Protecting or Discriminating? - Political Forum

Oregon Elephant · 11-13-2007, 03:16 PM

Jack McClellan was run out of Oregon today, and said that he is moving back to California (sorry Californians).

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7...nclick_check=1

Jack McClellan is a self proclaimed pediphile that has been run out of southern CA and WA because he was a pediphile that liked to "watch" little girls, but he never did anything that was illegal that he hasn't spent time for. At first when he moved to Portland, I was accepting. I don't what turns him on so long as he doesn't try to act upon it. But as I heard on the news today, he has a blog where he tells other pediphiles the best ways to watch litle kids in close proximity without drawing attention to themselves. Sorry, but I consider ogling over little girls in public close enough to acting on those desires to accepting.

But is it discrimination that we stop him before he does something that is actually breaking the law, or is this proactive protective stance acceptible? I think it is, what about you?

counterpointing · 11-13-2007, 05:10 PM

I think the non-discriminating ideology has gone too far when it crosses common sense. It is the same with the airports; if some lady with three screaming kids is in line, and behind her is a Iranian with shifty eyes, what is wrong with checking his bags and not the mother’s? That’s off topic but I think related to the discriminating category. I’m not saying not to check people’s bags, but focusing on potential terrorists seems to make more sense. This non-discriminating movement has been good for the most part, but also it is broadened to include irrational thinking.

Plus this is what discriminates means: 1. vi treat group unfairly because of prejudice

Prejudice:
1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes.

There is nothing insufficient, irrational, or inaccurate about our knowledge of this guy. I think I’ve ruled out discrimination.

Oregon Elephant · 11-13-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by counterpointing

I think the non-discriminating ideology has gone too far when it crosses common sense. It is the same with the airports; if some lady with three screaming kids is in line, and behind her is a Iranian with shifty eyes, what is wrong with checking his bags and not the mother’s? That’s off topic but I think related to the discriminating category. I’m not saying not to check people’s bags, but focusing on potential terrorists seems to make more sense. This non-discriminating movement has been good for the most part, but also it is broadened to include irrational thinking.

Plus this is what discriminates means: 1. vi treat group unfairly because of prejudice

Prejudice:
1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes.

There is nothing insufficient, irrational, or inaccurate about our knowledge of this guy. I think I’ve ruled out discrimination.

I agree with you (oh my God

). But there are a decent number of people in Portland that are saying it is discriminative, what we did, and I don't think so. I just want to see what others think to know if perhaps I'm out of place.

But yes, when using preception to do a public safty task, it isn't discrimination.

Shiva_TD · 11-13-2007, 08:05 PM

I think the problem starts with how we treat pediphiles in the first place. When arrested and convicted they should face manditory psychological treatment (i.e. commitment to a mental institution) as opposed to jail and they shouldn't be released until deemed safe to be in public. That release can be conditional that they present no further threat to society.

Sometimes society is so intent upon "revenge" in the sentencing of these cases that they miss the point of how to protect society in the future. People scream for jail time when time in a mental institution would be more practical and effective.

IMHO

Troianii · 11-13-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Jack McClellan was run out of Oregon today, and said that he is moving back to California (sorry Californians).

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7...nclick_check=1

Jack McClellan is a self proclaimed pediphile that has been run out of southern CA and WA because he was a pediphile that liked to "watch" little girls, but he never did anything that was illegal that he hasn't spent time for. At first when he moved to Portland, I was accepting. I don't what turns him on so long as he doesn't try to act upon it. But as I heard on the news today, he has a blog where he tells other pediphiles the best ways to watch litle kids in close proximity without drawing attention to themselves. Sorry, but I consider ogling over little girls in public close enough to acting on those desires to accepting.

But is it discrimination that we stop him before he does something that is actually breaking the law, or is this proactive protective stance acceptible? I think it is, what about you?

As I think Counterpointing said, I don't really care whether or not it's discrimination, it's a matter of common sense. We must be one messed up society if we are so worried about political correctness that we will allow it to stand above common sense.

FRYandBENDER · 11-13-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

But there are a decent number of people in Portland that are saying it is discriminative, what we did, and I don't think so. I just want to see what others think to know if perhaps I'm out of place.

But yes, when using preception to do a public safty task, it isn't discrimination.

Dude, I can find you all kinds of crazy shit that people believe. The bad part is, and CP mentioned it, is that it is getting to where really stupid thinking like that is becoming more prevalent. If I had a daughter and I saw him skanking around her play ground and getting off, he'd be lucky if I didn't beat his ass.

We had a guy on the forum not long ago that was trying to get us to be "more understanding" of his pedophilia. He said he would watch kids and that when he got to thinking about it too much, he had a friend that would help them through it. F'n sick. People like that are going to fuck up, and the dumb asses that were "understanding" are going to feel really stupid.

Oregon Elephant · 11-13-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Oregon, sometimes you make me wonder why you are even a Republican.

I really don't like this guy, but the law is pretty clear that what he is doing is legal (as long as he isn't stocking I guess). Of course they could theoretically change it, but he would most likely just move to another state as he has already demonstrated he is more then willing to do. I had not even known he left California in the first place.

I am okay with him living here, but blogging about how to watch little girls is inviting an attack by other pediphiles, so I believe that is far to great of a risk. He wasn't legally forced out of Portland, but they did all the preasuring that they could, including getting a warrent to search his house because on his blogs he admits to currently useing drugs.