Banning sex offenders


Bini
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think this is the point where we agree to disagree.   :)  I think it should have been reported sooner and honestly, then there could have been a true police investigation.

 

 

You make it sound as if you don't think that I think that it should have as well...  The crimes were committed the parents both took steps to remove there son from contact and reported it to an legal official.  That legal official should total have done more, he didn't.  That legal official is now in jail.  Clearly the legal official had issues but how is that Duggar's families fault?

 

Now it is simply to late for any legal remedy for the crimes.  That only leaves learning from it, and illegal remedies.  I have stated I have no problem with learning and adjusting the laws, but that the tones and focus of all the articles have struck me as trying to punish outside the bounds of what we have set up legally and that I have a problem with.

 

Our scriptures are clear that sometimes our legal system will fail.  When this happens we are instructed to pursue the legal options as far as we can and then leave it in the hands God.  Trusting that God will handle it in the best way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

You make it sound as if you don't think that I think that it should have as well...  The crimes were committed the parents both took steps to remove there son from contact and reported it to an legal official.  That legal official should total have done more, he didn't.  That legal official is now in jail.  Clearly the legal official had issues but how is that Duggar's families fault?

 

I didn't mean to imply that.  My understanding was that you felt it was reported to a legal official, as you just clarified. And that due to that it had been reported i.e. the Duggars did the best they could.

 

 My position is that the first time a victim came forward, the family didn't talk to the police.  The second time a victim came forward the parents talked to the church leaders, and then sent Josh to work with a family friend building houses.  Upon Josh's return from this "therapy" they talked to a legal official (who I believe was a family friend). But even when they talked to him they lied about the extent of the abuse saying it was one incident with one victim, when in reality it was several incidents with five victims, one of them being only five years old.  

 

Three years later, someone outside the family found out and reported it to the police, but by then the statute of limitations had run out.  So yes, I blame the parents for not handling it properly.  

The legal official who the Duggars spoke to is now in jail himself (as you mentioned) for child pornography.  No wonder he didn't see a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to imply that.  My understanding was that you felt it was reported to a legal official, as you just clarified. And that due to that it had been reported i.e. the Duggars did the best they could.

 

 My position is that the first time a victim came forward, the family didn't talk to the police.  The second time a victim came forward the parents talked to the church leaders, and then sent Josh to work with a family friend building houses.  Upon Josh's return from this "therapy" they talked to a legal official (who I believe was a family friend). But even when they talked to him they lied about the extent of the abuse saying it was one incident with one victim, when in reality it was several incidents with five victims, one of them being only five years old.  

 

Three years later, someone outside the family found out and reported it to the police, but by then the statute of limitations had run out.  So yes, I blame the parents for not handling it properly.  

The legal official who the Duggars spoke to is now in jail himself (as you mentioned) for child pornography.  No wonder he didn't see a problem. 

 

Have you ever been in a situation were you had to report your own child?  Where you know that your actions can cause a chain of events that could get your child thrown into jail, and branded as a monster for life?

 

What they should have done is very clear.  The fact that they tried other options first is understandable to me.  (not right but understandable).  The idea that they would try to downplay it is also understandable (again not right but understandable)

 

The fact that the trooper hears a case about one event, and doesn't look into the possibility that there might be more, or at least seek to collaborate the parents words... well that is all kinds of messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

The fact that the trooper hears a case about one event, and doesn't look into the possibility that there might be more, or at least seek to collaborate the parents words... well that is all kinds of messed up.

 

So you feel the trooper is the most culpable party here?  

I agree as a trained officer, he should have looked into it more, and reported it to the proper people.  But I can't let the parents off so easily.  I understand what you are saying, but they also had their daughters to think of.  

 

Remember after the Baltimore Riots, everyone praised (rightly) the mom who convinced her son to turn himself in. Would we be praising her if they waited nine months?  Or if they lied and said he was standing on the side lines, rather than the truth that he broke the windshield of a police car?  I imagine it was hard for that mom too.  But she did the right thing...and she doesn't even have a TV show where she promotes herself to the world as a devout Christian.

Property damage, or sexual abuse...it should be reported to the law--promptly. 

