|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| conrad2 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
No, only those who responded. Like I said "Except no crime would have be committed if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice"
And then just under that I also wrote "Had the people not responded EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE". How you equate that with judging them as consumers of kiddie porn is quite beyond me. |
You said this:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
Right there, totally independent of everything else you've said, you've made a blanket judgment against anyone who received those packets.
. |
Only it's not totally independent of everything else. I specifically said those who responded. And those were the persons I meant. People who didn't respond are excluded. I understand this is Dave's where one is supposed to parse everything and every word...but I like to think there are some intelligent people who can actually read between the lines.
But I'll rephrase it just for you. "They were only sent to certain people's house. Those who responded obviously had a hankering for such items."
Don't expect such clarifications in the future. I've already told you what I meant and that should be that. If you keep on being so deliberately obtuse, I'll just ignore you and keep posting as if you never responded. |
So you wouldnt mind if I sent kiddy porn catalogs, White supremecist literature, High Times, Piss Drinkers Magazine to your home for your wife, girlfriend, neighbors, mailman to see. Its ok as long as you dont have a "hankerin" for those things? "Gee mom, I dont know why they sent me that issue of Scat Quarterly. Really I dont." |
I'd simply complain to the post office and get it stopped. That's how these things are handled. Besides which I would suspect that such things are put in opaque packing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I'd simply complain to the post office and get it stopped. That's how these things are handled. |
After which, of course, damage could all ready have been done.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Besides which I would suspect that such things are put in opaque packing. |
So now your arguing based on what you suspect. Not that opaque packaging eliminates the possibility for problems, mind you; even if your baseless assumption is correct, it doesn't make it acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If its in opaque packaging, how would your postman know not to deliver it to your house after you complained to the post office. How would you or you wife, kids, grandma, know not to open the opaque packaging? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conrad2 wrote: |
| So you wouldnt mind if I sent kiddy porn catalogs, White supremecist literature, High Times, Piss Drinkers Magazine to your home for your wife, girlfriend, neighbors, mailman to see. Its ok as long as you dont have a "hankerin" for those things? "Gee mom, I dont know why they sent me that issue of Scat Quarterly. Really I dont." |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
One concern is that it could be a slippery slope for law enforcement to catch anyone they want if they really want to go after someone. Where does it stop?
Using the Patriot Act, law enforcement could find out any of our weaknesses and use that info to nab us. I doubt there's any of us who couldn't get tricked into doing something illegal. For example, if an undercover cop was to come to my house on Super Bowl Sunday and offer me a "Super Bowl promo" 12 pack of Coors for $1.00 I would definitely buy it even though it's illegal to buy or sell beer on Sunday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps in this case the police targetted men who they felt fairly certain were guilty but they couldn't get the evidence. But this seems like entrapment and I don't agree with the police mailing illegal items to people. There are so many cases where a neighbor may mistakenly get the package, it could be mailed to the wrong address, a family member could open it. Even if there are no charges filed against someone their reputation is still ruined. I'm totally against people abusing children but in this case it has clearly passed the line into a witch hunt. And when people say, "well if you're innocent you have nothing to fear" that just further reinforces it.
So like I said, even if in this particular instance certain people were targetted who were known to have a hankering for that kind of thing, I don't believe the police should be doing this because it can easily spread to other people if this is done more often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
With regards to your "clarification", it's not a clarification at all, it's an alteration. It completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Make or don't make whatever "clarifications" you want, but don't think anyone's fooled by them. We all know what you said, and you got called on it because it's symptomatic of the inane bullshit that's the cause of many social problems in our country.
Maybe it's time for you to stop making smart ass comments about the quality of the poster's on Daves, and start considering whether or not your modus operani of posting inane, knee-jerk conservative replies to everything and then trying to defend them with transparent sophistry really leaves you in a position to make such comments without hypocrisy. I'm sorry to make a personal statement of such a nature, but if you're going to be sassy, incorrect, and supportive of unethical governmental practices simultaneously, then it needs to be said. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Only it's not totally independent of everything else. I specifically said those who responded. |
You said some things specifically about those who responded, then you said something else about everyone who was mailed to. I'll repeat the quote again for you:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
This can only mean one thing: if you received a packet, then you have a hankering for such items. That's what only means. There's no way this sentence can merely apply to those who responded, because it's about the people who the packets were mailed to. Try to squirm all you like, it won't avail you. Your sentence couldn't have been clearer, and it couldn't possibly be limited to "only those who responded" based on the words and grammar involved. You said packets were only sent to those with a hankering for such items. This means -- in your judgment -- that 100% of the people who received a packet had a hankering for child porn. |
Did you actually do some Googling and read about the operation? That was the government's judgment and not mine.
