Sarah's Law

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Quote from Coyote

    What next? Fuckwit ex's become "relationship casualties" because they never learned to not be fuckwits? :rolleyes:

    I don't believe in PC language, but sometimes the words we choose affect the nature of the debate and the way we perceive and understand an issue.

  • Quote from Atomik

    Much. :D



    :) I think if you researched that point , then i think people would agree with ''sick and twisted'' rather than ''deeply disturbed''. Though that is another thread entirely ... :whistle:

  • Quote from matthew

    :) I think if you researched that point , then i think people would agree with ''sick and twisted'' rather than ''deeply disturbed''. Though that is another thread entirely ... :whistle:

    ... and The Sun is Britain's biggest selling newspaper, and Eastenders is Britain's most watched TV program.

  • Quote from Atomik

    I don't believe in PC language, but sometimes the words we choose affect the nature of the debate and the way we perceive and understand an issue.


    Indeed...but then every word affects the nature of the debate; whether we use colloquialisms like "sick and twisted" or quasi-medical terminology that suggests only the "scientists" have a valid opinion.


    Sarah's law is another debate on the whole state vrs person issue. Some folks say the info should be in the hands of the state, and use techno-jargon to "back up" this claim that it should be in the hands of the "experts" who "know best"; language that comes out of the "establishment" sector.


    Others say it should be a personal matter and tend to use colloquial language to express this view; colloquialisms/vernacular being the language of regular folks, not proposed hierarchical elites.


    The former lot try to deny the validity of personal experience and perception; as if, unless you are part of their elite clique, you somehow are unable to understand the issue (strange; we seem to have managed to make decisions generally ok for 200,000 years....however did we manage without managers and scientists?!!).....and indeed in some parts of society their point is valid (as we have a highly affective "assisted breeding plan" for the mindblowingly stupid :rolleyes:). However in general its at best patronising and at worst party to totalitarianism as only one view becomes acceptable.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Atomik

    ... and The Sun is Britain's biggest selling newspaper, and Eastenders is Britain's most watched TV program.


    There are 60 million folks in the country. 13 million watch eastenders, 3 million read the sun.


    Its not everyone, or even most folks, that can be so described :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    Sarah's law is another debate on the whole state vrs person issue. Some folks say the info should be in the hands of the state, and use techno-jargon to "back up" this claim that it should be in the hands of the "experts" who "know best"; language that comes out of the "establishment" sector.

    More like an issue between those who want lynch mobs and those who dont. :rolleyes:


    Quote

    Others say it should be a personal matter and tend to use colloquial language to express this view; colloquialisms/vernacular being the language of regular folks, not proposed hierarchical elites.

    Ah, the mythic "regular folks". :rolleyes:


    Quote

    The former lot try to deny the validity of personal experience and perception; as if, unless you are part of their elite clique, you somehow are unable to understand the issue (strange; we seem to have managed to make decisions generally ok for 200,000 years....however did we manage without managers and scientists?!!).....and indeed in some parts of society their point is valid (as we have a highly affective "assisted breeding plan" for the mindblowingly stupid :rolleyes:). However in general its at best patronising and at worst party to totalitarianism as only one view becomes acceptable.

    Of course this polarised view is itself a gross simplification. The world isn't neatly divided into "scientists" and "regular folk".

  • Quote from Atomik

    ... and The Sun is Britain's biggest selling newspaper, and Eastenders is Britain's most watched TV program.



    Not quite...

    News of the World, 3,471,415; The Sun, 3,148,700 and The Daily Mail2,340,255.

    All i would presume you would consider would use ''sick and twisted'' rather than ''deeply disturbed''. Take from that what you will.

    I'm not to sure about Eastenders.

  • Quote from Coyote

    There are 60 million folks in the country. 13 million watch eastenders, 3 million read the sun.


    Its not everyone, or even most folks, that can be so described :)

    And I didn't say they could. But the point is, popular opinion doesn't prove anything.

  • Quote from Atomik

    More like an issue between those who want lynch mobs and those who dont. :rolleyes:


    Nicely polarised divide....because of couse there is no inbetween....:rolleyes:


    Quote

    Ah, the mythic "regular folks". :rolleyes:


    Of course this polarised view is itself a gross simplification. The world isn't neatly divided into "scientists" and "regular folk".


    Its a divide foistered upon us BY those who would create a hierarchical elite (themselves), othering everyone else into "not the elite". :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    Nicely polarised divide....because of couse there is no inbetween....:rolleyes:

    I was responding in a glib fashion to the polarised divide that you'd already proposed. :rolleyes:


    Quote

    Its a divide foistered upon us BY those who would create a hierarchical elite (themselves), othering everyone else into "not the elite". :)

    So you don't think it's just about avoiding lynch mobs on the streets then? :rolleyes:

  • Quote from Atomik

    I was responding in a glib fashion to the polarised divide that you'd already proposed. :rolleyes:


    LMAO


    I didnt propose it, I described what is happening with a differing use of language.


