Free Speech

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sorry SF, I'll stop hitting you.

You CA "men" have the power of a CO first grader anyway, so no worries.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Maybe I could make one exception.

lol

 

[Cancel3]

Im with watermark, no one hitting anyone.

I agree with that idea, as long as everyone else recognizes the boundries people set.

 

[KingCondanomation]

And yet Darla keeps voting back a party that not only appoints judges who are more lenient in sentencing criminals who do sexual assaults, but also release them early and fight to get them more rights like cable and weightlifting equipment.

 

[Cancel3]

And yet Darla keeps voting back a party that not only appoints judges who are more lenient in sentencing criminals who do sexual assaults, but also release them early and fight to get them more rights like cable and weightlifting equipment.

Putting every person who has hit a woman is jail would ge a GREAT answer, King.

Lets see....according to the last census there were 143,368,343 females in the US. If one in three is abused or beaten and we throw the abuser or beater in jail, we will have 47,789,447 men in jail. At the end of 2006 there were 2.2 million people in prison in the US. And our jails are overcrowded now. And your answer is to berate judges who don't throw people in jail and throw away the key? I guess having 20 times more people in jail would CERTAINLY solve the problem, huh??


No, I think jails are not the answer for teh majority. A good start would be to change the attitudes about women and the attitudes about violence. And both of those changes need to happen in BOTH parties, not just for the Dems.

 

[Cancel7]

1) I didn't realize the percentage was so high. 1 out of 3 is unacceptable (not that any are acceptable, but we will not likely ever see the complete elimination of crimes)

2) What does this article have to do with free speech?

I don't know. I don't give as much thought to my titles as you guys here do. I think when I read this, it flashed across my mind how a lot of people on the right are always screaming about free speech. I remember during the Imus thing, that was the big hissy fit. Free speech. And I always wonder if I don't have free speech at work - and no one does - why do these freaking animals on the radio have it to this extent? What is wrong with management? That's probably why.

 

[Cancel7]

Maybe I could make one exception.

 

[Good Luck]

Putting every person who has hit a woman is jail would ge a GREAT answer, King.

Lets see....according to the last census there were 143,368,343 females in the US. If one in three is abused or beaten and we throw the abuser or beater in jail, we will have 47,789,447 men in jail. At the end of 2006 there were 2.2 million people in prison in the US. And our jails are overcrowded now. And your answer is to berate judges who don't throw people in jail and throw away the key? I guess having 20 times more people in jail would CERTAINLY solve the problem, huh??


No, I think jails are not the answer for teh majority. A good start would be to change the attitudes about women and the attitudes about violence. And both of those changes need to happen in BOTH parties, not just for the Dems.

Point one - your math is based on the assumption that there is a unique male abuser for every female victim. That is not true - most abusers go through multiple victims. (which would not happen if they were actually punished the first time.)

Second, using the "jails are already over crowded" excuse to have a revolving door policy on sexual abuse and domestic violence does not cut it. If the jails are too crowded, then release the lesser of dangerous criminals back to the population. (like non-violent drug users and/or dealers) Violent criminals need to be kept locked away, period.

Third, "changing attitudes" is nice idea - but how do you propose doing it? And what happens WHILE the attitude changing programs are running? The stats on domestic violence are horrendous BECAUSE we have been tolerating it rather than doing something about it.

 

[Cancel3]

Point one - your math is based on the assumption that there is a unique male abuser for every female victim. That is not true - most abusers go through multiple victims. (which would not happen if they were actually punished the first time.)

Second, using the "jails are already over crowded" excuse to have a revolving door policy on sexual abuse and domestic violence does not cut it. If the jails are too crowded, then release the lesser of dangerous criminals back to the population. (like non-violent drug users and/or dealers) Violent criminals need to be kept locked away, period.

Third, "changing attitudes" is nice idea - but how do you propose doing it? And what happens WHILE the attitude changing programs are running? The stats on domestic violence are horrendous BECAUSE we have been tolerating it rather than doing something about it.

Ok, if we assume that each abuser is responsible for 10 of the abused women, that means we only have to put 4.7 million into jail. Now, releasing the lessor of the dangerous criminals is a great idea. But if you emptied the entire prison system, and put that 4.7 million into jail, you would have doubled the prison population in one swift move.

