The media has been reporting many cases in Florida of teachers sexually exploiting students as of late. Fixed (unless somehow Florida has suddenly become a haven for child rapists…you never know). I’m firmly of the belief that the pedophilia scare going on right now is a result of increased media coverage, not increased sexual crimes against children. People are sheep. They panic because other people are panicking. We perceive the world through the media. When we see increased reporting of crime in the media, we immediately assume that crime is on the rise. It’s an automatic intuitive connection, and completely and utterly irrational.
Of course, is the response “justified,” or less ambiguously, “beneficial”? That’s a matter of debate.
Ever since those To Catch a Predator segments aired, the American public has had a mixed fear and obsession with pedophiles. I totally understand it’s a parent’s natural reaction to protect their children - it’s an admirable and beautiful thing when adults sacrifice their well being for that of children - but that emotion also tends to blind reasoning and common sense… and it’s an easy “carrot” for politicians and media to use in their crusade for ratings and votes.
Indeed. It’s much easier to motivate someone from fear. The more you can bloat that fear out of proportion, the more you are able to exploit it. Too bad something like that isn’t being used more effectively to push back censorship.
IIRC, most statistics show that it’s the PARENTS who are most likely to abuse a child, sexually or otherwise.
And yet mainstream culture tends to lean towards giving MORE rights to parents and complaining that no one should be able to tell you what to do with your own kid…
Mmm. Yeah, I could be overstating, I get conflicting results when I search. Some statistics say that over half is parents-or-stepparents, but most places posting stats lump parents together with other authority figures. (And of course, many places talking about abuse are also talking about physical non-sexual abuse.)
What “social betrayal” isn’t like that? Rape. Murder. Theft. They all have a higher percentage of happening with someone you know, rather than some random total stranger.
Naturally that doesn’t win ratings… so let’s air stories of people getting screwed over by total strangers. People rather fear the boogieman than the obvious truth in front of them, because they don’t like what the truth tells them.
Rape and murder, sure. But theft? One doesn’t usually steal something for the feeling of control or revenge. One steals to get something one wouldn’t otherwise have (or to sell it and buy that something). I wouldn’t consider theft falling in the “social betrayal” category, and for that reason, I wouldn’t predict a similar pattern. It’s much easier conscience-wise to steal from a stranger than to steal from someone you know. Stealing is something a normal person might very well do if they knew they could get away with it (or if the need was great enough), and a normal person has a conscience. On the other hand, someone that murders or rapes others is likely psychotic. Conscience is less of a factor and a desire for revenge (against someone they know) is a more likely motivation.
I’m sorry, but if someone steals my car, I’m going to be very upset. I’ll be SERIOUSLY OMG WTF upset (and that’s an understatement) if someone stole my bank account. Just because “it’s only money” doesn’t mean it’s not going to leave a tremendous impact – ESPECIALLY in a world ran by capitalism and consumerism. Someone I know lost his entire life savings, because his own brother stole it from him. He is NOT going to get that money back… and it was a LOT of money. He should be retired, but continues working at the ripe age of 60 - and will probably do so till the day he dies - because he has nothing thanks to his brother. Like rape or murder: it has profoundly destroyed how he lives his life.
You don’t rape people. You don’t murder people. You don’t steal from people. I see nothing wrong with those laws.
Conscience is much more flexible than you think. The Milgram experiment demonstrated that. Most of the time, theft from someone you know represents a crime of opportunity: you need the money, you know where you can get it, the niceties of it “being unethical” are less important. After all, it’s always better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission, even if it IS from that voice in the back of your head saying you shouldn’t.
Your faith in civilization is … I suppose a good thing, really. But it is misplaced. Aside from serial killers or rapists (who really ARE just fucked up, like, for real), most rapists and murderers aren’t inhuman at all. They’re otherwise totally normal people. Just like everybody else. That’s what’s most disturbing.
Agreed. Most rapists and murderers didn’t plan it to be rape or murder. It was a relationship that was falling apart or just wasn’t there to begin with… or a sudden act of anger and rash thinking to a stressful situation. It doesn’t change the core matter, that one person has irrevocably caused harm on another.
The criminality of theft is no different. Just like sexual offenses and murderous intent, it has degrees and magnitudes, but is no less crippling to an individual or individuals when taken to the extremes. Especially in poor nations, where theft is sometimes seen a greater crime than rape or even murder, because material assets are so hard to acquire and life itself is “cheap” to replace.
According to this article, general theft crimes are often committed by someone close to the victim. Identity theft crimes on the other hand, are usually committed by a stranger. That honestly surprises me. If anything, I’d have thought the reverse.
It’s easier to steal from people you know. You’re much more likely to have access and to know what’s valuable and how to get at it. You know whether they lock their doors. You know whether they’re out of town.
IIRC, most theft from shops is not random shoplifters but employees. They know where the valuables are, and they’re often pissed off at their workplace.
Yeah, I too kind of figured that general theft is committed by a known person. Like papillon, the first thing I thought of was theft in the workplace. Workplace theft is so common that a large percentage of people do it without even realizing that what they are doing is theft. It may be extremely petty theft most of the time, but it is still theft.
Okay, I just heard a rumor concerning credit cards on this subject, so I can’t vouch for it’s validity, but here’s the post I heard it from:
"… has anyone heard any rumors about credit cards?
I heard it from people who I work with, but it’s not on any news yet…
The credit card companies will supposedly start monitoring store transactions for items containing malicious keywords like rape and such, and eventually decline them. Even requesting the vendor to remove the option of credit card transaction for any items that matches that criteria. This was said in an email to a franchise that offers a store credit card; with protection of the credit card company’s brand image as the reason.
If this is really happening… it’s no longer only about games, feminism, or Japan."
Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen? No. There’s a reason why some drug dealers can take Visa and Mastercard.
Sometimes when you perform a credit card transaction, it’s between two second parties - not a direct action between the bank and store/site. Case in point: let’s say I get a monthly subscription with a really nasty porn site. That porn site is never seen by my bank. Instead CCBill collects the info for the porn company (that’s their middle man). The bank is getting their work performed by SecureStar (that’s their middle man). Therefore it’s a transaction between SecureStar and CCBill… CCBill doesn’t tell SecureStar it’s a porn site, and SecureStar doesn’t tell CCBill it’s a bank. They keep their clients confidential, because neither the porn site or the bank want random strangers getting access to their various accounts and routing processes (not to mention the porn site doesn’t want to be known as a porn site).
Now could SecureStar and CCBill tell on each other? Sure. But that probably be a breach of contract, and quite frankly, total opposite of why they exist and make business (client confidentiality). That’s why my credit card statement doesn’t say: Barely Legal Twincest on it, and instead states CCBILL197712162009. The bank has no idea what I bought… just who handled the money transfer. Thus how credit card scams and fraud occur so commonly. Also even when a company does do direct credit card transactions, they don’t state what was purchased in the transaction code. For example Amazon.com uses AMAZON#########. Other companies even have an alias that doesn’t match their name (Microsoft does this). Others, like Godaddy and Gamestop, use store name and then the phone number with a state code. Basically the bank and credit card company generally have no idea you actually bought, because they DON’T HAVE A RIGHT to know what you bought. 8)
If they want to change that, it’s going to upset a lot of powerful business people.
Even if it were true, it’s not like it’d change anything, other than set a nasty precedent for invasion of privacy. The sex industry would just respond by changing the titles to make them more benign sounding. Problem solved.
