Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 15, 2016 11:39:07 GMT -5
But it's true.
You're being obtuse and attempting to rile the posters up, i.e. trolling. Knock it off. YOu know damn well there is a difference between having sex with children and engaging in consensual homosexual acts.
I'm making an ideological argument about the nature of tolerance, discrimination, and morals, and the hoi polloi don't like where it's going. Am I guilty of challenging your thinking? Yes. Am I guilty of confronting you with demands for a justification you can't provide? Yes. Neither of these constitutes trolling. the gift that keeps on giving..... Do you honestly think you have in any manner accomplished your 3 stated deeds here? You have presented a series of disjointed statements and logical fallacies. If you want to embarrass yourself by terming that an ideological argument.....ok? Is anyone challenged? Is any one confronted? by more than foolishness?
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 11:40:43 GMT -5
There is a counterargument, Virgil. It's called "consent". A four year old child cannot "consent" to a sex act. Two women having consentual sex in their 20s is no legitimate comparison to the molestation of a four year old. You are off the track on this one. I know the point you are trying to make, but you are trying to make it with apples and oranges. I've already told you that our consent laws are bigoted moral constructs, no different from miscegenation laws. They just happen to agree with your moral code. But other cultures have permitted (and do permit) loving sexual acts between adults and what we would call "minors", and have thrived. So again I ask you: why should your dogma about "consent", which is just a way of discriminating against something you fear because you don't understand it, be the moral doctrine that binds this poor man's behaviour? And if that wasn't enough, you're not only throwing him in jail for what he is, you're preventing him from being hired onto a job that he's qualified to fill. Throwing him out like garbage. Where's the justice in that? It's hatred, pure and simple. It's quite simple. I have a thing against rape and so does the law. The law is based on the fact that nobody has a right to take from someone something they either can't or don't give consent to. There is no parallel between this and homosexuality. What other cultures do or do not do is immaterial to me. My neighbor pees in his driveway but that doesn't make it ok to pee in driveways.
You are right about the "hate" part. You bet I do. I do hate people who hurt children - with a passion. I'll have to answer for that someday but it doesn't stop it from being...pure and simple hatred.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 11:45:49 GMT -5
So we have to look at the facts. Either Virgil believes that molesting children is not a problem or he understands that this is a sensitive issue for people (many of whom were molested themselves) and enjoys trolling them. Neither of these possibilities is a very flattering picture of a person who is supposed to be entrusted with enforcing rules. Neither is true. Virgil doesn't support homosexuality and he is throwing back the arguments people use to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and changing them to fit pedophilia. You are smart enough to know exactly that yet you choose to throw shit out there you know isn't true.
You aren't acting any better than he is right now by saying he doesn't feel molesting children isn't a problem or that he enjoys trolling people who have a particular sensitivity to this subject. You are doing the same thing he is doing. He got you.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:48:25 GMT -5
So we have to look at the facts. Either Virgil believes that molesting children is not a problem or he understands that this is a sensitive issue for people (many of whom were molested themselves) and enjoys trolling them. Neither of these possibilities is a very flattering picture of a person who is supposed to be entrusted with enforcing rules. Neither is true. Virgil doesn't support homosexuality and he is throwing back the arguments people use to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and changing them to fit pedophilia. You are smart enough to know exactly that yet you choose to throw shit out there you know isn't true.
You aren't acting any better than he is right now by saying he doesn't feel molesting children isn't a problem or that he enjoys trolling people who have a particular sensitivity to this subject. You are doing the same thing he is doing. He got you.
I am not sure what argument/agreement you're in with Virgil or what background info you have. I don't remember being involved in any discussion with Virgil about homosexuality and how it relates to child molestation. My discussion here relates solely to what he is posting on this thread - and he repeatedly states that other cultures accept pedophilia and argues in support of it. These are his words. I have no desire to guess if there's background or other meaning to his words, but if you want to ascribe some different meaning you can do that. Just like he can apparently flout the COC. But I'd invite you to find where he mentions homosexuality on this thread, because I didn't see it.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 11:51:03 GMT -5
Neither is true. Virgil doesn't support homosexuality and he is throwing back the arguments people use to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and changing them to fit pedophilia. You are smart enough to know exactly that yet you choose to throw shit out there you know isn't true.