Changing attitudes can be accomplished by a number of methods. There have actually been impressive success rates with classes for first time domestic abusers. Break the cycle there and it will stop more and more from coming out of it. Enforce the current laws and restraining orders. When women FINALLY do leave, they can be tracked down and beaten again, with little or no repurcussions. And the restraining orders are only useable AFTER he has gotten his hands on her again. This would allow the hardcore abusers to be sentenced and the lessor ones to receive the classes they need to handle their anger or other issues.

Also, the whole "woman as a victim" thing is pervasive throughout our society. If a man is in charge he is a leader. If a woman is in charge she is a bitch. Look at the tv shows that our younger ones use to formulate how they see the world. The only female heros are either lonely or they are called lesbians. Change those views and you change the mindset.

 

[Cancel3]

Point one - your math is based on the assumption that there is a unique male abuser for every female victim. That is not true - most abusers go through multiple victims. (which would not happen if they were actually punished the first time.)

Second, using the "jails are already over crowded" excuse to have a revolving door policy on sexual abuse and domestic violence does not cut it. If the jails are too crowded, then release the lesser of dangerous criminals back to the population. (like non-violent drug users and/or dealers) Violent criminals need to be kept locked away, period.

Third, "changing attitudes" is nice idea - but how do you propose doing it? And what happens WHILE the attitude changing programs are running? The stats on domestic violence are horrendous BECAUSE we have been tolerating it rather than doing something about it.

And also, if you will look at the post to which I was responding, King was trying to place the blame on a single political party. Which galls me to no end. That is a huge part of our problem, people want the other party to take the blame. They make every issue a battle between dems and repubs.

 

[Thorn]

Maybe I could make one exception.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Maybe I could make one exception.

LOL!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Point one - your math is based on the assumption that there is a unique male abuser for every female victim. That is not true - most abusers go through multiple victims. (which would not happen if they were actually punished the first time.)

Second, using the "jails are already over crowded" excuse to have a revolving door policy on sexual abuse and domestic violence does not cut it. If the jails are too crowded, then release the lesser of dangerous criminals back to the population. (like non-violent drug users and/or dealers) Violent criminals need to be kept locked away, period.

Third, "changing attitudes" is nice idea - but how do you propose doing it? And what happens WHILE the attitude changing programs are running? The stats on domestic violence are horrendous BECAUSE we have been tolerating it rather than doing something about it.

I don't think we have to put them in prison.

Just put a huge sign on their car and house that says "I HIT A WOMAN" and no woman will ever go there again. Problem solved.

 

[Thorn]

I don't think we have to put them in prison.

Just put a huge sign on their car and house that says "I HIT A WOMAN" and no woman will ever go there again. Problem solved.

Not a bad idea, assuming that these people don't rent and move around much.

I read a novel some time ago where a woman sedated her abuser and tattooed "I Hit Women" on his naked chest.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not a bad idea, assuming that these people don't rent and move around much.

I read a novel some time ago where a woman sedated her abuser and tattooed "I Hit Women" on his naked chest.

Should have put it on his forehead, harder to hide.

 

[Good Luck]

And also, if you will look at the post to which I was responding, King was trying to place the blame on a single political party. Which galls me to no end. That is a huge part of our problem, people want the other party to take the blame. They make every issue a battle between dems and repubs.

Fine, but your refutations are not valid. First, you significantly inflate the crime statistics as to who would end up going to jail. Second, crowded prisons is and always will be a lousy excuse to not imprison those who validly deserve it. And a wife abuser - especially a habitual one (of which there are innumerable examples roaming free on the streets) validly deserves to be locked up. Third, changing attitudes does not happen as the result of outside pressure. So suggesting the solution is for society to "change the attitudes" of the chickenshit men who beat on women is cotton candy fluff, all taste and no substance.

 

[Cancel3]

Fine, but your refutations are not valid. First, you significantly inflate the crime statistics as to who would end up going to jail. Second, crowded prisons is and always will be a lousy excuse to not imprison those who validly deserve it. And a wife abuser - especially a habitual one (of which there are innumerable examples roaming free on the streets) validly deserves to be locked up. Third, changing attitudes does not happen as the result of outside pressure. So suggesting the solution is for society to "change the attitudes" of the chickenshit men who beat on women is cotton candy fluff, all taste and no substance.

