Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

01 Aug 2012, 7:39 am

Some of these situations really shouldn't be called "sex scandals" it sensationalizes abuse, it's really bizarre to see so many headlines "that involve the term "sex scandal" in reference to rape/molestation/abuse etc.

Just... a thought.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

01 Aug 2012, 8:37 am

JanuaryMan wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Okay, having read the responses here, I have decided that anyone who mentions a sex scandal of any kind to me, ever, will be punched squarely between the eyes. Done.


...I don't get it.
That's your lookout.



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

01 Aug 2012, 8:58 am

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Okay, having read the responses here, I have decided that anyone who mentions a sex scandal of any kind to me, ever, will be punched squarely between the eyes. Done.


...I don't get it.
That's your lookout.


I would consider what meems said, and I would like to ask why you quoted that part on its own and avoided the questions again. Why do you want people to participate in your political discussion when you can't even answer basic questions such as "why won't you answer our questions"?

By the way, it's outlook not lookout. And could you please answer some of the questions instead of using that as a distraction?



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

01 Aug 2012, 9:00 am

meems wrote:
Some of these situations really shouldn't be called "sex scandals" it sensationalizes abuse, it's really bizarre to see so many headlines "that involve the term "sex scandal" in reference to rape/molestation/abuse etc.

Just... a thought.
Well, that's what I was getting at, here. The sensationalization surrounding the Sandusky case was very offensive to me, for several reasons. This is one of them.

I just find it appalling that so many sanctimonious morons out there think it's their place to play judge and jury of a man who has been put on trial and convicted of a serious crime against private citizens. That is the duty of the court system. Even then, he has a right to appeal, just like you and I would.

Dragging the Sandusky issue, as a recent example, out onto the public stage is something that I saw as crass and counter-productive. One major peril is that it could turn into a mass witch hunt that would lead to innocent people being accused. You don't think it could happen to you? Anyone who holds a grudge against you for any reason could ruin you by exploiting the current state of public passions. It doesn't matter whether you have actually done anything wrong or not.

Ultimately, blaring cases like this over the media takes the job of doing justice out of the hands of the courts, as imperfect as they are, and puts it into the hands of the mob. I see that as a misappropriation of justice.

But another example of the same phenomenon is the Casey Anthony case. The public getting embroiled in it might have actually led to a guilty woman walking free because of how much it tends to bollix up the gears of the justice system to have so much public attention on one case. I was every bit as enraged about that, and I saw it as a depressing example of how much we have regressed into mob rule.

The Zimmerman case is another example of a case of the media and general public trying to play judge and jury in a private matter. It is not your job to pronounce someone guilty or innocent. It is not your job to condemn that person if he wants to appeal his case after a verdict. You are not the judge and jury of anyone.

But I find sex scandals to be particularly obnoxious, simply because I find them to be absolutely crass. The Sandusky case annoys me in particular because it's not just a sex scandal, but it's a criminal case now that the general public seems to want to preside as judge and jury over.

And my thoughts are, "Hello, you freaking idiots. You don't know Sandusky. You don't know the details of the case. You don't know what his chances are of winning an appeal. Who in the hell do you think you are?"

But the sentiments expressed by Meems, here, play a major role in my own feelings on the matter. I've actually known a few victims of child sexual abuse, and I see it as particularly crass that it's now been trotted out into the limelight to be made into a public spectacle.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

01 Aug 2012, 9:06 am

JanuaryMan wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Okay, having read the responses here, I have decided that anyone who mentions a sex scandal of any kind to me, ever, will be punched squarely between the eyes. Done.


...I don't get it.
That's your lookout.


I would consider what meems said,
I have responded on Meems' sentiments above. If you can't follow the conversation, that's your lookout, not mine. I'm trying my best to ignore your baiting, here.

