Quickies: Good Stuff that Isn't Lengthy Enough

Background: On the YouTube video entitled "D.A. Gerry Mollen Coddles Sex Offender" there are a lot of comment posts that display the typical illogical emotional responses that many people who do not properly understand how crime, and specifically sex crime corrections, works. One of the longest discussions I have been engaged in there involves someone who uses the YouTube handle "CrimsonRose01" who clearly is not up to speed on the facts surrounding sex offender management and sex crime prevention--and also apparently doesn't care to, either. This discussion, with some formatting modification only, is presented here with color-coding, links, and commentary to illustrate through example the reasons why these kinds of attitudes must be changed, lest sexual crime rise and gross sex offender mismanagement lead to more endangering of children rather than less.

In the YouTube video, the sex offender is speaking in a public forum about the injustices he suffers through that prevent him from rebuilding a social support framework (one of the most important factors in preventing reoffense by sex offenders) and, specifically, about how the stigma laid upon him by registration prevents him not only from having a girlfriend with children, but also from getting friends of any kind at all, while admitting that his offense has "destroyed lives" along the way, and that's where this ride down ignorance lane begins...

CrimsonRose01: "I've destroyed lives." For all we know, his past friends were his victims.

The Angry Offender: Irrelevant. You operate on the implication that he is guaranteed to victimize someone again. Sorry to tell you that the stats are highly against sex offenders reoffending. Even worse, they favor victimization by persons who are well-known to the victim, not strangers. Grow up and do real research.

CrimsonRose01: Hmmm...real research? Research on your page would lead one to believe that you're quite the perv, let's hope that you favor adults. "They favor victimization by persons who are well-known to the victim, not strangers." Nice rebuttal, you confirmed my previous statement. Halfwit.

The Angry Offender: The first paragraph of your response is so typical. Attempt to attack me instead of the facts. Classic logical fallacy, a favorite of politicians too. As for the victimization statement, that wasn't a rebuttal. You ignored the real rebuttal: "stats are highly against sex offenders reoffending." And this glues the two together: over 90% of NEW SEX CRIMES are done by FIRST-TIMERS THAT AREN'T ON A REGISTRY ANYWHERE. How do you plan on stopping these new sex crimes?

CrimsonRose01: "The first paragraph of your response is so typical." What is typical? The fact that you are obviously defending pedo rights or the signs of an [sic] compulsive perv? You can speak whatever facts that you choose, but your page says all that I need to know. Stand by your stats, and stay away from my children.

The Angry Offender: It's typical because you're attacking the person instead of arguing the truth or falsehood of the claims. You repeat your egregious error, and step in more of them, in this reply as well. If you aren't even coherent enough to stick to the arguments instead of making baseless statements about who you think I might be, there is no point in "responding" to you, because one cannot argue with a person who can't even follow a conversation.

CrimsonRose01: Please except [sic] my sincere apologizes for not being able to follow a "conversation" that is laced with pedophile propaganda. All of you pedophile activists start to sound the same after awhile. You can study statistics, but I choose to prevent more victims/statistics. Please remember that you are not just looking at numbers, but thousands of lives that were damaged.

The Angry Offender: Calling a conversation "pedophile propaganda" and the conversant a "pedophile activist" is yet another red herring to try to "win" the argument without responding to the points being made. The "anything is OK if it saves even one child" approach you hint at seems noble on its face, but in reality is dismissive of authoritative research in favor of feel-good solutions that ignore how the crimes are caused in the first place.

CrimsonRose01: "Anything is OK if it saves even one child." I made no such "hints" toward that perspective. But, when given the choice...I will protect innocent lives before criminals. I know how these crimes are formed, and I've seen how they can tear communities apart. I also know that sex offenders have a slim chance of being rehabilitated, and many refuse to see that they have a problem.

The Angry Offender: Anecdotal evidence isn't verifiable, and cannot survive peer review. Anecdotal knowledge isn't "fact" as no one else can "see for themselves." Also, the "slim chance of being rehabilitated" lie was disproven long ago and has become a broken record. Are you going to argue verifiable facts yet? This is like telling us an apple morphed into an orange without proof that the orange on the table was once an apple, any more than a UFO witness account proves that there was a real spaceship in the sky.

CrimsonRose01: (cont.) I made no attempts to "win" an argument by avoiding points that were not made. Tell me something that isn't monotonously repeated by every offender, or activist and I'll gladly answer.

CrimsonRose01: I offered you no anecdotes, they're actually called case studies. Study an individual "statistic" and gain more empathy for a situation. Maybe you would understand how "the apple morphed into the orange" if you opened your eyes.

The Angry Offender: Sorry, but I see no citation for your "case studies." They're anecdotal evidence if you can't point to the study so it can be reviewed and scrutinized. Empathy and other emotional states have no place in criminal management. Also, ignoring my points won't make them vanish. One example: "over 90% of NEW SEX CRIMES are done by FIRST-TIMERS THAT AREN'T ON A REGISTRY ANYWHERE. How do you plan on stopping these new sex crimes?"

CrimsonRose01: You've asked that same question before and are truly redundant. I've been politely answering your diluted comments for 2 months now, and I'm simply bored to tears with your pedophile propaganda. You confronted me for stating facts you didn't approve of, and I refuse to waste anymore time on you.

You can continue to proclaim to the heavens your blatantly intentional ignorance of the facts regarding sex crimes, and that's fine. Luckily, there will be people who will see through your thin attempts to apply labels such as "pedo activist" to people when you can't argue on their level. Enjoy riding on the failboat, as I feel the same as you do.

Questions? Comments? E-mail the Offender and let him know what you think!

[ Quickies Main Page ] [ Angry Offender Main Page ]

Copyright (C) 2006-2008 by The Angry Offender. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without express written permission from the author, excluding fair use rights as granted by law. Please feel free to link here on your own website or blog as desired.
Click here to contact the Offender directly via E-mail.