The Old Hack

What the sodding bollocks are you talking about? You made a general statement about Batman. There is no Batman nor any people like Batman anywhere in the whole strip. I could only assume that you were speaking in general terms. You spewed utter taurine manure and employed that as an 'argument', and I refuted it. I can go back to the entire root of your claim, that people like Batman somehow cause MORE crime. Let's forget that he is not real for a moment and look at the 'logic' this implies: First timeline: Criminal commits crime. Criminal is neither captured nor imprisoned. Criminal keeps committing crimes uninterrupted. Crime equals a value of X. Second timeline, a period of time equal to the first one: Criminal commits crime. Criminal is captured by Batman or people like him with access to billions as well as high tech weaponry and ninja training. Criminal goes to jail. Criminal eventually escapes from jail. Criminal resumes committing crime. Crime equals the same as above MINUS the crime the criminal would have committed if they had not spent time imprisoned. Or in other words, LESS crime. Somehow you made that into Batman causing MORE crime. I cannot for the life of me comprehend how this is supposed to work.

... ...my whole point is that this is NOT real. You CANNOT use Batman as a real world equivalency, which is what you did.

Even so. You are saying that Batman taking criminals alive causes more crime. That is idiotic on the face of it, but let's leave that for now. The REASON Batman takes criminals alive and the REASON the criminals keep escaping to do more crime is BECAUSE THE WRITERS SAY SO. This is not even mentioning that there are no people like Batman. If these exist, I must have missed them.

So is "The game says so."

Personally I would rather say that it is his scriptwriters who are doing it. After all, it is the script which says they get to escape and do it again.

Hence why I cite the value of a good education, as opposed to one merely teaching its students how to get high grades, which is what most school systems do these days. Critical thought is scary, but once you have embraced it, it stays with you.

There are so many reasons why this would not work, one of which is that the tests need not be applied in good faith. It would merely join gerrymandering as another tool in the toolbox of voter suppression. The only thing I personally see as working is better education for everybody.

The increasingly tribal nature of politics. By now the divisions are so large that certain politicians assumed that the voters would prefer a Republican child molester over any kind of Democrat. As it happened, they assumed wrong. Ah, I see. Unfortunately I understood you as playing the Devil's Advocate, which is... not a good look when it comes to sexual predators of any kind, let alone on minors. My apologies. Hm. It is possible that we could both be right. One harm is psychological, the other is social and cultural. Unfortunately that merely means that the subject is caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea as far as harm goes. Possibly it makes him wronger than wrong? (Yes, once you sent me to RationalWiki, I got caught in a clickmare there. Take heed, everybody else -- do NOT click the above link if you do not wish to share my dismal fate. ) I phrased myself badly here. I should have just said, 'was completely ignored.' My apologies. I greatly fear that that may be taken as a given. Me neither. But I am suspicious. That did not look right to me. Still, as you say, barring proof... Yeah. I do not actually object to him being dead. I do object to him not getting to pay for his crimes and to the people he associated with escaping from the consequences of theirs. They know too well what will happen if they speak up. Yes. *sigh* Statistics imply that something between five to seven percent of all rape charges are falsified. This is used as a convenient shield for the ninety-three remaining percent of reported perpetrators. And those are merely the reported cases. Given the unknown but most likely very large number of unreported cases, the actual percentage of liars is quite likely much smaller. 'Boy who cried wolf...'

See, I have to disagree. "Good" would have been just killing them and looting them. This way they get to live and the potion will wear off. Bad programming.

I still feel that the best form of magical storage ever would have to be Rincewind's Luggage. Admittedly it could be rather temperamental at times.

I didn't particularly intend to. Just thinking about how so many of these vile people were fine with running a child molester makes my blood boil. And besides, I do not intend to let them get away with the excuse of 'daft.' If your moral compass is so defective as to allow room for a child molester in one of the most important positions of your country's political leadership, you are not merely 'silly' or 'foolish'. You have failed on a fundamental level as a human being. I am sorry but it is not this simple. While this is a common belief and many feel that childhood survivors of sexual abuse should 'get over it', there are strong indicators that they as well as survivors of other forms of childhood abuse suffer lasting trauma from the experience. Just because it is 'culturally acceptable' to perpetuate a form of abuse does not mean that it is not harmful. We know better today than they did two thousand years ago, or at least we ought to. I agree. It is deeply contemptible. It should also be noted that Joseph and Mary were supposedly married. The fact that Moore and his victim(s?) were NOT married was lightly handwaved by his defenders. Certainly not. In this case, the judge and jury happened to be the voters. They made their decision and gave their judgment at the polls. The conveniently 'suicided' Jeffrey Epstein might have cast light on this. Unfortunately, the victims of his activities do not count as reliable witnesses according to our lovely culture of victims of sexual violence having to prove their innocence.

Oh come on, that was never evil! She put air holes in the box she carried them in!

I am so sorry.

Yeah? Well, so much for the sanctity of marriage, then. That's better than invoking the Immaculate Conception, right? Saying that it is OK to molest underage children as long as you are already married, or whatever that was supposed to mean? No matter how you turn it, it doesn't look good.

I think Dad was eighteen when it came out. Does that mean he has to go to jail?