The link is below. It clearly states that the people who were sent a package were those who had a CONFIRMED predisposition towards child pornography.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:34 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
With regards to your "clarification", it's not a clarification at all, it's an alteration. It completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Make or don't make whatever "clarifications" you want, but don't think anyone's fooled by them. We all know what you said, and you got called on it because it's symptomatic of the inane bullshit that's the cause of many social problems in our country.
Maybe it's time for you to stop making smart ass comments about the quality of the poster's on Daves, and start considering whether or not your modus operani of posting inane, knee-jerk conservative replies to everything and then trying to defend them with transparent sophistry really leaves you in a position to make such comments without hypocrisy. I'm sorry to make a personal statement of such a nature, but if you're going to be sassy, incorrect, and supportive of unethical governmental practices simultaneously, then it needs to be said. |
|
After Googling the operation, I found out as per usual you were misrepresenting what happened.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/867/867.F2d.610.88-5059.html
"Under this program, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, in the guise of a pornography dealer, corresponded with persons initally identified as predisposed towards child pornography and sent a child pornography catalog and order form to those whose predisposition was confirmed by subsequent test correspondence.
(bolding mine)
You left out the bolded part in your initial description and just claimed that they were tagged with this designation and then sent the materials.
Not so. Only those whose predisposition was CONFIRMED were sent the materials. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Bacasper: I am working with such facts as these:
| Quote: |
Pennsylvania authorities say they arrested a former United Nations weapons inspector after he allegedly exchanged sexually explicit online messages with a police officer who was pretending to be a 15-year-old girl...
police said he sent sexual messages to a police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl named Emily, the Barrett Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department said in a news release Thursday... |
He called himself "delmar4fun," and not "Scott Ritter," or "Scott," which strongly suggests to me that he knew what he was doing was better done from as concealed a position as possible.
|
And you call yourself "Gopher". Did you think about that before you wrote it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Only it's not totally independent of everything else. I specifically said those who responded. |
You said some things specifically about those who responded, then you said something else about everyone who was mailed to. I'll repeat the quote again for you:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
This can only mean one thing: if you received a packet, then you have a hankering for such items. That's what only means. There's no way this sentence can merely apply to those who responded, because it's about the people who the packets were mailed to. Try to squirm all you like, it won't avail you. Your sentence couldn't have been clearer, and it couldn't possibly be limited to "only those who responded" based on the words and grammar involved. You said packets were only sent to those with a hankering for such items. This means -- in your judgment -- that 100% of the people who received a packet had a hankering for child porn. |
Did you actually do some Googling and read about the operation? That was the government's judgment and not mine. |
You're in this thread supporting said judgment. I don't care where it originally came from; you're the one sitting here trying to advance it. Man up and stand behind the inane positions you put forward.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
You put forward a judgment regarding anyone who received this sort of thing. Squirm, worm, wiggle, and engage in rhetoric all you like, but that isn't changing, and no one is being fooled.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| After Googling the operation, I found out as per usual you were misrepresenting what happened. |
No, I didn't.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
"Under this program, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, in the guise of a pornography dealer, corresponded with persons initally identified as predisposed towards child pornography and sent a child pornography catalog and order form to those whose predisposition was confirmed by subsequent test correspondence.
(bolding mine)
You left out the bolded part in your initial description and just claimed that they were tagged with this designation and then sent the materials.
Not so. Only those whose predisposition was CONFIRMED were sent the materials. |
Do you think it really matters with regards to the principle of the case that the government feels it adequately "confirmed" such predispositions? Anything sufficient to be a confirmation of predisposition would invalidate the need to send them anything further anyway; the sheer fact that they sent out these catalogues after "confirming" the predispositions shows exactly how weak said confirmations really were. A reasonable, clear-sighted individual would infer this for themselves.
Further, you're still sitting here essentially arguing, "Anyone who received such a packet clearly deserved to receive it." You're actively proving the point of those who are speaking against you every time you post. A genuinely innocent man who received such a thing could suffer from severe social troubles as a result, and you sitting here insisting that anyone who received it must have a hankering for child pornography is perfectly indicative of the social mindset that makes this kind of government activity unacceptable. "No, no, this was some mistake!" the innocent man could insist. "Nonsense," TheUrbanMyth would reply, "If you received such a catalogue, you're clearly a pedophile with a hankering for child porn. After all, the government says it confirmed such predispositions before sending the catalogues out." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| t;] After Googling the operation, I found out as per usual you were misrepresenting what happened. |
No, I didn't.
