3 ms·

A bit of a nitpick, but >I would never assume positive intent and allow my daughter to be alone with a registered sex offender I don't know, prehaps that's tr

by ue_ 9y ago

A bit of a nitpick, but >I would never assume positive intent and allow my daughter to be alone with a registered sex offender I don't know, prehaps that's true in the case where one doesn't know what the sex offender has done (i.e what crime got them onto that list), but it's not sufficient in general. Although most people on the list are there for good reasons, there are not-good reasons too, such as urinating in a public park at night, having a lewd picture of your 17 year old girlfriend/boyfriend on your phone, and in some countries possessing/writing certain pornographic comics or stories. So I think it is too dismissive, similar to how it is also dimissive to say the same thing about an ex-convict.

Mz 9y ago
Substitute "known child molester" for "registered sex offender" and see how you feel about that statement. I am sure he also would not want to leave his child with a child molester who was not yet known to be a child molester, but most people have no idea how to effectively screen out such people. So, they use metrics like registered sex offender. While I agree that most parents use crappy rubrics for deciding whom to entrust their kids with, I am not really comfortable with arguing in favor of trying to do some kind of justice for some edge case adult over a parent looking out for the welfare of their own child. The parent has a duty to their child. They do not have a similar duty to some guy who took a leak in the park, yet their dream job is babysitting. Depriving public urinators of some right to become a babysitter seems a rather small thing in the name of protecting our children from possible child rape. The place to fight this battle for justice is with the system that designates public urinators et al as sex offenders, not with parents trying to decide whom to leave their kids with.

by ue_ 9y ago

Mz 9y ago

Substitute "known child molester" for "registered sex offender" and see how you feel about that statement. I am sure he also would not want to leave his child with a child molester who was not yet known to be a child molester, but most people have no idea how to effectively screen out such people. So, they use metrics like registered sex offender. While I agree that most parents use crappy rubrics for deciding whom to entrust their kids with, I am not really comfortable with arguing in favor of trying to do some kind of justice for some edge case adult over a parent looking out for the welfare of their own child. The parent has a duty to their child. They do not have a similar duty to some guy who took a leak in the park, yet their dream job is babysitting. Depriving public urinators of some right to become a babysitter seems a rather small thing in the name of protecting our children from possible child rape. The place to fight this battle for justice is with the system that designates public urinators et al as sex offenders, not with parents trying to decide whom to leave their kids with.