You aren't acting any better than he is right now by saying he doesn't feel molesting children isn't a problem or that he enjoys trolling people who have a particular sensitivity to this subject. You are doing the same thing he is doing. He got you.
I am not sure what argument/agreement you're in with Virgil or what background info you have. I don't remember being involved in any discussion with Virgil about homosexuality and how it relates to child molestation. My discussion here relates solely to what he is posting on this thread - and he repeatedly states that other cultures accept pedophilia and argues in support of it. These are his words. I have no desire to guess if there's background or other meaning to his words, but if you want to ascribe some different meaning you can do that. Just like he can apparently flout the COC. lol....whatever. He got you.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 11:53:54 GMT -5
What other cultures do or do not do is immaterial to me. Because your laws and morals are superior to their laws and morals. Is this not so? Some parting food for thought. I wanted to thank you for taking something that ought to be taken seriously seriously. I know it's not easy.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:54:02 GMT -5
I am not sure what argument/agreement you're in with Virgil or what background info you have. I don't remember being involved in any discussion with Virgil about homosexuality and how it relates to child molestation. My discussion here relates solely to what he is posting on this thread - and he repeatedly states that other cultures accept pedophilia and argues in support of it. These are his words. I have no desire to guess if there's background or other meaning to his words, but if you want to ascribe some different meaning you can do that. Just like he can apparently flout the COC. lol....whatever. He got you.
I'll wait right here while you search to see where on this thread Virgil even mentions the word "homosexuality." Go ahead. Either his comments have to do with what the thread is about - pedophiles - or you are assuming facts that aren't in evidence. Or are you just "throwing shit out there that just isn't true"? Sounds like he got you...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 11:57:02 GMT -5
But don't worry, I'm sure one of the other Apologists will be along shortly to take up The Cause.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 11:58:33 GMT -5
What other cultures do or do not do is immaterial to me. Because your laws and morals are superior to their laws and morals. Is this not so? Some parting food for thought. I wanted to thank you for taking something that ought to be taken seriously seriously. I know it's not easy. I think the parallels you are trying to draw between homosexuality and child molestation are serious because they aren't even close to being the same thing. I think it's very serious. I don't see homosexuals and child molesters as anywhere on the same plane. I don't know how anyone can. I know that you have issues with both and I respect that, but you can have your issues without comparing the two.
And yes. I think our laws and morals are superior to any culture who allows such a thing as child molestation. I would gladly drop a bomb on them if I could be sure to hit the bad people. Another thing I'm going to have to answer for.
Thanks for getting me in so much trouble with the Big Guy today.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:22:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 11:59:08 GMT -5
lol....whatever. He got you.
I'll wait right here while you search to see where on this thread Virgil even mentions the word "homosexuality." Go ahead. Either his comments have to do with what the thread is about - pedophiles - or you are assuming facts that aren't in evidence. Or are you just "throwing shit out there that just isn't true"? Sounds like he got you... Not on this thread. But he's been pretty outspoken on his feelings about it in the past on other threads.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 11:59:26 GMT -5
lol....whatever. He got you.