I think busting King's balls for his stupid statement is a perfectly valid reason to post what I did. And the overcrowded conditions of prisons is certainly a valid reason to seek some alternative punishment rather than try to squeeze 4.7 million more people into the system. If its overcrowded at 2.2 million, adding 4.7 million is not the answer.

And the change in attitudes can ONLY come from outside pressure. Sending the men to prison to change them is putting outside pressure on them.

Do you actually think the despicable human beings are going to change on their own? You think they are going to wake up one day and think "Gee, I ought to stop hitting my girlfriend"?

If you want them to stop hitting women you either need to change them (read-classes, councilling ect) or you need to completely remove them from anyone they will hit.

Now, since nothing has proven to be 100% effective, what would you suggest we do? Incarcerate almost 5 million men (and remember, that is creditting each with battering 10 women) or should we start making sure men know how to treat women, know how to control their anger, and know what to do?

 

[Good Luck]

I think busting King's balls for his stupid statement is a perfectly valid reason to post what I did. And the overcrowded conditions of prisons is certainly a valid reason to seek some alternative punishment rather than try to squeeze 4.7 million more people into the system. If its overcrowded at 2.2 million, adding 4.7 million is not the answer.

And the change in attitudes can ONLY come from outside pressure. Sending the men to prison to change them is putting outside pressure on them.

Do you actually think the despicable human beings are going to change on their own? You think they are going to wake up one day and think "Gee, I ought to stop hitting my girlfriend"?

If you want them to stop hitting women you either need to change them (read-classes, councilling ect) or you need to completely remove them from anyone they will hit.

Now, since nothing has proven to be 100% effective, what would you suggest we do? Incarcerate almost 5 million men (and remember, that is crediting each with battering 10 women) or should we start making sure men know how to treat women, know how to control their anger, and know what to do?

In case you are not up on crime statistics, the idea that incarceration CHANGES (ie: rehabilitates) criminals has been long debunked as the bunch of mindless cotton candy wishful thinking it really is.

Incarceration is for the protection of society, not for "changing" the attitudes of the criminals. 90% of violent crimes - and that includes domestic violence - are committed by repeat offenders. We have already TRIED compulsory "anger management" counseling, holding hands while singing kumbayah, and all the other cotton candy fluff "we need to change their attitudes" bullstuff. And, just like most of the other touchy-feely methods of crime control, THEY ARE NOT WORKING.

Of course, sending them to a prison with all the amenities of a luxury hotel (another result of the cotton candy approach to criminal justice) does very little to change their minds about their criminal activities either. But it at least prevents them from repeating their offenses, a goal which the methods you support have been proven to be incapable of achieving.

According to my grandad, when my dad was growing up they had a method for dealing with wife (and especially child) beaters that was usually effective with one application. The men of the village would seek out the offender and give him a practical lesson in how it felt to be the victim. (If the perpetrator needed a second application, he was also banished from all villages.) Of course, the White Man, in all his wisdom put a stop to it, (after he decided what goes on in reservations is his business after all - despite treaty guarantees) because we are not supposed to take the law into our own hands. I'll bet you can just guess what happened to domestic abuse levels after such sage interference.

 

[Cancel3]

In case you are not up on crime statistics, the idea that incarceration CHANGES (ie: rehabilitates) criminals has been long debunked as the bunch of mindless cotton candy wishful thinking it really is.

Incarceration is for the protection of society, not for "changing" the attitudes of the criminals. 90% of violent crimes - and that includes domestic violence - are committed by repeat offenders. We have already TRIED compulsory "anger management" counseling, holding hands while singing kumbayah, and all the other cotton candy fluff "we need to change their attitudes" bullstuff. And, just like most of the other touchy-feely methods of crime control, THEY ARE NOT WORKING.

Of course, sending them to a prison with all the amenities of a luxury hotel (another result of the cotton candy approach to criminal justice) does very little to change their minds about their criminal activities either. But it at least prevents them from repeating their offenses, a goal which the methods you support have been proven to be incapable of achieving.

According to my grandad, when my dad was growing up they had a method for dealing with wife (and especially child) beaters that was usually effective with one application. The men of the village would seek out the offender and give him a practical lesson in how it felt to be the victim. (If the perpetrator needed a second application, he was also banished from all villages.) Of course, the White Man, in all his wisdom put a stop to it, (after he decided what goes on in reservations is his business after all - despite treaty guarantees) because we are not supposed to take the law into our own hands. I'll bet you can just guess what happened to domestic abuse levels after such sage interference.

