PurpleJedi said:

I'm not trying to personally attack you or anyone on here with this next statement (and I pose this to the entire org):

If you found out your neighbors were gay, If you found out your grammar school teacher/kindegarten teacher was a homosexual, your kids' camp conselor, etc. would you be fearful of them being around your children? Would you feel it was your right to know if they were homosexual while employed/monitoring or being around your kids?

Now this is REALLY touchy, and this topic is up here for public view and it ain't locked (yet) so opinions will vary on this.

I just want to put it out there because there are public school teachers/ social workers, members of the church, etc. who are Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Bisexual, etc. -- some are open about it, some are not (many fearful of being open for fear of what y'all might do[!] even though they're respectable people) Would you feel safe with someone like that around your kids? Would they be considered for that list, too?

Keep in mind: this is not a personal attack, it's a public discussion.

I'm just curious. While we are blasting and exposing Known Sex Offenders, who else could be on that list? Any gay Orgers who you find suspect could they be vilified too? Could I or my colleagues potentially be an Offender just for standing or living next to your kids if you even as much thought I came off funny? Tell me, would that, then, give you a right to call authorities on me, have me fired, petition to take away MY KIDS or even worse attack me?

This subject is touchy because once we start Registering who is an Offender, more and more things become arbitrary and little things like discrimination and hate happen.


P.S.: And for the comment about you "highly doubting" I have kids, I'm gonna chalk that up to you not knowing me personally and not take that as a homophobic statement.
[Edited 8/28/08 22:47pm]

CarrieMpls said:

I loved that twisted mouse...Brain. Narf!

Anxiety said:

I refuse to feel guilty about any of this.... .... it wouldnt be judging them...a jury did that already...

Mara said:

WTF does gays have to do with dangerous sex offenders. If your gay and your a child molester, hell yea, you are on my shit list just like a straight child molester would be on my shit list. Nobody is villifying sex offenders, certain crimes committed against a person warrant being shat upon. I dont care for rapist and child molesters.....I dont care what their sexual preference is. Do you ask because you lump the two together....gays and sex offenders?

Addendum:

To anyone who chooses to answer the question, please try not be P.C. about it.

StillGotIt said:

because juries are never biased and are infallible

Shorty said:

That website makes me feel sick.

There is only one registered offender in the whole county here.

I check the list once every 4 months or so - it's been that # here for over 3 yrs now

superspaceboy said:

nope..not too harsh in my book. For a sex crime on a child under 13. Bang! your dead.

superspaceboy said:

I think they main difference is the crime is against an innocent child. A crime against a "child" is where the line is drawn. Burgelry is bad...but not heinous.

superspaceboy said:

No, because a drug dealer is not going to pin my child down and force them to take drugs. Now I know young impressionable kids are easily persuaded to do drugs....but that is just NOT eve close to child rape. apples and oranges.
what is too far? Crimes against children. that's it..right there.

NDRU said:

in most states the law makes it clear. It will say things like "with a minor under the age of 13" or "over 13 but under 16 and the offenders age being more than 3 years difference" these conditions help reduce the chances of what you are concerned about.

ehuffnsd said:

why not?

horatio said:

why?

SUPRMAN said:

yes but...an aquaintence, or family friend, or uncle...that I can now look up, and if I find out they are on the list...they will not be trusted in my home or with my kids. The website is not just about "strangers"

Mara said:

ok...you said don't be PC right? well I think that's a fucked up thing to ask! and makes NO sense what so ever... and my answer is NO. Being homosexual is NOT a crime. How can you even draw the parallel? we're not talking about people we think are weird or people we think are a child molester...we're talking about CONVICTED sex offenders. I can't even begin to tell you how many shades of WRONG your weak, thin, pale argument is!

Mara said:

That's what I suggested.

PurpleJedi said:

So what do you suggest? If you can't rehabilitate them and you can't let them live in society where there are children around, what is the alternative?

I think Mara and I were making that point. I think we do understand, but the solutions that have been come up with are stupid and they don't solve the issue.

superspaceboy said:

PRE-CRIME




http://www.infowars.net/a...anners.htm

The brain scan that can read people's intentions
Call for ethical debate over possible use of new technology in interrogation

Ian Sample
London Guardian
Friday, February 9, 2007

A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act.
The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists' ability to probe people's minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.

The team used high-resolution brain scans to identify patterns of activity before translating them into meaningful thoughts, revealing what a person planned to do in the near future. It is the first time scientists have succeeded in reading intentions in this way.

"Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall," said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.
The research builds on a series of recent studies in which brain imaging has been used to identify tell-tale activity linked to lying, violent behaviour and racial prejudice.
The latest work reveals the dramatic pace at which neuroscience is progressing, prompting the researchers to call for an urgent debate into the ethical issues surrounding future uses for the technology. If brain-reading can be refined, it could quickly be adopted to assist interrogations of criminals and terrorists, and even usher in a "Minority Report" era (as portrayed in the Steven Spielberg science fiction film of that name), where judgments are handed down before the law is broken on the strength of an incriminating brain scan.

"These techniques are emerging and we need an ethical debate about the implications, so that one day we're not surprised and overwhelmed and caught on the wrong foot by what they can do. These things are going to come to us in the next few years and we should really be prepared," Professor Haynes told the Guardian.

