Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by logician magician
Sounds like the government is really trying to take away our freedom and privacy!

Yeah, that's right. Little by little without too many people watching, noticing or resisting.

Pick the easy targets and few people will care. Most people would not defend the rights of a released kiddy-perve.

Aren't you the same guy who said that pets were the first step? Well, you were WRONG! The first step was whales, lol. You didn't even notice it did you?!

That's right! They weren't trying to study whales AT ALL! They were subtly conditioning the population by airing whale tracking on the discovery channel! Even the ANTS! You remember them tracking ants and elephants too, right? Yeah, after that it was birds. Then cars via GPS! Afterward, it was PETS! Then BOXES! After that it was sexual offenders!

Haha. You are crazy if you think that is different steps of the same plan. It's simply the growth of a useful technology that serves many purposes. Only in your mind does it NECESSARILY converge into full control and slavery.

At least the people in California might be able to track sexual offenders and their own children at the same time and they'll know if they come around one another.

The only sycophants in this thread are the people who agree with the government and think that it's a good idea to tag human beings like sheep or cattle.

Didn't you know that only aliens are allowed to capture-tag-release humans with their implants?!?!

The least of your worries should be directed at the government. You should be more concerned about how the general population will take advantage of this technology for their own selfish/personal gain, just like they do with

Guns
Knives
Explosives
Cars
Phones
Computers
Etc... Etc...

You... you are borderline "The government has camera's in my TV so I cover it with a blanket" because you're always looking for a reason to blame the government and if you can't find a reason you make one up that is supposed to happen in the future.

(how pathetic is that? You're complaining about the future..)

Originally posted by logician magician
The least of your worries should be directed at the government.

That statement is wrong on so many different levels.

Governments decide what is law and what will be law. Governments will decide if my child or me will one day need to have a GPS wristlocator for our 'safety', after the success of the sex-preadator GPS wristlocators. Governments will also decide, that if I am not wearing one of them, then my door might be kicked in at 2am by a SWAT team. Obviously, by choosing not to wear a GPS wristlocator, I will be about to do something criminal. It's better to kick my door in, before I go out on the street while I am 'off the grid'.

The government works against the people. No one has a birthright to control me. No one has elected power to control me. If more people resisted being controlled, like slaves, then we would be a step closer to a peaceful world.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by logician magician
The least of your worries should be directed at the government.

That statement is wrong on so many different levels.

Governments decide what is law and what will be law.

Oh, I see what you're doing. You're treating a government like a single megalithic entity. That is beyond absurd and doesn't at all agree with the modular and interactive framework of democratic governments. Quit pretending that the United States is a monarchy where "The Government" is the king. The Government didn't decide for this law to pass - legislatures created the proposal (for the people) and put it in the hands of the people to make it law or not.

Governments will decide if my child or me will one day need to have a GPS wristlocator for our 'safety', after the success of the sex-preadator GPS wristlocators. Governments will also decide, that if I am not wearing one of them, then my door might be kicked in at 2am by a SWAT team. Obviously, by choosing not to wear a GPS wristlocator, I will be about to do something criminal. It's better to kick my door in, before I go out on the street while I am 'off the grid'.

There you go again. I think you've invented a new logical fallacy: appeal to the future. lol.

You have a wonderful outlook on life: absolutely pessimistic.

The government works against the people. No one has a birthright to control me. No one has elected power to control me. If more people resisted being controlled, like slaves, then we would be a step closer to a peaceful world.

You really need to gain some insight into the United States legal system.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by kawz1
This is an interesting article. I personally feel that sex offenders are scum, but does this violate their right to privacy?

It is an invasion of privacy!

If the sex offender has been released from prison, then that means the state feels that they are no longer a danger to society!

[edit on 13-1-2009 by tezzajw]

As far as child sex offenders, we're not talking about petty thieves here who stole a pack of gum - we're talking about men and women who stalked, tortured and traumatized little children for their own sickening pleasure. These are people who are ruining entire lives just so they can fulfill their own perversions and you have the AUDACITY to scream that this is a violation of THEIR PRIVACY when you should be screaming about the right of the children who's privacy of their BODIES was violated!

Once you're a child sex offender in this country, you go into a public database accessible by anyone, including the offender's current address, what they were charged with and their age and a photo. It's a scarlet letter that sticks for life, as well it should, because psychologists say it's a perversion that never truly goes away.

If the vast majority of cases show that child sex offenders have a high rate of repeat offenses then obviously officials want to know if they are violating the terms of their parole by coming within x number of feet from a playground or schoolyard or from a restrained area.

I say to hell with their right to privacy versus the safety of my child!

[edit on 24-2-2009 by sos37]

Originally posted by sos37
and you have the AUDACITY to scream that this is a violation of THEIR PRIVACY when you should be screaming about the right of the children who's privacy of their BODIES was violated!

If some sex offenders are a continuous danger to society, then they shouldn't be released into society.

If other sex offenders are not likely to pose any further danger to society, then they can be released.

Tagging people like animals is an abuse of rights.

I say to hell with their right to privacy versus the safety of my child!

There's a distinction to be made with the term 'sex offenders'. It's terrible terminology and completely pointless. A couple of 18 year olds getting caught having sex on a beach at night would be sex offenders, right? Should they be labelled the same way as child molesters - no way.

Again, if a child molester poses a continuous danger to society, then they shouldn't be released back into society. Logic dictates that anyone released back into society must be fit to live amongst society, therefore, they shouldn't require locator tags.