Saturday, February 18, 2012

The Battle Continues: Greg Felton's Revenge

This was an attack piece posted in response to a news article of an ex-cop that got three years for raping a teenager that Mr. Scott had posted to illustrate the outrage at our justice system.

GF:


Anyone who thinks Jamie Scott is some sort of crimefighting saviour, should think carefully.

"Jamie Scott's plan holds that guy until he is corrected, rehabilitated and ready for re-integration into society."
A. Jamie Scott's "plan" amounts to round-the-clock surveillance for life. Not much thought needed here.
B. Jamie Scott has no criteria for determining if a person is "corrected, rehabilitated and ready for re-integration into society."
C. This shameful, manipulative plug for Jamie Scott plays on our revulsion at a too-light sentence to stampede us into supporting a fascist-style surveillance society.
D. Plenty of intelligent people can argue for stiffer sentences for serious crimes without eviscerating our civil liberties.
E. Anyone who believes that criminals reoffend with "the aid and consent" of the sitting government, commits a crime against honesty and reasoned language, and betrays the dangerous irresponsibility behind Jamie Scott's New Truth Order.

Just say no to the NTO!

Ex-Cop who raped teen boy gets 3 years (Let's compare plans...)
Date: 2012-02-13, 11:35PM PST

My Response:

A.When dealing with habitual dangerous offenders, what are our choices?  Lock them up permanently, or try to rehabilitate and release and observe. The current model is let them serve a sentence then sets them loose and warns the public, putting the onus ON the public. Hardly sounds like justice to me. 

We need to stop employing binary thinking when addressing problems as it leads to solutions that result in more problems.  Example; time based sentencing that doesn't allow for officials to determine whether or not an offender is rehabilitated upon release but instead releases them anyway and waits for them to reoffend.  The binary thinking is that x amount of time away from society with optional programs is enough to fix behaviour y.  This is a one size fits all solution with the only variables being the amount of time sentence, which once set, is fixed for that crime. 

B. Let us manage your expectations here. No one man is omniscient.  So your expectation that Mr. Scott himself must know and design the criteria is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It is enough to know that the system is broken and that others have the knowledge and experience to fix it. 

Mr. Scott would do what any good politician would do, consult the experts. Dr. James Gilligan is such an expert who could help determine such criteria. Also we could draw on other examples of rehabilitation system that work better than ours. 

C. Mr. Scott is illustrating that the current correctional system is broken.  You don't like the examples? That is on the system, not on Mr. Scott. 

D. Stiffer sentencing is not necessarily required, the right treatment is what is required.  Does it make sense to give stiffer sentences to pot growers than to murderers?  This is what Harper's crime omnibus bill accomplishes.  

You mention other intelligent people can argue for stiffer sentences without eviscerating civil liberties, so why are you not arguing that? Do you not consider yourself one of those "intelligent" people.  It is easy to argue against something, much harder to stand for something. 

E. Now who is spreading propaganda? "New Truth Order" did you come up with that all by yourself?  Ridiculous fear mongering. 

What do you call it when those holding the office of protecting the public know with reasonable certainty that someone is likely to reoffend and is unrepentant, but releases them anyway because their time has been served?  I call it negligence.  At least admit that the system needs to be fixed. 

GF (Mr. Broken Record):

Great! Jamie Scott declares our correctional system to be broken. Let's pin a medal on him! Better yet, let's not!
Just because something is "broken" doesn't mean Jamie Scott can call himself a repairman.

The dangers of Jamie Scott's New Truth Order are real, but his spokesmouth SE is determined to sabotage any criticism of them.

Here are my criticisms:
"Jamie Scott's plan holds that guy until he is corrected, rehabilitated and ready for re-integration into society."
A. Jamie Scott's "plan" amounts to round-the-clock surveillance for life. Not much thought needed here.
B. Jamie Scott has no criteria for determining if a person is "corrected, rehabilitated and ready for re-integration into society."
C. This shameful, manipulative plug for Jamie Scott plays on our revulsion at a too-light sentence to stampede us into supporting a fascist-style surveillance society.
D. Plenty of intelligent people can argue for stiffer sentences for serious crimes without eviscerating our civil liberties.
E. Anyone who believes that criminals reoffend with "the aid and consent" of the sitting government, commits a crime against honesty and reasoned language, and betrays the dangerous irresponsibility behind Jamie Scott's New Truth Order.

