[Millennium]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
I'll frame my opinion this way: considering everything is personal choice, it seems few people are making the personal choice to take responsibility for their lack of community service which might assist others in learning to make better decisions.

You assume that people have such a responsibility. Why?

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by Millennium:
You assume that people have such a responsibility. Why?

I see it like this: accepting responsibly to help others is a choice a person makes. Helping others is hard when there's delayed gratification for yourself, or it may be hard to see how your contribution makes a difference (think of all the single votes that people didn't cast because they thought their vote would never matter in an election that ended up being clinched by a handful of votes), and it might not be in your lifetime that there are positive results. But to me, human society would seem to be a lot worse off it we didn't appreciate that cooperating together tends to make life easier. Language, agriculture, education, and so much more are the result of beneficial cooperation - aka. helping others. It's when we don't cooperate that things get mighty tense.

[threestain]

because otherwise things like this happen.

if you don't want any social responsibility then live in a shack in the mountains and cut off your links with everyone.

if you want to live in a community you have certain responsibilities.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Influenced, yes, but in the end it all comes down to the person.

and there is the problem. you quite obviously try to downplay the role of the "influenced".

like i already said, it's 78 to 22 percent.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
and there is the problem. you quite obviously try to downplay the role of the "influenced".

like i already said, it's 78 to 22 percent.

According to whom? Show me the proof. If there is any science behind this, then there will be studies testing these numbers, rather than simply arriving at these numbers after a bunch of studies and then stopping.

[olePigeon]

I have a feeling they'll get probation and a fine. Even if they are convicted and sentenced, they'll get minimum.

By the way, prison is punishment enough for a pedophile. They're murdered/raped more than anyone.

[quandarry]

although it sounds like justice applied it may backfire on those involved...

his civil rights were violated (no pun ) and they may be sued and the guy

could end up ahead.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by turtle777:
To all of you who think he got what he deserved:

That guy has not done anything but watching.
Yes, it's sick, we all think he'd probably end up doing more.
But that's speculation.

Do you think it's ok to punish someone for something they haven't done ?

So then, due to double jeopardy, he could go and really do "it", because he already paid for it ?

What happened to innocent before proven guilty ?

-t

I'd say his one hour beating and the rousing corn-holing with a tree brach was for what he DID do; watch a 5 year old sleep and possibly wanking while doing it. If he had touched her, I'm sure his body would've been buried in the back yard.

No, I wouldn't've done the ass job with a branch on him if I cuaght him doing that to my daughter, and the only reason I wouldn't beat him for an hour is because I'd get tuckered out after about 20 minutes of beating the guy. But I would put the dogs on him, and be inclined to put him under the boot heel for a rousing session of punishment. But, honestly, I don't know how I'd react.

I do know that if they had beat the guy to death, It would have been filed under DSAF, for Did Society A Favor.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Millennium:
According to whom?

according to most anthropological studies i've seen. i'll try and find a link on the intardweb.