The Unibomber's brother turned him in.  I bet that was hard too.  Would we excuse HIM if he hadn't?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/15/my-brother-the-unabomber

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you feel the trooper is the most culpable party here?  

I agree as a trained officer, he should have looked into it more, and reported it to the proper people.  But I can't let the parents off so easily.  I understand what you are saying, but they also had their daughters to think of.  

 

Remember after the Baltimore Riots, everyone praised (rightly) the mom who convinced her son to turn himself in. Would we be praising her if they waited nine months?  Or if they lied and said he was standing on the side lines, rather than the truth that he broke the windshield of a police car?  I imagine it was hard for that mom too.  But she did the right thing...and she doesn't even have a TV show where she promotes herself to the world as a devout Christian.

Property damage, or sexual abuse...it should be reported to the law--promptly. 

The Unibomber's brother turned him in.  I bet that was hard too.  Would we excuse HIM if he hadn't?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/15/my-brother-the-unabomber

 

In order of what I see as being most culpable to least.

 

Josh... He performed the actions he is responsible for them.  Yes his was a minor at the time, yes that means not able to understand adult level consequences for his actions, but that is why we have special court system for youth.  Bottom line his actions caused all this.

 

The Trooper... The Trooper should be both under oath to sustain the law and have training on how to handle things like this.  At the very least if he is not qualified he should have contacted someone that was.  The whole reason the time expired on the crimes was because the trooper failed.

 

The parents legally were required to "Ring the bell" about the sex offenses of their son.  They did.  You compare them unfavorably to other parents. But had the trooper done his job Josh would have been taken to court because his parents turned him in.  They did exactly the same thing you praise the other parents for, but the system failed them.

 

You accuse them of not "Ringing the bell"  Quickly enough or loudly enough.  But the fact is that they did Ring that bell, and it would have been soon enough and it would have been loud enough had the Trooper done his job.

 

Lets put you comparisons in type of police response

Would you blame the mom of the Baltimore teen if after getting him to go to the police, the police said "Eh whatever?"

 

Would you blame the Unibomber's brother if after he turned him in the police did nothing and he struck again?

 

You keep ignoring the simple fact the the Duggar's did take action address the issue.  And had the system worked it would have been enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

You keep ignoring the simple fact the the Duggar's did take action address the issue. And had the system worked it would have been enough.

I can agree about the order. Where we differ is of course about his parents. You are ignoring the fact that they waited approx. a year to report it and then vastly minimized the extent of the abuse. The minimization is important. Even I think there is a difference between a young man touching his sister who is close in age one time (could be just foolish curiosity) and multiple violations with five victims at least one of them as young as five. The trooper said he would have responded differently if they had told him the whole truth.

I do feel bad for them, what a horrible position to be put in as a parent. Still I think they should have reported it promptly and honestly.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree about the order. Where we differ is of course about his parents. You are ignoring the fact that they waited approx. a year to report it and then vastly minimized the extent of the abuse. The minimization is important. Even I think there is a difference between a young man touching his sister who is close in age one time (could be just foolish curiosity) and multiple violations with five victims at least one of them as young as five. The trooper said he would have responded differently if they had told him the whole truth.

I do feel bad for them, what a horrible position to be put in as a parent. Still I think they should have reported it promptly and honestly.

 

And I am not seeing how either would have made a difference in this case.  The failure point is the Trooper.  As long as the trooper fails early or late reporting makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

 

As for the numbers incidences reported assuming you trust the Trooper account of what they told him(And I don't given what we now know about him) What kind of logic leads to the idea that once is ok but more then once then we act and do something about it?  I am just not seeing it.  Even the bare-bone account they gave should have been enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

What kind of logic leads to the idea that once is ok but more then once then we act and do something about it?  

 

No, even one time or "just one time"  is NOT okay...even one incidence of abuse is damaging for the victim.  

 

But looking at the perpetrator, whether it was once or many times...does speak to the level of severity.

 

I've never put myself in the position where I needed to talk to my Bishop about violations of the Law of Chastity, but my understanding is that if I did, he would want to know if it happened once, or many times...and the answer would help him decide what course should be taken to help with my repentance.  That's why I think the parents should have told the Trooper the truth, or Josh--if he were truly repentant---should have come clean.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, even one time or "just one time"  is NOT okay...even one incidence of abuse is damaging for the victim.  

