation always involves physically restraining a child against their will? That's like saying it's not rape if the victim is not screaming and struggling.

Rape even without physical restraint is still a violent act. Screaming and struggling are not required to make it a violent act.

But anyways that is missing the point.
Someone who committed a crime already is clearly willing to commit that crime at the time they committed that crime, and steps need to be taken to prevent them from doing so again, especially when the crime is this serious and prevalent.

And someone advocated execution. Which just makes the victims witnesses that need to be silenced.

Gormwood wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Rape even without physical restraint is still a violent act. Screaming and struggling are not required to make it a violent act.

But anyways that is missing the point.
Someone who committed a crime already is clearly willing to commit that crime at the time they committed that crime, and steps need to be taken to prevent them from doing so again, especially when the crime is this serious and prevalent.

And someone advocated execution. Which just makes the victims witnesses that need to be silenced.

We already covered that. If the death penalty has no deterrent value your claim is false.
If child molesters are not inherently murderous your claim is false.

If someone is willing to kill a victim thinking they could avoid the death penalty by doing so (and you know it actually is easier to hide child molestation than murder) they are probably willing to kill to avoid jail and other punishments too.

Now we are taking about someone who is a child molest willing to murder.
You claims are contradictory.

You claim that child molesters are not inherently violent yet the death penalty will suddenly turn them into murderers?

Novus America wrote:

Gormwood wrote:And someone advocated execution. Which just makes the victims witnesses that need to be silenced.

We already covered that. If the death penalty has no deterrent value your claim is false.
If child molesters are not inherently murderous your claim is false.

If someone is willing to kill a victim thinking they could avoid the death penalty by doing so (and you know it actually is easier to hide child molestation than murder) they are probably willing to kill to avoid jail and other punishments too.

Now we are taking about someone who is a child molest willing to murder.
You claims are contradictory.

You claim that child molesters are not inherently violent yet the death penalty will suddenly turn them into murderers?

If sex crimes become capital crimes then murder becomes more palatable to an offender when the punishment are the same or even less severe for a chance to evade culpability. A point I was making but feel free to say flashers need lethal injection while you're at it.

Gormwood wrote:

Novus America wrote:
We already covered that. If the death penalty has no deterrent value your claim is false.
If child molesters are not inherently murderous your claim is false.

If someone is willing to kill a victim thinking they could avoid the death penalty by doing so (and you know it actually is easier to hide child molestation than murder) they are probably willing to kill to avoid jail and other punishments too.

Now we are taking about someone who is a child molest willing to murder.
You claims are contradictory.

You claim that child molesters are not inherently violent yet the death penalty will suddenly turn them into murderers?

If sex crimes become capital crimes then murder becomes more palatable to an offender when the punishment are the same or even less severe for a chance to evade culpability. A point I was making but feel free to say flashers need lethal injection while you're at it.

Evidence that imposing the death penalty for a crime increases the number of murders committed?

And if it is true (again stupid because murder is harder to hide) the you are saying criminals are exceptionally gravely terrified of the death penalty, thus that the death penalty should work as a deterrent...

If offenders are murderous such they would kill to avoid punishment (and why would they only do it to avoid the death penalty vs a long prison sentence) they are violent people.
You contradict yourself.

Also the last part is a stupid straw man anyways. One I do not support lethal injection and obviously not for all sex criminals, (even automatically for all child rapists) but that the death penalty should maybe be an OPTION available for the extreme cases.

Novus America wrote:

Gormwood wrote:If sex crimes become capital crimes then murder becomes more palatable to an offender when the punishment are the same or even less severe for a chance to evade culpability. A point I was making but feel free to say flashers need lethal injection while you're at it.

Evidence that imposing the death penalty for a crime increases the number of murders committed?

And if it is true (again stupid because murder is harder to hide) the you are saying criminals are exceptionally gravely terrified of the death penalty, thus that the death penalty should work as a deterrent...

If offenders are murderous such they would kill to avoid punishment (and why would they only do it to avoid the death penalty vs a long prison sentence) they are violent people.
You contradict yourself.

Also the last part is a stupid straw man anyways. One I do not support lethal injection and obviously not for all sex criminals, (even automatically for all child rapists) but that the death penalty should maybe be an OPTION available for the extreme cases.

Some rationality, unlike this guy.

Hrythingland wrote:At the end of the day the idea of it is wholly stomach churning, and in my opinion physical acts of pedophilia should be met with highly punitive measures, even death.

Celritannia wrote:Who's ready for a second spike?

Apparently, 73% of the population (that's the percentage expecting a second outbreak of COVID-19 this year).

Research by Opinium also shows: 52% believe pubs and restaurants are going back too early, 49% of the population disapprove of the government's performance (compared to 30% approving), 53% think easing the lockdown is happening too fast, 55% of voters are expecting to go back into full lockdown, and 52% think the government under-reacted (while 30% think it reacted proportionately).