I'll wait right here while you search to see where on this thread Virgil even mentions the word "homosexuality." Go ahead. Either his comments have to do with what the thread is about - pedophiles - or you are assuming facts that aren't in evidence. Or are you just "throwing shit out there that just isn't true"? Sounds like he got you... again...lol
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Dec 15, 2016 11:59:41 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I think there is nothing "wrong" with being a pedophile. Other than that a good person who is a pedophile will probably have a pretty upsetting life, with the double burden of sexual urges they can never morally act upon, and judgement leveled upon them for actions they have not taken. There is something wrong with being a rapist. There is something wrong with being a person who commits sexual assault.Can someone stop harming others? YES. Can someone stop sexually desiring others? Doubtful, barring brain surgery or perhaps chemical/physical castration, but many, many people have sexual desires that they do not act upon. If you have a legal penalty that is less than death/natural lifespan, after the penalty is served, the convict should be able to scrape together at least a marginal life. Obviously sexual offenders shouldn't be working with vulnerable people (as caretakers, for instance, including daycare or medical), and violent offenders shouldn't work security/police type jobs. Employment outside the area of offense should not be excessively hindered, else all sentences are pretty much life/death sentences. Oh, except the independently wealthy will be fine. yeah I mean I guess if you have pedo thoughts and never act on them, it's technically not wrong. We can't really control our thoughts - we can control actions though.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on Dec 15, 2016 12:01:38 GMT -5
So we have to look at the facts. Either Virgil believes that molesting children is not a problem or he understands that this is a sensitive issue for people (many of whom were molested themselves) and enjoys trolling them. Neither of these possibilities is a very flattering picture of a person who is supposed to be entrusted with enforcing rules. Neither is true. Virgil doesn't support homosexuality and he is throwing back the arguments people use to say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and changing them to fit pedophilia. You are smart enough to know exactly that yet you choose to throw shit out there you know isn't true.
You aren't acting any better than he is right now by saying he doesn't feel molesting children isn't a problem or that he enjoys trolling people who have a particular sensitivity to this subject. You are doing the same thing he is doing. He got you.
Well, if this is what he is attempting to do then he is doing a really crappy job
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,508
|
Post by chiver78 on Dec 15, 2016 12:01:53 GMT -5
okay, this had been a nice discussion before Virgil came in. he's indicated he's not going to post in here again. can we get back to the thread topic and ignore him and whatever his intentions may have been?
thank you. -chiver mod
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 12:02:50 GMT -5
I think the parallels you are trying to draw between homosexuality and child molestation are serious
even if they're invisible and you never stated them so I'm just guessing that was your intention. But we all have to cling to this idea that there must have been some parallel because it's the only way we can justify the horrific views you're espousing regarding molesting children. Whew! So glad I thought of an excuse to justify your behavior! That was a close one. If I couldn't have come up with a good reason why you were saying such crazy things, I might have had to think you were just a total Asshole. Which isn't possible, because you're not just a Christian, you're a mod. So... OK.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 12:03:42 GMT -5
I'll wait right here while you search to see where on this thread Virgil even mentions the word "homosexuality." Go ahead. Either his comments have to do with what the thread is about - pedophiles - or you are assuming facts that aren't in evidence. Or are you just "throwing shit out there that just isn't true"? Sounds like he got you... Not on this thread. But he's been pretty outspoken on his feelings about it in the past on other threads. Maybe. I don't remember reading those threads and think it's a stretch to excuse his statements based on something we're guessing he intended from an unrelated thread.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 12:05:40 GMT -5
okay, this had been a nice discussion before Virgil came in. he's indicated he's not going to post in here again. can we get back to the thread topic and ignore him and whatever his intentions may have been? thank you. -chiver mod Well, in all fairness, he has more than once indicated he's not going to post... and then come back to take a shot. Because that's how it works when you have a mod that doesn't follow the rules. You can lock the thread, but then as a mod he'll just take his shot when nobody else can - like he has on past locked threads. Or he will be a jerk to people who have disagreed. Or he will continue to troll. But you know this, right?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,508
|
Post by chiver78 on Dec 15, 2016 12:07:14 GMT -5
okay, this had been a nice discussion before Virgil came in. he's indicated he's not going to post in here again. can we get back to the thread topic and ignore him and whatever his intentions may have been? thank you. -chiver mod Well, in all fairness, he has more than once indicated he's not going to post... and then come back to take a shot. Because that's how it works when you have a mod that doesn't follow the rules. it's not against the rules to come back to a thread that you've said you wouldn't. and it's also not against the rules to post things that make you sound like a total creeper, which is what he's done here (IMHO).