 

But looking at the perpetrator, whether it was once or many times...does speak to the level of severity.

 

I've never put myself in the position where I needed to talk to my Bishop about violations of the Law of Chastity, but my understanding is that if I did, he would want to know if it happened once, or many times...and the answer would help him decide what course should be taken to help with my repentance.  That's why I think the parents should have told the Trooper the truth, or Josh--if he were truly repentant---should have come clean.

 

We not talking about confessing we are talking about triggering an investigation by the Law...You state that one case should be enough, but then you turn around and blame the Duggar parents for there not being an investigation because they did not fully disclose.  This strikes me has highly irrational.  Either one was enough or it not.

 

In addition you are accepting as truth the account of a person who clearly has issues with the truth and doing the right thing so much that he is in jail.

 

Let change the situation hypothetically.  Lets say the report is true but the Trooper did his job. An investigation, court all that happened.  You would be praising the Duggar parent for doing the hard thing like the Boston Mother, or the Unibomer brother.

 

So had the trooper done his job they would have been heroes, but the since the trooper did not they are guilty.  But the action of the parents is exactly the same.  So how is it fair to blame the Duggar parent when the only difference is an action taken by someone outside of there control? 

 

Now you say they should have spoken up sooner and in more detail...  Fair enough but then you should also be of the mind that the Boston Mother should have stopped her son from committing the crime in the first place or that the brother should have stopped the unibomer before he struck.  After all had they acted sooner and in more detail they also would have stopped/lessened the damage the ultimately happened 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

We not talking about confessing we are talking about triggering an investigation by the Law...You state that one case should be enough, but then you turn around and blame the Duggar parents for there not being an investigation because they did not fully disclose. This strikes me has highly irrational. Either one was enough or it not.

In addition you are accepting as truth the account of a person who clearly has issues with the truth and doing the right thing so much that he is in jail.

Let change the situation hypothetically. Lets say the report is true but the Trooper did his job. An investigation, court all that happened. You would be praising the Duggar parent for doing the hard thing like the Boston Mother, or the Unibomer brother.

So had the trooper done his job they would have been heroes, but the since the trooper did not they are guilty. But the action of the parents is exactly the same. So how is it fair to blame the Duggar parent when the only difference is an action taken by someone outside of there control?

Now you say they should have spoken up sooner and in more detail... Fair enough but then you should also be of the mind that the Boston Mother should have stopped her son from committing the crime in the first place or that the brother should have stopped the unibomer before he struck. After all had they acted sooner and in more detail they also would have stopped/lessened the damage the ultimately happened

Let me try and explain this another way...do you think that lying to a police officer is acceptable?

I realize the trooper is in jail now, but what reason does he have to lie about now. Jim Bob was running for office when all this came out . . .

With the Baltimore mom, she appears to have taken action as soon as she knew....it didn't take her a year to get around to reporting it and then minimize the crime.

We don't know when the Uni bombers brother knew so we can't say he delayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try and explain this another way...do you think that lying to a police officer is acceptable?

I realize the trooper is in jail now, but what reason does he have to lie about now. Jim Bob was running for office when all this came out . . .

With the Baltimore mom, she appears to have taken action as soon as she knew....it didn't take her a year to get around to reporting it and then minimize the crime.

We don't know when the Uni bombers brother knew so we can't say he delayed.

 

So you are willing to take as factual the words of man broke his oath has an officer and is sitting in jail for his crimes?

 

As for lying that depend exactly what you define as a lie.  Most defense attorney will advise there clients to keep there mouth shut and when they do answer to answer the minimum necessary.  This is considered acceptable and even wise in our court system.

 

And you did not answer the most tell question.  Had the Trooper done his job would you even be talking about the delay or the lack of detail?  Or would you that they did do the right thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Yes even if the trooper had done his job properly I would still think it is inexcusable that they waited approximately a year to tell the police because it gave Josh more time to offend.