Oh, so you think that beating someone to teach them that beating someone is wrong is a viable approach?

No, incarceration does not rehabilitate. Which is why putting 4 million men in prison is not much of an option. While those offenders may be off the streets, it doesn't address the problems that caused the violence in the first place. So the next generation comes up and has the same number of violent men, and we incarcerate them too?

What I am trying to get across to you is that a problem of this size and scope is not going to be fixed by throwing them all in jail.

And I am not talking about holding hands singing kumaya, perhaps if you backed off your own testosterone or attempts to over simplify the issue, you might take the time to listen.

A knee-jerk reaction of "throw them in jail!" is not the answer. And I am not suggesting namby-pamby day care classes. I am talking about serious work on anger mgmt, domestic violence issues and learning what they need to learn to be a productive part of society. Not a body in a criminal warehouse costing us $50k a year.

Do you think these men are born wanting to beat women? Do you think that is their primary goal in life? Obviously not. They learned the behavior, and they can UNlearn the behavior. This is not like a criminal who lives by committing crimes. It is only a part of what they are in life. But it is a part that cannot be tolerated.

 

[Good Luck]

Oh, so you think that beating someone to teach them that beating someone is wrong is a viable approach?

No, incarceration does not rehabilitate. Which is why putting 4 million men in prison is not much of an option. While those offenders may be off the streets, it doesn't address the problems that caused the violence in the first place. So the next generation comes up and has the same number of violent men, and we incarcerate them too?

What I am trying to get across to you is that a problem of this size and scope is not going to be fixed by throwing them all in jail.

And I am not talking about holding hands singing kumaya, perhaps if you backed off your own testosterone or attempts to over simplify the issue, you might take the time to listen.

A knee-jerk reaction of "throw them in jail!" is not the answer. And I am not suggesting namby-pamby day care classes. I am talking about serious work on anger mgmt, domestic violence issues and learning what they need to learn to be a productive part of society. Not a body in a criminal warehouse costing us $50k a year.

Do you think these men are born wanting to beat women? Do you think that is their primary goal in life? Obviously not. They learned the behavior, and they can UNlearn the behavior. This is not like a criminal who lives by committing crimes. It is only a part of what they are in life. But it is a part that cannot be tolerated.

Yeah, you TALK about these SERIOUS work on anger management. Like what? WHAT exactly do you propose that is not already out there being tried, and failing miserably.

Here's a clue for you as far as this being a learned behavior: WHO does the upcoming generation LEARN their violent behavior from? Why it is DADDY (or mommy's live in boy friend - which is a whole other issue of today's society) beating the ever loving shit out of mommy.

Now how is Junior going to learn this behavior from Daddy if Daddy gets his ass tossed in the pokey, not to come back until Junior has grown up? He will instead learn that society has no tolerance for that kind of crap. And without Daddy's negative counter influence, the societal attitudes regarding domestic relationships will have a much greater probability of taking root.

And yes, a violent person who commits violence against another person, gender irrelevant, is by definition a VIOLENT CRIMINAL. It is your kind's brain dead useless wishful thinking "not REALLY a criminal" BULLSHIT that is at the heart of the explosion of violent crime in our society. It's as bad as the old fashioned idea that it was the man's right. Since when does one have to make a living at it to be a fucking CRIMINAL?

And why don't you go look up another statistic. Look up the number of DEATHS that result from a woman being subjected to a REPEAT offense of domestic violence. Go ahead. How does your "SERIOUS work on anger management" propose to deal with that? Let women continue to die until your cotton candy ideas finally, someday in the far, far future when Mankind no longer exists, take effect?

And no, doing violence against a violent criminal is NOT in any way intended (nor has it ever been claimed to) change the violent criminal's mind about violence. I would not propose doing such to, say, someone who does armed robbery, or deliberate homicide. But a man whose tendency is to take his frustrations out on a woman who cannot fight back will often forgo releasing their violent tendencies indiscriminately if he is aware he will receive the same (or worse) back from his community. Domestic violence criminals are cowardly bullies at heart - they do not have the stomach to face what they dish out.