    Quote

    So you don't think it's just about avoiding lynch mobs on the streets then? :rolleyes:


    Indeed. Lynchmobs tend to be indescriminate with lots of "rarrrrgghhhH!!" going on (leading to paedaitricians getting attacked etc) but that aint the only angry approach. Not all such responses are so indescriminate.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    LMAO


    I didnt propose it, I described what is happening with a differing use of language.


    prop‧o‧si‧tion
    –noun


    1. the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
    2. a plan or scheme proposed.
    3. an offer of terms for a transaction, as in business.
    4. a thing, matter, or person considered as something to be dealt with or encountered: Keeping diplomatic channels open is a serious proposition.
    5. anything stated or affirmed for discussion or illustration.


    Quote

    Indeed. Lynchmobs tend to be indescriminate with lots of "rarrrrgghhhH!!" going on (leading to paedaitricians getting attacked etc) but that aint the only angry approach. Not all such responses are so indescriminate.

    So what do you imagine would happen in Britain today if the location of known paedophiles was in the public domain?

  • I think, possibly, that Coyote is suggesting that Paedophiles would be attacked in ways other than lynchmobs. However, as for the rest of it - I'll let you two scrap over that.

  • Quote from Atomik


    So what do you imagine would happen in Britain today if the location of known paedophiles was in the public domain?


    Some would keep a watchful eye on them. Some would drive them out. Some would tie them to a handy tree and some would torch their houses probably getting innocents involved.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    Some would keep a watchful eye on them. Some would drive them out. Some would tie them to a handy tree and some would torch their houses probably getting innocents involved.

    Which I think nicely sums up the basic objections to this law. No intellectual elitism involved.

  • Quote from Atomik

    Which I think nicely sums up the basic objections to this law.


    How so? :confused:

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Atomik

    Well if you think that tying paedos to trees and torching there houses is any kinda solution, then I'm wasting my breath explaining it to you.


    Trees yes. Torching no.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • and also the fact it would give paedos the incentive to disappear off radar perhaps? that way they could not be kept an eye on at all. I'm sure that would help protect childen :rolleyes:

  • Quote from Atomik

    And what do you think this would achieve?


    It would reduce the number of paedos :) and teach them that when they get caught they wont be treated in "hospital" so "STOP FUCKING CHILDREN YOU PERVE!".


    :)


    Quote

    And do you imagine everyone would practice your restraint when it comes to torching?


    I already said no and that I expect some to go the torching route.


    Quote

    And do you believe everyone would identify the right person?


    I'd rather take that chance than assume the other....


    Bare in mind that the personal response is the "default" response and that a state/elite-led one has to make a case to take it up. Too often we are lead to beleive that the personal approach is the new one and has to be argued for.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Darkflame

    and also the fact it would give paedos the incentive to disappear off radar perhaps? that way they could not be kept an eye on at all. I'm sure that would help protect childen :rolleyes:


    there is a difference between letting local authorities know and making it public for everyone..

  • Quote from Coyote

    It would reduce the number of paedos :) and teach them that when they get caught they wont be treated in "hospital" so "STOP FUCKING CHILDREN YOU PERVE!".

    No it wouldn't. It would make paedos more careful. It'd also drive them underground and simply shift the problem from one community to another.


    Quote

    I already said no and that I expect some to go the torching route.


    I'd rather take that chance than assume the other....

    So you're quite happy to see human beings set fire to... and in some cases innocent human beings?

  • Quote from Atomik

    No it wouldn't. It would make paedos more careful. It'd also drive them underground and simply shift the problem from one community to another.


    Erm, dude, they are already underground.....if they werent they'd get caught....


    Quote

    So you're quite happy to see human beings set fire to... and in some cases innocent human beings?


    I'd say its preferable to the alternative, yes. Mistakes happen, tis the way of things; but some think you can stop mistakes by having enough control over situations. They dont realise though that more harm is done by the controlling than was solved by it. :(

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from velvet

    there is a difference between letting local authorities know and making it public for everyone..


    Agreed - however what Coyote is suggesting is letting everybody know and let anyone who feels so inclined do whatever they like to a paedophile - which would cause the convicted ones to disappear and the unconvicted ones to be far more careful not to be caught - neither of which helps anyone.

  • Quote from Darkflame

    Agreed - however what Coyote is suggesting is letting everybody know and let anyone who feels so inclined do whatever they like to a paedophile - which would cause the convicted ones to disappear and the unconvicted ones to be far more careful not to be caught - neither of which helps anyone.


    heh yeah.. don't think I need to explain what my vision on that is ;)

  • Quote from Coyote

    Erm, dude, they are already underground.....if they werent they'd get caught....

    Not when they're released from prison and on the sex offenders' register they're not. But what paedo's gonna remain on the radar when there's a mob with burning torches waiting for 'em?


    Quote

    I'd say its preferable to the alternative, yes. Mistakes happen, tis the way of things; but some think you can stop mistakes by having enough control over situations. They dont realise though that more harm is done by the controlling than was solved by it. :(

    Well as justifications for setting fire to human beings go, that's pretty flimsy. :rolleyes:

  • Quote from Atomik

    Not when they're released from prison and on the sex offenders' register they're not. But what paedo's gonna remain on the radar when there's a mob with burning torches waiting for 'em?


    Since when has secrecy stopped reoffending in ANY offence, not just kiddy fiddling?


    Quote

    Well as justifications for setting fire to human beings go, that's pretty flimsy. :rolleyes:


    Well its very easy to appear to offer a better solution....until all the side effects of increased societal control swing into position.....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."