Josh did not come forward, his victims did. The first time the parents handled it themselves. Then 9 months later another victim came forward. Then the parents got the church leaders involved. Then sent him to "therapy" for three months...only when he returned did they get around to telling the police.

A year is a long time to be allowed to continue in his abusive behaviors.

About the lying why bother to report it at all if they were just going to lie. I get that they wanted to protect Josh, but what about his FIVE victims?

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right that it wasn't created for practical reasons.  You and I both know that the drug laws are not really about drugs, so I'm willing to concede the possibility that something is amiss here too.  

 

That sort of thing always makes me suspicious of Government motives.  They make problems worse, not better. 

 

You see it differently; you feel he has repented.  I hope you are right.  I truly do for the sake of potential victims... but I am highly suspect of him (or any sex offender) being able to change without help.  By help, I mean therapy.  I don't think jail time does much to help the offender, but it is a great at preventing further abuse/assault while they are behind bars.

 

Thing is, most cases are "one off" offenses that wouldn't likely be repeated anyway.  It's a myth that they always reoffend.  (Caveat to that:  An acquaintance of mine, a Parole/Probation officer who handles these kinds of cases, tells me that for whatever reason guys who molest young boys have a very high recidivism rate.  It seems to be the only category of sex crimes in which that's true.)  

 

In any case, most states now require treatment as a condition of release from prison or probation, so the therapy you mentioned is already happening, and is a factor in why the overall recidivism rate is low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes even if the trooper had done his job properly I would still think it is inexcusable that they waited approximately a year to tell the police because it gave Josh more time to offend.

Josh did not come forward, his victims did. The first time the parents handled it themselves. Then 9 months later another victim came forward. Then the parents got the church leaders involved. Then sent him to "therapy" for three months...only when he returned did they get around to telling the police.

A year is a long time to be allowed to continue in his abusive behaviors.

About the lying why bother to report it at all if they were just going to lie. I get that they wanted to protect Josh, but what about his FIVE victims?

 

 

So you are saying that if they took an action that would have changed nothing...  they would have been off the hook?  That some how his 5 victims would not have been victimized if the parents would have taken an action that changed nothing...  How is that rational?

 

Or are you engaging in wish fulfillment that the trooper would have acted differently if the parents would have reported, sooner, and in more detail?  If you do not consider it wish fulfillment what evidence do you offer that this would have been the case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

So you are saying that if they took an action that would have changed nothing... they would have been off the hook? That some how his 5 victims would not have been victimized if the parents would have taken an action that changed nothing... How is that rational?

Or are you engaging in wish fulfillment that the trooper would have acted differently if the parents would have reported, sooner, and in more detail? If you do not consider it wish fulfillment what evidence do you offer that this would have been the case?

Sorry you lost me. I think I explained my position pretty clearly...repeatedly. And it is not what you just stated.

You say "an action that would have changed nothing." That is your opinion, we can't really know what might have happened. You state your opinions as if they were facts but then accuse me of engaging in wish fulfillment? Is THAT rational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you lost me. I think I explained my position pretty clearly...repeatedly. And it is not what you just stated.

You say "an action that would have changed nothing." That is your opinion, we can't really know what might have happened. You state your opinions as if they were facts but then accuse me of engaging in wish fulfillment? Is THAT rational?

 

True... We both have our opinions on what might have been had happened had the Duggar's reported earlier and in more detail.  My opinion is that nothing would have happened.  That the trooper still would have done nothing. The evidence in support of this opinion is based on what the Trooper really did (aka nothing) and the Trooper's current status (jailed)

 

Your opinion is that it would have made a difference, but you offer nothing but wishful thinking that the Trooper some how would have behaved contrary to the way he really did.  This change of behavior being sololy based on having an earlier and more detailed report.  That seems irrational to me.

 

Also we have gone a tangent (of a tangent of a tangent) to the original comment you made.  You linked to a 2006 report.  This 2006 report documents all the things you have an issue with.  This report was created by an agent of the state.  From this report we can assume that the proper people knew about the crime and whatever legal action that could be taken was.  Now nearly 9 years later its being dragged out.  Why??? What possible legal and lawful action can be taken now that was not available for them to do 2006?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that if they took an action that would have changed nothing...  they would have been off the hook?  That some how his 5 victims would not have been victimized if the parents would have taken an action that changed nothing...  How is that rational?