SE does little more than but regurgitate Scott's position and hurl unsophisticated insults. Also, notice how he ducks ANY question where he night have to explain Jamie Scott's qualifications or competence.
His entire defence amounts to:
Jamie Scott says the system is broken;
Jamie Scott says we should do such and such;
But Jamie Scott is not responsible for defending the specifics of his position. . .
Vote for Sideshow Bob, er,...Jamie Scott.

I'm starting to think SE really is a clown.

(Just say NO to Jamie's NTO)

This is where it gets dirty. I repond to him and he flags my response down. Pay careful attention to how he responds to my response:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date:2012-02-18 07:49:18
PostID:2857805720
Title:(politics) Re:re:re Ex-Cop who raped...

-Just because something is "broken" doesn't mean Jamie Scott can call himself a repairman.

Here is the thing, if you can point out for me ANY other politician who does not espouse that the root cause of crime is drugs and alcohol I think both Jamie and I would gladly put down our arms and rally round. 

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski in the book "America and the World" stated on page 2 that the root cause of most trouble is "poverty and injustice".  Yet Mayor Watts, Christy Clark, Stephen Harper operate on the premise that the  recipe for crime is drugs and alcohol and the solution is more police, more (private) prisons. 

If any other politician was thinking about these issues in terms of asking why people commit crimes and why people are violent and recognizing that drugs and alcohol abuse are symptoms and not causes we would still be having this argument but you would be calling Jamie and I someone else's front-man. 

-The dangers of Jamie Scott's New Truth Order are real, but his spokesmouth SE is determined to sabotage any criticism of them.

I've addressed your criticism.  All of them and in detail, you are just regurgitating the same objections over again.  This is akin to asking a question and then sticking your fingers in your ears whilst screaming "la-la-la" when anyone attempts to answer.  I have answered your points, if you have further questions then frame them based on my answers and we'll continue the discussion, but don't pretend they have gone unaddressed. 

-Also, notice how he ducks ANY question where he night have to explain Jamie Scott's qualifications or competence.

Let's be clear here for the record as there is nothing to hide like you are insinuating.  I don't address it because I do not know the full answer, only Jamie himself can answer it.  I can say that Jamie is not an economist, a doctor, a professor, an author, or a lawyer.  His job is not all that glamorous.  As to higher education at college or university I don't know.

Here is what I do know, he speaks to the issues that matter and he doesn't have an agenda. I have watched politicians with ivy league school educations and high powered careers screw the people over and I've argued with sycophants who possess multiple degrees in history and economics who have shown that they really don't know anything about either. 

I've yet, in my life, to meet anyone with the "qualifications" to lead, do so. 

GF's response after flagging my original:

You really are a joke, aren't you?
You think you and your idol Jamie Scott are special??
I GUARANTEE that other people have argued that drugs and alcohol are behind a lot of crime. Your baldly written response implies that these causes are behind ALL crime, since you do not qualify it in any way.

Give it up, SE! You're out of your depth and Jamie Scott is drowning in his own ego.

Jamie Scott's New Truth Order:

JUST SAY "NO" TO THE NTO.

My Note: He willfully misconstrues what I said when I clearly stated that drugs and alcohol are SYMPTOMS and not CAUSES.

He goes and does it again here:

GF initial post where he praises another poster who advocates permanent detention:

Very nice!
You distinguish between petty crime and serious crime. You also recognize the pervasive threat that the indiscriminate use of GPS tracking poses. I wonder why Jamie Scott and his frontman SE can't come up with such clarity. Here's an idea--why don't you tell Jamie Scott to go have a rest and that you'll run in his place.
Works for me!

re: One Stanley Cup Rioter (Two Systems)
Date: 2012-02-14, 1:56PM PST
Only the most dangerous offenders should be subject to GPS tracking surveillance. And then. . . maybe those types should not be let out at all.

My response that was also flagged:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date:2012-02-18 08:05:06
PostID:2857832674
Title:(politics) Re: Re: re: One Stanley Cup Rioter

Interesting, you support indefinite detention. 

I would ask you to point out where Mr. Scott supported the use of indiscriminate GPS tracking?  Also I suspect you are a raving Luddite. Perhaps you can comment on that. 

In my previous post I did distinguish between petty and serious crime, I think I did a better job of it than Harper (ie pot smokers vs murders). 

Although Jamie does not support the "indiscriminate" use of surveillance based on the crime, here is where I differ. 

I understand that you can't take a non-violent person and lock them up with violent people and expect them to come out "rehabilitated".  Your short-sightedness would have us make hardcore criminals where none existed before.  For petty crimes it would be infinitely better to release said criminals, under surveillance, to learn how to reintegrate into society.  Those that cannot or refuse to learn can then quickly be picked up and isolated as deemed necessary. 