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 12:08:14 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, he has more than once indicated he's not going to post... and then come back to take a shot. Because that's how it works when you have a mod that doesn't follow the rules. it's not against the rules to come back to a thread that you've said you wouldn't. and it's also not against the rules to post things that make you sound like a total creeper, which is what he's done here (IMHO). Is it against the rules to advocate committing crimes? He was also doing that.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,508
|
Post by chiver78 on Dec 15, 2016 12:10:27 GMT -5
it's not against the rules to come back to a thread that you've said you wouldn't. and it's also not against the rules to post things that make you sound like a total creeper, which is what he's done here (IMHO). Is it against the rules to advocate committing crimes? He was also doing that. I didn't see him doing that, just that he wasn't negatively judging someone who had. he wasn't suggesting people go out and do so. are they one and the same now? FWIW, I don't want to know the mental gymnastics he completed in order to create those posts. I'd just like to get back to the discussion y'all were having before he stumbled in here. I personally thought it was a good one.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 15, 2016 12:10:51 GMT -5
and a much more serious one than on shasta's thread which was highly edited due to COC violation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:22:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 12:11:14 GMT -5
Not on this thread. But he's been pretty outspoken on his feelings about it in the past on other threads. Maybe. I don't remember reading those threads and think it's a stretch to excuse his statements based on something we're guessing he intended from an unrelated thread. I wasn't excusing him, it's just hard for me to ignore something I've known about someone for years and pretend this is a new poster on a fresh clean thread.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 12:12:53 GMT -5
But, back on topic, I know of a sex offender, it involved touching 12 year old. He did his jail time, he registers as required.
When he got caught, he was fired from his state job that required him to have a clean criminal record, and he deserved it. However, now he has problems finding employment. He's a good worker, responsible, etc, but I would not leave him alone with kids. He's since got his CDL, and gets sporadic work driving trucks, but he still has problems getting/keeping employment. Honestly, he doesn't disclose the conviction unless they ask because he knows he won't get hired.
He managed to get a job with a company painting the stripes on the runway. No complaints about his work, was actually told he was a good worker. They found out about his felony conviction and fired him. There is no way he will come into contact with teen girls at work.
Shouldn't we allow this guy to work if he's good at his job, shows up on time, does what is requested of him, is not a discipline problem, and there is no chance of coming into contact with a 12 year old girl at work?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Dec 15, 2016 12:15:05 GMT -5
There was a post by virgil. I went to quote it, and it was gone.
He said he wasn't coming back. He did. He made his post go "poof." Us mere mortal posters can't do that.
Virgil, stop being a dick.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,022
|
Post by raeoflyte on Dec 15, 2016 12:18:29 GMT -5
Well, in all fairness, he has more than once indicated he's not going to post... and then come back to take a shot. Because that's how it works when you have a mod that doesn't follow the rules. it's not against the rules to come back to a thread that you've said you wouldn't. and it's also not against the rules to post things that make you sound like a total creeper, which is what he's done here (IMHO). It's against the rules to "glamorize" growing weed, but it isn't against the rules to do the same with pedophiles? ETA: Rukh beat me to it!
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Dec 15, 2016 12:24:12 GMT -5
Is it against the rules to advocate committing crimes? He was also doing that. I didn't see him doing that, just that he wasn't negatively judging someone who had. he wasn't suggesting people go out and do so. are they one and the same now? FWIW, I don't want to know the mental gymnastics he completed in order to create those posts. I'd just like to get back to the discussion y'all were having before he stumbled in here. I personally thought it was a good one. I thought it was a good discussion, too and would like to get back to it. I think it's important, though, that we don't just ignore the reason why Virgil was able to derail the thread so effectively with his trolling. If a non-mod had started to post trolling, silly BS like that, many people would have quickly responded to first dispute the "facts" and then to express what a jerk he was being. Why didn't they feel free to do that? Why did they ignore his continued poking of them? Because Virgil is a moderator. People have learned through experience that his trolling is tolerated, that he will use his position to cause them trouble in other threads, that he will use his position to take pot shots after a thread is closed, that the other mods will refuse to moderate his COC violations because it "isn't their place" to moderate another moderator. That's a problem.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 15, 2016 12:26:49 GMT -5
But, back on topic, I know of a sex offender, it involved touching 12 year old. He did his jail time, he registers as required.