Not so. Only those whose predisposition was CONFIRMED were sent the materials. |
| Quote: |
Do you think it really matters with regards to the principle of the case that the government feels it adequately "confirmed" such predispositions? Anything sufficient to be a confirmation of predisposition would invalidate the need to send them anything further anyway; the sheer fact that they sent out these catalogues after "confirming" the predispositions shows exactly how weak said confirmations really were. A reasonable, clear-sighted individual would infer this for themselves.
Further, you're still sitting here essentially arguing, "Anyone who received such a packet clearly deserved to receive it." You're actively proving the point of those who are speaking against you every time you post. A genuinely innocent man who received such a thing could suffer from severe social troubles as a result, and you sitting here insisting that anyone who received it must have a hankering for child pornography is perfectly indicative of the social mindset that makes this kind of government activity unacceptable. "No, no, this was some mistake!" the innocent man could insist. "Nonsense," TheUrbanMyth would reply, "If you received such a catalogue, you're clearly a pedophile with a hankering for child porn. After all, the government says it confirmed such predispositions before sending the catalogues out." |
First of all when I made the above quote about "Googling" and "misrepresenting" I was speaking to bacasper, not to you. Get it straight before you start posting. He quoted you and I responded to HIM with that. Go back and read it this time.
Now to you:
Unless you were some kind of legal aid for this case, you have no idea about how weak the confirmation was or wasn't. What makes you an expert?
I would say the government would have more of an idea about how to confirm this than you or I. Given that, I'll go with them.
If you can find one innocent man who did indeed receive such a package from this operation feel free to produce him. Until such time all you have is hypothetical arguments.
And stop falsifying my quotes and pretending that you know what is in my mind. You wouldn't like it if I started making up allegations about what you said, so cut it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Unless you were some kind of legal aid for this case, you have no idea about how weak the confirmation was or wasn't. What makes you an expert?
I would say the government would have more of an idea about how to confirm this than you or I. Given that, I'll go with them.
|
Based on what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old Gil wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Unless you were some kind of legal aid for this case, you have no idea about how weak the confirmation was or wasn't. What makes you an expert?
I would say the government would have more of an idea about how to confirm this than you or I. Given that, I'll go with them.
|
Based on what? |
Based on the fact that they can hire experts to determine this. Plus they confirmed with additional test correspondence. It wasn't just "Oh we think this guy's a pedophile, let's send him a catalog and see if he bites." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First of all when I made the above quote about "Googling" and "misrepresenting" I was speaking to bacasper, not to you. |
Okay. Given you quoted a post of his that had no actual text in it, I had assumed you were just being lazy and meant to address me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Unless you were some kind of legal aid for this case, you have no idea about how weak the confirmation was or wasn't. What makes you an expert? |
1) As I said, any confirmation truly sufficient to justify going around sending out material like this would alleviate the need for it to be sent. If their activity hadn't been confirmed sufficiently to stand up in court, then it hasn't been confirmed sufficiently to warrant risking their reputations on your witch hunt.
2) Your criticism applies just as effectively to you. Given you have no idea regarding the confirmation, you're in no position to insist that it is sufficient to justify these people being harassed by the government. At least I can make a reasonable inference on the topic; you're just (as usual) accepting blindly anything that sounds like it could fit your case, without serious consideration.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I would say the government would have more of an idea about how to confirm this than you or I. Given that, I'll go with them. |
The government has a proven history of actually convicting innocent people of crimes, and a "confirmation of predisposition" is far less concrete than a conviction. But yes, I suppose your baseless suppositions matter more than that. And by the way, yet again you're proving my claims. Every time you insist, "They must have had predispositions of this nature; the government confirmed it!" you're just acting out the very process that could lead to reputations being unjustly destroyed over this time of behavior.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| If you can find one innocent man who did indeed receive such a package from this operation feel free to produce him. Until such time all you have is hypothetical arguments. |
If you can prove that 100% of the men who received these packages are guilty, feel free to show said proof. Until such time you don't even have hypothetical arguments, just assumptions. Besides, so long as it's even possible for an innocent man to receive such a package my arguments stand. Even if that unfortunate situation were truly avoided in this case, it doesn't mean it always would be. The government should not be needlessly taking people's reputations into their own hands in this fashion. If they have solid evidence a crime was committed, prosecute! If they don't, they shouldn't be trying to create crimes to prosecute.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And stop falsifying my quotes and pretending that you know what is in my mind. You wouldn't like it if I started making up allegations about what you said, so cut it out. |
I'm not falsifying your quotes. I'm quoting you. There's a difference. And besides, what I would or wouldn't like doesn't factor into your posting style at all, so don't expect your preferences to factor into mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