Meems, I would like to add, on a sidenote, that you really ought to try to ignore JanuaryMan, here, if you can. He tends to troll up any discussion he doesn't like or that he doesn't think ought to be discussed. He has made his disrespect for free and open debate self-evident. He is a very dishonorable man, and I hope that nobody else will encourage this noxious troll.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

01 Aug 2012, 9:23 am

@WilliamWDelaney:
JanuaryMan's posts seem quite reasonable in this thread which is more than I can say for yours - threatening to punch people who disagree with you and calling them trolls! Are you deliberately trying to get yourself suspended?



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

01 Aug 2012, 9:40 am

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Okay, having read the responses here, I have decided that anyone who mentions a sex scandal of any kind to me, ever, will be punched squarely between the eyes. Done.


...I don't get it.
That's your lookout.


I would consider what meems said,
I have responded on Meems' sentiments above. If you can't follow the conversation, that's your lookout, not mine. I'm trying my best to ignore your baiting, here.

Meems, I would like to add, on a sidenote, that you really ought to try to ignore JanuaryMan, here, if you can. He tends to troll up any discussion he doesn't like or that he doesn't think ought to be discussed. He has made his disrespect for free and open debate self-evident. He is a very dishonorable man, and I hope that nobody else will encourage this noxious troll.


Dude, you considered what they said AFTER I said what I said. If you're going to berate me for not keeping up with the convo, at least do it in a way that not only makes sense but is rational! It's like me saying meems said there was a mess on the floor, you cleaning it up after I said that then you complaining that I don't pay attention! Okay, moving back to rational discussion. I do appreciate some of the sentiment in your post prior to that one and I will also share why I too detest scandals or at least the use of the word in modern media.

EDIT: I would like to add, I very much think this should be discussed. My viewpoints are different from the OP's, but that does not mean I do not want the issue discussed. If it was an unreasonable topic I and others would have reported it. The OP's topic is sound to discuss. I'm obviously wanting to discuss it. OP, have you considered just getting a blog and linking to it in your profile? That way, you can sound off your thoughts all the time, and omit anything to their contrary while encourage others with your viewpoints to subscribe. It would be a win win for you.



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

01 Aug 2012, 10:13 am

Okay, back to the original topic at hand. The hatred for sex scandals in the media.
I have a disdain for them as well to a degree, here being my reason, which differs from the main one shared:

Internetz wrote:
scan·dal/ˈskandl/
1. An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage: "a bribery scandal".
2. The outrage or anger caused by such an action or event.

This is what a scandal is, but the media now sensationalizes a number of different types of scandals such as bribery, rape, assault to be glorified and glitzy rather than the evil deeds they really are. I also think to some degree some of these scandals shouldn't be mentioned in the media as they are more private matters and effect only a close group of people. Trayvon Martin is a good example. The killer was not responsible for something at a national scale, they did not commit mass murder. They are a neighbourhood watchman that committed the murder of a single human being out of poor judgement and possibly racially stereotyping what they saw as a threat. This case does not affect the operation of things that affects a majority of America. It's a small town crime and should have stayed in local media. Instead it was used to push an agenda for 2012 elections.

Then this brings us back to the Sandusky case. This case was about a man with huge influence and in a high position of trust in college football in America. He breached that trust countless times and committed vile acts onto minors. This sort of scandal is something that should be covered on a national scale because of the sheer number of people that would have previously admired or knew of Sandusky. If Sandusky had not been convicted, without such widescale coverage he could go somewhere else in the states easily get good access to minors and repeat the same crimes and have them covered up. Presenting scandals like this on the media prevents the individual with power committing them again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to add some points now about the repercussions of being falsely accused of something widely seen as grossly immoral. Yes, it is something one should worry about. As pointed out in THIS THREAD:

Chronos wrote:
For some reason a lot of people like to cling to sentiments based on misconceptions, rather than truth. From a neurological stand point, it might be because those sentiments were their initial sentiments, and reflected a concept they found threatening, thus the misconception became truth in the more primitive part of the brain. Even intelligent individuals can have a difficult time ridding themselves of sentiments based on threatening concepts they know or not true.