When he got caught, he was fired from his state job that required him to have a clean criminal record, and he deserved it. However, now he has problems finding employment. He's a good worker, responsible, etc, but I would not leave him alone with kids. He's since got his CDL, and gets sporadic work driving trucks, but he still has problems getting/keeping employment. Honestly, he doesn't disclose the conviction unless they ask because he knows he won't get hired.
He managed to get a job with a company painting the stripes on the runway. No complaints about his work, was actually told he was a good worker. They found out about his felony conviction and fired him. There is no way he will come into contact with teen girls at work.
Shouldn't we allow this guy to work if he's good at his job, shows up on time, does what is requested of him, is not a discipline problem, and there is no chance of coming into contact with a 12 year old girl at work? I hear what you are saying and I realize I can be a bit irrational on this subject. On one hand, I want people to work to support themselves because the alternative is us supporting them and that's not a good one either. I just don't think there is any place of employment that a child molester won't have the possibility of having contact with a child. I can't think of one. Maybe on a desert island picking bananas, but that's about it. If he's driving a truck, there are gas stations and truck stops. If he's painting lines, there are drivers with children on the road - at the airport - wherever. It's just not possible to say "no way". I'm fairly certain most people would not be in favor or taking that chance - however remote it is.
You do make a good point. I sure don't know what the answer is. I guess I could be somewhat comfortable with a highly supervised - like every second - job.
|
|
swasat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 13, 2011 9:34:28 GMT -5
Posts: 3,735
|
Post by swasat on Dec 15, 2016 12:28:15 GMT -5
I didn't see him doing that, just that he wasn't negatively judging someone who had. he wasn't suggesting people go out and do so. are they one and the same now? FWIW, I don't want to know the mental gymnastics he completed in order to create those posts. I'd just like to get back to the discussion y'all were having before he stumbled in here. I personally thought it was a good one. I thought it was a good discussion, too and would like to get back to it. I think it's important, though, that we don't just ignore the reason why Virgil was able to derail the thread so effectively with his trolling. If a non-mod had started to post trolling, silly BS like that, many people would have quickly responded to first dispute the "facts" and then to express what a jerk he was being. Why didn't they feel free to do that? Why did they ignore his continued poking of them? Because Virgil is a moderator. People have learned through experience that his trolling is tolerated, that he will use his position to cause them trouble in other threads, that he will use his position to take pot shots after a thread is closed, that the other mods will refuse to moderate his COC violations because it "isn't their place" to moderate another moderator. That's a problem. I totally agree. I haven't participated in this thread but I have noticed the same numerous times. Having contradictory opinions isn't a problem, acting like a jerk sure is. Virgil is now, and has in the past, used his mod role to suit himself. He professes things that if other mortals ever do the same, they would be moderated or banned pretty quickly.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 15, 2016 12:31:03 GMT -5
But, back on topic, I know of a sex offender, it involved touching 12 year old. He did his jail time, he registers as required.
When he got caught, he was fired from his state job that required him to have a clean criminal record, and he deserved it. However, now he has problems finding employment. He's a good worker, responsible, etc, but I would not leave him alone with kids. He's since got his CDL, and gets sporadic work driving trucks, but he still has problems getting/keeping employment. Honestly, he doesn't disclose the conviction unless they ask because he knows he won't get hired.