People tend to view prisons as one would view union workers, where one accrues benefit depending on the time invested, the other is deemed "rehabilitated" based on time served. Little has to do with actual merit or maturity.   People should view prisons like schools where you get to progress to the next level only after you've demonstrated the mental and emotional maturity to progress. 

The problem with violent offenders as illustrated by Dr. James Gilligan (author of Violence), is that these people have grown up with no concept of self-worth therefore they project this outwards onto their environment and conclude that no one else has any worth either.  Their inability to love themselves prevents their empathy with others. This is ego-destroying and their last defense against total ego dissolution is holding on to their sense of honor and respect.  For being disrespected, for someone who has not been loved and nurtured their entire lives, is worse than death and they will kill to protect it/save face.   

Every violent act has, at it's root, a perceived disrespect.

So to incarcerate these men indefinitely with other violent men makes their state worse and leaves the problem unaddressed.

GF's Response after my original was flagged down:

"I would ask you to point out where Mr. Scott supported the use of indiscriminate GPS tracking? Also I suspect you are a raving Luddite. Perhaps you can comment on that. "
_______________
Oh, indeed I would:

To the charge that you and Jamie Scott support indiscriminate GPS tracking:

"Jamie Scott's plan holds that guy until he is corrected, re-habilitated and ready for re-integration into society. For the deteriorating deranged, like above, re-integration is not likely to be successful, so therefore it is reckless to release those individuals at all, regardless of time served, unless you have a 24-hour GPS tracking system in place, continent wide. His whereabouts should now be known, at all times, forever."

Anybody who puts "at all times, forever" into a policy thinks like a child and deserves to be treated like one.

So I'm a raving Luddite, am I?
This umpteenth lame attempt to insult me makes you look even more unsophisticated, uneducated and desperate, as if that were possible. By the way, do a bit of research on "King Ludd." He is not the fool that history has made him out to be. He led a principled attack on the mechanization that destroyed small-scale industries of England.

But what do the Luddites have to do with my attack on Jamie Scott's police-state mentality? Do you even READ your posts? Do you not TRY to make sense?
You CANNOT offer an intelligent defence of Jamie Scott. You duck questions, make excuses and spout irrelevent generica--You have NOTHING useful to say.

You're whipped!

ME:

Since this is my platform and no one can flag and twist my words here let me begin with a definition:

Indiscriminate:
1. Done at random or without careful judgment: "indiscriminate killing".

2. (of a person) Not using or exercising discrimination, thoughtless, haphazard

3. Not kept apart or divided, thrown together, jumbled. 

Tracking will be used on criminals out on parole, bail and criminals deemed to be a permanent risk.  We already have the concept of parole and bail and we register our sex offenders.  This technology is complementary to processes already in place.  In no way what you described above qualifies as indiscriminate. 

Unless of course you are making the argument that parole, bail and a sex offender registry are somehow indiscriminate?

What are you an English major?  The Grammar police?  The fact that you object to the phrase "at all times, forever" really reveals you for what you are. Petty.  And I think that qualifies for ad hominem, attacking the man and not the idea.  And his diction no less, a new low, even for you. 

You are a Luddite because you cannot understand the implications of technology much like Ned Ludd could not. He was only concerned with the short-term and immediate impact much like yourself. You cannot see the positive and beneficial applications of high technology. We've had this argument before and you've stated we should in fact look backwards (Greg Round 6 post) for technology and not forwards.  So yes, you are a Luddite. 

Umpteenth eh? Maybe. Lame, only to you and your anti-Zionist fans. 

Greg, I read your posts with painstaking caution AND compose my replies with due care. Of course I wonder why I bother because when I refute you, you resort to the same tactics, flag and retort when the other party has been silenced by your mob.

You can't silence me here though. And to be fair I won't silence you if you choose to respond here, because I'm not you.  I'm open to being wrong if I learn something from it. 

I think, in the final analysis, the reason that you strive so hard to refute me is because you know that if I am allowed a platform people might see the sense in what I am writing about. 

If I had as you say "nothing" useful to say, then why would you spend so much time trying to silence me?  It would seem that the best medicine would be to ignore me and hope I go away. 

So who is whipped?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

UMMM? GF If anyone is ducking questions it is you. As for Jamie Scott promoting a police state, I don't see it in his comments or even in SE's comments. You GF to me sound like a sad angry man who cannot handle if people don't swallow what he is offering hook line and sinker. Ad Hominem much?