It is very easy to accuse someone of a serious crime and have others take it seriously. The innocent individual(s) being accused however within a modern justice system have little to fear besides a damaged reputation within a community (for perhaps a set period or until they move away) if this were true for various reasons:
**There will need to be evidence and several witnesses. This will all need to match up.
**The accused would have an alibi that negates a lot of the witness testimonies such as proof of being at a set place, set time, or having others supervise their behaviour if this location is the crime scene.
**In the case where the house will need to be raided, there wouldn't be any evidence, and seizing equipment wouldn't be of any concern.
**Situations can be downplayed if they are more minor than the prosecution would like to believe.
**Previous record of good character and nature would also be brought into consideration (Michael Jackson held up very good because of this).
**EDIT: One last one. The ratio of people that are falsely accused then convicted against people who are definitely guilty and convicted is VERY LOW in Western societies. A lot of people that falsely accuse another person of rape or other sex crimes for example in turn end up in trouble with the law instead. There is recourse for the falsely accused / innocent.

So for honest, law abiding citizens I really don't see the worry in that argument at all.

EDIT: Some final points to counter the rhetoric from a previous post:
**None of us knew Sandusky on a personal level. The witnesses and victims did, however. And the Jury have to do their job regardless. Our knowledge of or relation to Sandusky is all but irrelevant to the outcome and nature of the case in discussion.
**It is not our choice as to how the case goes into the limelight or not. And some of the victims might be happy that this has been brought to media attention despite them also being put into the public eye with it.
**Other victims of the same crime would probably be very happy watching the outcome of such a case, and hope justice is served. It raises awareness.
**With such a case as this it does not glorify the crime, but condemn it. Wouldn't you think that's a good thing?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,059
Location: temperate zone

01 Aug 2012, 12:08 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
meems wrote:
Some of these situations really shouldn't be called "sex scandals" it sensationalizes abuse, it's really bizarre to see so many headlines "that involve the term "sex scandal" in reference to rape/molestation/abuse etc.

Just... a thought.
Well, that's what I was getting at, here. The sensationalization surrounding the Sandusky case was very offensive to me, for several reasons. This is one of them.

I just find it appalling that so many sanctimonious morons



so the limelight to be made into a public spectacle.


Not going to reprint the whole thing!

Dude!
Chill out!

Its not so much what you keep saying- it partially the baffling way you say it ( like when you berate us and the rest of public for 'obsessing' about a scandal when youre the only one in creation who ever talks about it!)

BUT

There is a good point buried in the depths of this latest long tirade.

Child molestation is a hard crime to prove when its true.
And its hard to disprove when it isnt true.

Both sides of equations are huge intractable problems.

There is a recurring phenomenon of local Day care centers around the USA suddently becoming the focus of witch hunts by the parents of the infant clients because of mass hysteria about nonexistent child abuse going in said centers. The allegations always turn out to be unfounded.

On the other hand- there is the Catholic Church!

I have not really been going out of my way to follow the Sandusky case, but it always struck me a smaller scale version of the Vatican pedophile priest coverup.

And not like the day care center syndrome that seems recur.

The venerated coach was not unlike a priest in how we was looked up to-and the whole mess had many of the ear marks of the same kind of deliberate coverups and emotional denial.

So it baffled me as to why you took up this newstory as a cause celeb.

But - you do have a point. In days of old if your neighbor had a grunge against you he could just tell the authorities that you indulge in witchcraft - and you were a goner.

Nowadays a nasty neighbor could accuse you child of moloestation with the same result.

But- in the recent past folks in high places have been getting away with sexually abusing children. And the world is only now getting around to taking that sorta thing seriously.

There are sex scandals, and then there are sex scandals.
Some dont deserve attention. Some do.



Last edited by naturalplastic on 01 Aug 2012, 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

01 Aug 2012, 12:13 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
There are sex scandals, and then there are sex scandals.
Some dont deserve attention. Some do.

This.