He managed to get a job with a company painting the stripes on the runway. No complaints about his work, was actually told he was a good worker. They found out about his felony conviction and fired him. There is no way he will come into contact with teen girls at work.
Shouldn't we allow this guy to work if he's good at his job, shows up on time, does what is requested of him, is not a discipline problem, and there is no chance of coming into contact with a 12 year old girl at work? It's a tougher question than I think you realize. It is one thing to say - ok he's a line painter at an airport. It's another if I am also a line painter who has to work with him. Conceptually, everyone could maybe get on board with someone having a job to support themselves in such an environment as does not pose risk to minors. But it would always be "out there" "somewhere" - It's another to be the person who has to work along side them daily. It is not the case that it does not affect coworkers. I have throughout my career brought my kids to work - mainly on take your kid to work day - but sometimes at other times too. My employers have had family picnics once a year, or other activities, and I would not want to bring my 12 yo daughter into a supposedly "fun" picnic and then not even be able to take my eyes off her. In terms of the employer - what is the liability there for them? For example, with the line painter. If a coworker had some issue family issue and a relative dropped off their 11 year old daughter and the employee just needed to talk to their supervisor, clock out, and deal with the family situation - but the pedophile happened to walk into the break room, found an 11 year old there alone, who maybe was upset about their mom being in the hospital, but couldn't walk around with dad because its a rather dangerous place, and waiting on their dad to clear the way so they could go to the hospital, and the guy did something? What is employer liability? And - are they never in areas or could not even get to areas where the passengers are? And if there are other reasonable hires, others who want the job, why would they go with a convicted pedophile? And if an employer did take a chance - what if a coworker, unknowingly - invites that person to their home when they have other coworker friends over? Is the employer obligated to inform everyone so that they don't make these errors?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 17:22:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 12:33:31 GMT -5
But, back on topic, I know of a sex offender, it involved touching 12 year old. He did his jail time, he registers as required.
When he got caught, he was fired from his state job that required him to have a clean criminal record, and he deserved it. However, now he has problems finding employment. He's a good worker, responsible, etc, but I would not leave him alone with kids. He's since got his CDL, and gets sporadic work driving trucks, but he still has problems getting/keeping employment. Honestly, he doesn't disclose the conviction unless they ask because he knows he won't get hired.
He managed to get a job with a company painting the stripes on the runway. No complaints about his work, was actually told he was a good worker. They found out about his felony conviction and fired him. There is no way he will come into contact with teen girls at work.
Shouldn't we allow this guy to work if he's good at his job, shows up on time, does what is requested of him, is not a discipline problem, and there is no chance of coming into contact with a 12 year old girl at work? I hear what you are saying and I realize I can be a bit irrational on this subject. On one hand, I want people to work to support themselves because the alternative is us supporting them and that's not a good one either. I just don't think there is any place of employment that a child molester won't have the possibility of having contact with a child. I can't think of one. Maybe on a desert island picking bananas, but that's about it. If he's driving a truck, there are gas stations and truck stops. If he's painting lines, there are drivers with children on the road - at the airport - wherever. It's just not possible to say "no way". I'm fairly certain most people would not be in favor or taking that chance - however remote it is.
You do make a good point. I sure don't know what the answer is. I guess I could be somewhat comfortable with a highly supervised - like every second - job.
But, he has a lot more chances of having contact with a child not working. There is no way anyone working here is coming in contact with children. We're under pretty strict regulations for who can have access to the building and if someone did bring a kid in (very rarely happens), it's not like a child molester working here is just going to grab them and run off. For one thing, the kid would have to be escorted everywhere by their parent and people are working here. "Bill" isn't going to be standing by the corner of the cubes with a container of candy trying to lure the one and only kid to step foot in this building all year into his cube. I mean, that's kind of out there. No, don't hire them to work in a school cafeteria or as a music instructor or anything like that, but an SCA here isn't going to set aside what they're doing to stalk a child in an office building during work hours. That's pretty out there.
|
|