14 year old girl wants to join my game

[Mieric]

Have kids. See how you feel about mollycoddling them, because there are a whole lot of worse things that you could be shedding tears for.

Not to be snide - but when schools ban teachers from using red ink because its "stressful", DIY Chemistry Sets are neutered or outlawed, and model rockets require background and licensing checks... children are being molylcoddled in the wrong way.

 

[Felix]

Not to be snide - but when schools ban teachers from using red ink because its "stressful", DIY Chemistry Sets are neutered or outlawed, and model rockets require background and licensing checks... children are being molylcoddled in the wrong way.

Red ink and child molestation aren't close enough to even be considered apples and oranges.

 

[Mieric]

Red ink and child molestation aren't close enough to even be considered apples and oranges.

Not saying they are - but the mollycodling can extend to far.

I wholeheartedly agree with protecting children from exploitation and abuse.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Deleted. I got too deep into politics. And my view of stuff. Nothing to see here.

Sorry, LT.

 

[wingsandsword]

Put aside your fright for a moment and make the choice: do you let molesters go free or do you wrongly prosecute some adults? Because if you strengthen the adult's position, some criminals will take advantage of that to get free and enter the wonderful world of repeat offending.

No question at all, let the molesters go free.

Blackstone's Ratio, a cornerstone of the Common Law of the United States and the United Kingdom, commonly attributed to 18th century English Judge Sir William Blackstone, but it dates back even further, appearing in philosophical texts going back to the 12th century.

Benjamin Franklin preferred to state it that it was better to let 100 criminals to go free than to send one innocent man to prison.

The very concept that it is better to let a number of criminals go free than to wrongly convict one man is a many centuries old bedrock of our legal system. This declaration appears quite often in legal judgments to the modern day it is truly one of the common law founding philosophical concepts of our legal system.

Even tyrants like Otto Von Bismarck and Pol Pot even made public proclamations that it was better to let the guilty go free than to imprison the innocent.

Or to rephrase it, would you be willing to go to prison (along with other innocent people) for decades and be condemned as a child molester and sexual predator for the rest of your life even though you did nothing wrong at all, on the concept that it was somehow helping to get other criminals off the street?

So yes, it's a painfully simple choice, to let the molesters go free just to ensure the proper functioning of our justice system by protecting the innocent.

 

[Felix]

Hey, as long as you know you're letting the molesters free. Have fun having kids.

As an aside, you make an interesting choice comparing Bismarck to Pol Pot. Quality, that is.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Don't be so surprised. It's called Alpha error and Beta error. I won't insult your intelligence by explaining it to you, but the choice is between falsely accusing adults and not prosecuting potential sex offenders.

Applying signal detection theory to law is a hobby of mine as well. But not here usually because if an oppertunity comes up the thread has probably slid into politics and will be closed before I can really sink my teeth into the discussion.

 

[wingsandsword]

Hey, as long as you know you're letting the molesters free. Have fun having kids.

Do I need to explain to you the concept of the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion"? "Think of the children" is not an excuse to do whatever you want under the idea that it benefits children.

I look forward to having a child of my own, I already have a 2-year-old stepson. However, my protectiveness towards him does not mean I would start voiding civil rights and throwing innocent men in prison out of paranoia.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Do I need to explain to you the concept of the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion"? "Think of the children" is not an excuse to do whatever you want under the idea that it benefits children.

I look forward to having a child of my own, I already have a 2-year-old stepson. However, my protectiveness towards him does not mean I would start voiding civil rights and throwing innocent men in prison out of paranoia.

So you insult one reference to possible consequences as a mere appeal to emotion... and then present a consequence at least as exagerated in order to appeal to slightly different emotions?

 

[Jeysie]

Have kids. See how you feel about mollycoddling them, because there are a whole lot of worse things that you could be shedding tears for.

You're right. I could end up with one of the teenagers I see nowadays: no personal responsibility, no sense of how the real world works, isolation from older generations, spoiled attitudes, etc. That would be worse, I think.

If I had kids, I would raise them the way I was raised: Educate them in morals and reality, guard against actual observed risk, but let my kids go out and experience the world.

I know what sort of dangers me and my friends suffered as kids; I know what to guard against. I'm just far more worried about things like bullies, bad peers, keeping my kids from flunking or dropping out of school, keeping them from having unsafe sex or abusing drugs, etc.

I'd vet potential adult friends the same way I'd vet potential peer friends, but I'm not going to be paranoid about it. I'd feel far safer having them around adults, actually, since in my experience adults were always kinder to me and my friends and more responsible than my often cruel peers.

Peace & Luv, Liz