The use of brain scanners to judge whether people are likely to commit crimes is a contentious issue that society should tackle now, according to Prof Haynes. "We see the danger that this might become compulsory one day, but we have to be aware that if we prohibit it, we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence."

During the study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen.

Before the numbers flashed up, they were given a brain scan using a technique called functional magnetic imaging resonance. The researchers then used a software that had been designed to spot subtle differences in brain activity to predict the person's intentions with 70% accuracy.

The study revealed signatures of activity in a marble-sized part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed when a person intended to add the numbers or subtract them.

Because brains differ so much, the scientists need a good idea of what a person's brain activity looks like when they are thinking something to be able to spot it in a scan, but researchers are already devising ways of deducing what patterns are associated with different thoughts.

Barbara Sahakian, a professor of neuro-psychology at Cambridge University, said the rapid advances in neuroscience had forced scientists in the field to set up their own neuroethics society late last year to consider the ramifications of their research.

"Do we want to become a 'Minority Report' society where we're preventing crimes that might not happen?," she asked. "For some of these techniques, it's just a matter of time. It is just another new technology that society has to come to terms with and use for the good, but we should discuss and debate it now because what we don't want is for it to leak into use in court willy nilly without people having thought about the consequences.

"A lot of neuroscientists in the field are very cautious and say we can't talk about reading individuals' minds, and right now that is very true, but we're moving ahead so rapidly, it's not going to be that long before we will be able to tell whether someone's making up a story, or whether someone intended to do a crime with a certain degree of certainty."

Professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and director of the Medical Research Council, said: "We shouldn't go overboard about the power of these techniques at the moment, but what you can be absolutely sure of is that these will continue to roll out and we will have more and more ability to probe people's intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions.

"Some of that is extremely desirable, because it will help with diagnosis, education and so on, but we need to be thinking the ethical issues through. It adds a whole new gloss to personal medical data and how it might be used."

The technology could also drive advances in brain-controlled computers and machinery to boost the quality of life for disabled people. Being able to read thoughts as they arise in a person's mind could lead to computers that allow people to operate email and the internet using thought alone, and write with word processors that can predict which word or sentence you want to type . The technology is also expected to lead to improvements in thought-controlled wheelchairs and artificial limbs that respond when a person imagines moving.

"You can imagine how tedious it is if you want to write a letter by using a cursor to pick out letters on a screen," said Prof Haynes. "It would be much better if you thought, 'I want to reply to this email', or, 'I'm thinking this word', and the computer can read that and understand what you want to do."

· FAQ: Mind reading

What have the scientists developed?
They have devised a system that analyses brain activity to work out a person's intentions before they have acted on them. More advanced versions may be able to read complex thoughts and even pick them up before the person is conscious of them.

How does it work?
The computer learns unique patterns of brain activity or signatures that correspond to different thoughts. It then scans the brain to look for these signatures and predicts what the person is thinking.

How could it be used?
It is expected to drive advances in brain-controlled computers, leading to artificial limbs and machinery that respond to thoughts. More advanced versions could be used to help interrogate criminals and assess prisoners before they are released. Controversially, they may be able to spot people who plan to commit crimes before they break the law.

What is next?
The researchers are honing the technique to distinguish between passing thoughts and genuine intentions.

JuliePurplehead said:

teach your kids to live their life in fear. there were sex offenders before these lists were created.

For some reason, I just simply can not handle google/copy/paste.

Drives me nuts!

psychodelicide said:

they are closing down one of the nude beaches this weekend, San Onfre, because straight people were getting it on in the parking lot. even though it's a majority gay nude beach.

edit nevermind a judge ok'ed people to be nude at san onfre.
[Edited 8/29/08 9:15am]

Shorty said:

i wasn't abused by a stranger but someone my family knew. these lists don't do anything except make people live in fear.

horatio said:

I found out about it on the news.....

ehuffnsd said:

I'm very sorry you were abused.
did your family know he/she was an abuser? I'm guessing probably not, if they had a list like this then perhaps someone would have looked them up and found out.
I understand that if he/she had never been convicted b4 they wouldn't be on the list, but I don't agree that it does nothing but make people live in fear. We are all more aware of sex crimes against children these days than we were in the past. As a parent, I do fear this happening to my child, but not because of the list....but because I now know how frequently it happens. If anything it probably gives a false sense of saftey.
I don't teach my children to live in fear, but I do teach them to not let ANYONE EVER touch them on their private parts, and that their body is theirs alone...NO ONE else's.

ehuffnsd said:

Just to clarify, by education I mean the basics such as: wrong touching, not talking to strangers, coming to me or their father whenever they feel something isn't right. These were things that me and my friends weren't taught and we paid the price for it. Nobody has to live in fear, they just need to know that the world isn't always lollipops and rainbows.

Where did the connection of being gay come from? I don't see how that ties in with sex offenders.

JuliePurplehead said:

it never has been, these lists give people a false sense of security and also cause them to live in fear. kids aren't allowed to be kids anymore because some boogy man might get them.

ehuffnsd said:

There's always the news. Even without the lists, I think people with kids would be cautious.

ehuffnsd said:

That's really not true. I see kids out playing every single day around my place, just as we used to do as kids. And directly across the street from my house and in the park that they play in in groups, a woman was recently raped and murdered.

Kids can still be kids, they are just no longer ignorant of potential dangers around them.