 

Or are you engaging in wish fulfillment that the trooper would have acted differently if the parents would have reported, sooner, and in more detail?  If you do not consider it wish fulfillment what evidence do you offer that this would have been the case? 

 

The Trooper acting according to the book, being timely and appropriate with the information, may or may not have affected any of the abuse, but it would have supported the honor of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Your opinion is that it would have made a difference, but you offer nothing but wishful thinking that the Trooper some how would have behaved contrary to the way he really did.  This change of behavior being sololy based on having an earlier and more detailed report.  That seems irrational to me.

 

Also we have gone a tangent (of a tangent of a tangent) to the original comment you made.  You linked to a 2006 report.  This 2006 report documents all the things you have an issue with.  This report was created by an agent of the state.  From this report we can assume that the proper people knew about the crime and whatever legal action that could be taken was.  Now nearly 9 years later its being dragged out.  Why??? What possible legal and lawful action can be taken now that was not available for them to do 2006?

 

I have explained my position with the facts as they have been presented to us...over and over.  Is your definition of irrational that which you do not agree with?  One more time . . .

 

If the parents had taken proper action the first time a victim came forward, do you rationally think there would have been another victim coming forward nine months later?  

 

Their responsibility upon hearing their son committed a crime, was to report it as Backroads said.  They had a responsibility to report a crime.  They could not predict the future and know what his response would be so that is irrelevant.

 

When you report a crime to the police, you need to tell the truth.  The trooper said if they had told him the whole truth he would have handled it differently.  You want to call him a liar, which is fine but keep in mind that is your opinion.  He could be telling the truth also.  We know the Duggars have lied at least once because they said Josh went to therapy, but when pressed on the matter, they admitted that he went to do "hard work" with a friend for three months.  A lot of people do that kind of work for a living and they don't call it "therapy". 

 

Bottom line, their son committed a crime and they should have reported it. If Josh had committed any other serious crime, I suspect we would not be having this discussion.

 

When you bring up the police report, I really start to wonder if you are "listening" to me at all.  We discussed the statute of limitations, remember?  They couldn't do anything because the statute of limitations had passed.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

That sort of thing always makes me suspicious of Government motives.  They make problems worse, not better. 

 

 

Thing is, most cases are "one off" offenses that wouldn't likely be repeated anyway.  It's a myth that they always reoffend.  (Caveat to that:  An acquaintance of mine, a Parole/Probation officer who handles these kinds of cases, tells me that for whatever reason guys who molest young boys have a very high recidivism rate.  It seems to be the only category of sex crimes in which that's true.)  

 

In any case, most states now require treatment as a condition of release from prison or probation, so the therapy you mentioned is already happening, and is a factor in why the overall recidivism rate is low.

 

I agree with you that the Government generally makes things worse (I'm tempted to say always, but I try to be careful about absolute statements, :) )

 

I can't argue with you about the recidivism rate.  I admit I was surprised, and did research it (if a quick google search can really be called 'research').  I'm both happy to hear that, and a little suspicious since sex crimes are vastly under-reported...but we have to go by the actual numbers we have and not by speculation.  So I'll reluctantly agree with you.

 

I am happy to hear that most states now require treatment.  That is wonderful news, thanks!  I found an article about therapy for sex offenders that I thought was helpful if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.stopitnow.org/help-guidance/faqs/faqs-on-sex-offender-treatment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trooper acting according to the book, being timely and appropriate with the information, may or may not have affected any of the abuse, but it would have supported the honor of law.

 

Exactly...  The Trooper failed.

 

 

 

 

When you report a crime to the police, you need to tell the truth.  The trooper said if they had told him the whole truth he would have handled it differently.  You want to call him a liar, which is fine but keep in mind that is your opinion.  He could be telling the truth also.  We know the Duggars have lied at least once because they said Josh went to therapy, but when pressed on the matter, they admitted that he went to do "hard work" with a friend for three months.  A lot of people do that kind of work for a living and they don't call it "therapy". 