Everything is opening too early, when i was heading to work for my first shift back on Friday i passed a bar on the falls road and it was fucking crammed full of people, no social distancing whatsoever, it was completely packed. Thankfully most customers in my shop were keeping their distance from one another and some were using the sanitation stations we had set up and i had access to face masks, visors and gloves as well as hand sanitiser if i needed it.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Everything is opening too early, when i was heading to work for my first shift back on Friday i passed a bar on the falls road and it was fucking crammed full of people, no social distancing whatsoever, it was completely packed.

Yes. Pubs being open is antithetical to the concept of social distancing. We may soon realise that this was a mistake.

it is probably unironically time for the rest of the UK to put people that are coming in from england into 14 day quarantines

what a timeline

Alyakia wrote:it is probably unironically time for the rest of the UK to put people that are coming in from england into 14 day quarantines

what a timeline

These are interesting times we currently find ourselves in.

The topic is UK Politics, NOT child sex abuse and paedophilia. Please return to that topic post haste.

Funeralgate rumbles on. Naomi Long, the leader of the Alliance Party and NI's Justice Minister, has called on Michelle O'Neill to explain herself to the assembly. Meanwhile, the TUV leader Jim Allister has drawn up a motion of no confidence in O'Neill. This will probably fail, but the scandal looks likely to continue for a while yet.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Everything is opening too early, when i was heading to work for my first shift back on Friday i passed a bar on the falls road and it was fucking crammed full of people, no social distancing whatsoever, it was completely packed. Thankfully most customers in my shop were keeping their distance from one another and some were using the sanitation stations we had set up and i had access to face masks, visors and gloves as well as hand sanitiser if i needed it.

Why would you want to social distance in a pub though? Social distanced drinking sounds shit.

Katganistan wrote:The topic is UK Politics, NOT child sex abuse and paedophilia. Please return to that topic post haste.

It seemed to drift back on its own tbh.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Everything is opening too early, when i was heading to work for my first shift back on Friday i passed a bar on the falls road and it was fucking crammed full of people, no social distancing whatsoever, it was completely packed. Thankfully most customers in my shop were keeping their distance from one another and some were using the sanitation stations we had set up and i had access to face masks, visors and gloves as well as hand sanitiser if i needed it.

Why would you want to social distance in a pub though? Social distanced drinking sounds shit.

And you know what it is even more shit? A goddam pandemic. Social distance for fucks sake it is not hard. And quite frankly you really should not be going to a pub during a pandemic. Just fucking open a zoom call and drink from home if you really want to interact with people and get wasted.

Andsed wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Why would you want to social distance in a pub though? Social distanced drinking sounds shit.

And you know what it is even more shit? A goddam pandemic. Social distance for fucks sake it is not hard. And quite frankly you really should not be going to a pub during a pandemic. Just fucking open a zoom call and drink from home if you really want to interact with people and get wasted.

I do that every Saturday, I have done for the past 3 months, so why have you not joined us?

Next Friday though I will be in the pubs, 6 different ones. In a town with a covid infections spike.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Andsed wrote:And you know what it is even more shit? A goddam pandemic. Social distance for fucks sake it is not hard. And quite frankly you really should not be going to a pub during a pandemic. Just fucking open a zoom call and drink from home if you really want to interact with people and get wasted.

I do that every Saturday, I have done for the past 3 months, so why have you not joined us?

Next Friday though I will be in the pubs, 6 different ones. In a town with a covid infections spike.

I don't drink. I have no interest in doing so. And your pub idea is a reckless one that could very well see you and others infected.

Andsed wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I do that every Saturday, I have done for the past 3 months, so why have you not joined us?

Next Friday though I will be in the pubs, 6 different ones. In a town with a covid infections spike.

I don't drink. I have no interest in doing so. And your pub idea is a reckless one that could very well see you and others infected.

Ah well

The New California Republic wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Everything is opening too early, when i was heading to work for my first shift back on Friday i passed a bar on the falls road and it was fucking crammed full of people, no social distancing whatsoever, it was completely packed.

Yes. Pubs being open is antithetical to the concept of social distancing. We may soon realise that this was a mistake.

I fear so.

If pubs are going to open (which, I agree it's far too early), I think they should do what one place I saw on the news was -- pre-booking, limited capacity and table service only (to help keep social distancing). I also think that they should have time-limited slots (one-hour/an-hour-thirty at most) to allow people to have a friendly drink but prevent people going around getting bladdered (where they may lose sight of social distancing)

EDIT: It might be advisable, for the safety of those inside, for the advice to suggest turning away those who are clearly already drunk at the door. After all, most people would not want to -- while drunk and perhaps not in full control of themselves -- risk spreading COVID-19 by inadvertently getting too close to others.