 

 

I call your your idea that if the Duggars would have reported sooner and in more detail this would have been prevented a more molestation fantasy because it ignored the factual impact that the Trooper had on this case.

 

The facts that we agree to...  The Duggars reported to the Trooper.  The trooper in spite of the fact that one case should have been plenty to trigger investigating, did not in fact trigger an investigation.

 

Yet in your opinion had the Duggars reported earlier and in more detail they either wouldn't have gone to the Trooper (Which you have no evinced to suggest this) Or that the Trooper despite the fact that one should have been plenty, and despite is own personal failing which are now documented, would have behaved differently then he factually did.  You can of course have this as an opinion but it is an opinion is defiance of the facts and people of the case.

 

Until you can remove the trooper as a roadblock to an investigation happening the timing and detail of the Duggar's parents make no different to the outcome.  

 

 

When you bring up the police report, I really start to wonder if you are "listening" to me at all.  We discussed the statute of limitations, remember?  They couldn't do anything because the statute of limitations had passed.  

 

Ditto.

 

What are you seeking?  Mortal legal Justice?  Mortal legal had their chance.  Whither you like it our not you can't be seeking mortal legal justice anymore.  Divine justice?  That is not yours to seek, your only option here put your faith in God that he will handle it.  Vigilantly justice of mob rule???  Well yeah you can probably still get that, in fact that is exactly what is happening.  Do you really want to be a part of mob rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

What are you seeking? Mortal legal Justice? Mortal legal had their chance. Whither you like it our not you can't be seeking mortal legal justice anymore. Divine justice? That is not yours to seek, your only option here put your faith in God that he will handle it. Vigilantly justice of mob rule??? Well yeah you can probably still get that, in fact that is exactly what is happening. Do you really want to be a part of mob rule?

I'm not seeking anything in this case. I expressed my opinion that I was disappointed with how the parents handled this. And our discussion followed from there. I already agreed that the media only brought this out for ratings.

One thing I would like to see come of all this is for parents and church officials (of all churches) to recognize that sexual abuse is a crime and needs to be treated as such. It is not something they can or should handle on their own.

This is important for both the offender, as part of his repentance, and for the victims for numerous reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeking anything in this case. I expressed my opinion that I was disappointed with how the parents handled this. And our discussion followed from there. I already agreed that the media only brought this out for ratings.

One thing I would like to see come of all this is for parents and church officials (of all churches) to recognize that sexual abuse is a crime and needs to be treated as such. It is not something they can or should handle on their own.

This is important for both the offender, as part of his repentance, and for the victims for numerous reasons.

 

And in spite of knowing (or at least making a good guess) you continue to play into the media's quest for ratings by creating a thread about it and then bring up the subject in other threads.

 

You can push and remind people about the legal requirements of handling sexual offenses without the need to names (Unless of course someone disagrees with you enough to ask you to cite your sources.  Which I think would be very rare)

 

Thus you can get your goal without feeding in to media's quest for ratings and mob rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

And in spite of knowing (or at least making a good guess) you continue to play into the media's quest for ratings by creating a thread about it and then bring up the subject in other threads.

You can push and remind people about the legal requirements of handling sexual offenses without the need to names (Unless of course someone disagrees with you enough to ask you to cite your sources. Which I think would be very rare)

Thus you can get your goal without feeding in to media's quest for ratings and mob rule.

This story was big news. We discuss big news stories around here all the time. For example, what is the point of discussing Bruce Jenner..his story is none of our business and yet that was a topic here. If we really think about it many news tories and thus topics here are none of our business. Should we stop discussing current events?

By spending a couple days debating this issue with me you are also contributing to the media ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This story was big news. We discuss big news stories around here all the time. For example, what is the point of discussing Bruce Jenner..his story is none of our business and yet that was a topic here. If we really think about it many news tories and thus topics here are none of our business. Should we stop discussing current events?

By spending a couple days debating this issue with me you are also contributing to the media ratings.

 

Indeed we do discuss media events.  And the paradox is that you can't try to point out the dangers of someone's feeding the ratings beast without giving it at least a little attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Indeed we do discuss media events. And the paradox is that you can't try to point out the dangers of someone's feeding the ratings beast without giving it at least a little attention.

So what do you suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share