http://freddwzz.blogspot.com/2012/04/prologue-to-recent-scandal-that.html
"Charged for an offence that they were probably not aware of
I am concerned about the decision taken by the public prosecutor to charge the 44 men for having commercial sex with the the under-aged girl.
I am not defending the actions of these men. Rather, I am questioning the decision to charge them, based on the evidence that was available. According to what I read in the papers, these men were enticed by an online website that showed the girl to be 18 years old. If she was below 18 years, she must have deliberately lied about her age. Surely, she is the bigger culprit?
Let me give you this analogy. I bought a piece of cake and gave it to my friend. My friend died from food poisoning after eating the cake. I was not aware about the ingredients in the cake. Should I be charged for homicide, being the person who delivered the cake? Was I responsible to check that the cake was fit for consumption, when I had no reason to suspect otherwise?
For a person to be charged for a crime, there must be evidence that he knew of the crime or had to duty to find out. Did the police had grounds to know that the 44 men knew that the prostitute was below the legal age? If they had the duty to find out, how could it be done? Quite likely, the prostitute would not want to show her real name by producing the identity card.
Did the police ask each of the 44 men for their side of the story? Was there any reason to reject their excuse that they did not know her real age? Should these people be let off with a warning? Could they pay a penalty without being charged in court and without admission of guilt?
In Singapore, a person is condemned by public opinion when they are charged in court, regardless of whether they are eventually convicted. We are destroying the reputation and careers of 44 people by taking this drastic action. Is this the type of outcome that is desirable for the future of Singapore?
I wish to repeat that I am not condoning the action of these 44 men and that action should be taken to protect our under-aged girls. But this is probably a bad case to act on. And it may be unjust to the people who are involved.
I hope that the police and public prosecutor will review this matter and find a better solution - before more people and their families are harmed unnecessarily and excessively.
Tan Kin Lian"
That analogy he has given us, is fkin dumb.
No one would offer a poisonous cake to a friend unless you want him dead, and all these men who patronize this 17yo whore service definitely has a fetish for young cunts, so it would make perfect sense psychologically to be even more arouse by a 17yo but it would not make sense psychologically when you know the cake is poisonous and and you still offer it to your friend, unless you want him dead or you're fkin dumb.
You are the stupid one. Don't you understand what an analogy means?!
ReplyDeleteyes i know what it means, and his analogy is fkin dumb and only relates to the issue at a superficial level, think deeper you nitwit.
ReplyDeleteHis analogy is sound. He's only trying to say that a person shouldn't be charged when he did not have the intention nor the information.
ReplyDeleteIf the website had clearly stated that she's 17yo, you think they will still visit? it's rationality vs lust. many of them are high fliers who have a lot to lose if exposed. they would likely think otherwise (think rationally) before engaging in an illegal activity.
It's sound only on the surface, he didn't think psychologically.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you are already proven to have no credibility.
The Source - "http://www.tnp.sg/content/forget-your-age-lets-go-your-flat-now-sex"
Goodbye retard.
What makes you think that that guy in the TNP article had as much to lose as the people involved in the high profile case? It's also questionable what the 'impression that she could be under 18' is.
ReplyDeleteAlso, not all of the 'Anonymous' people are the same person. The earlier one is not the same as me.
I'm trying to have a logical debate (which you obviously can't handle) and you pull up a single case and say that it's 'proof' that I have no credibility.
You really seem to enjoy picking a fight online. Keep up this attitude and this joke of a blog will never have any readers. Goodbye.
Here you go..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sammyboyforum.com/showthread.php?t=281581
She claimed "i'm legal. else i wouldn't dare to try."
Your whole 'proof' is invalid. Thank you.
Men, if you haven't realize the majority men in the history of humanity act on impulse. And look at our 17yo whore, does she look 18? she definitely can give the impression to be under 18. Rich people have more to lose than poor people? Really? They have the asset to pay the fines, run and hide overseas for a few years, poor people either go straight to jail or use up their savings to pay the fine and suffer in shame stuck in our country.
ReplyDeleteWell, I didn't even watch the TNP video, medias are all bullcrap, the tagline just suit my cause and it seem that you need a visual interpretation to understand the psychological fact. Seems like it didn't help. Why do people keep gambling when they're losing, anywhere near rational? Emotion dominates Rationality.
Well, if you have the logic, you would have already realize that psychology is an important aspect, and there is absolutely nothing sane with Tan Kin Lian's analogy. No i just enjoy humiliating retard.
Yea, she claimed and like you have said the high fliers have a lot to lose, so wouldn't you generally expect that they would be extra rational, wouldn't they have made sure? They definitely chose lust over rationality. And I assume the high fliers to have reasonably educated too, would you not?
So..
Delete1) You claim that ALL men are irrational.
2) You use a source to refute me that you don't even believe. Now that it's proven wrong you just dismiss it as 'bullshit'. Well, that just makes your viewpoint as bullshit as the news source. I don't require a visual interpretation. I require something much more valuable - getting concrete sources to support my view. you need to learn that skill.
3) You enjoy calling people 'retard' when you can't think straight yourself.
4) His analogy is simply to demonstrate that you can't charge a person when he didn't have intention or he had incomplete information. There is nothing wrong with that. The rest of his argument is perfectly sound.
5) 'Emotion dominates rationality'. This is a whole grey area that we can debate about for the whole day. You're just assuming that lust will dominate in all situations. Think again. If they were told that she was underage, I would bet that most of them would have backed off. Instead, they deceived by both the girl and the 'escort agency'. Deception. The lawyer has a good case.
Stop being so angsty and calling everyone a retard. Peace out.
And please refrain from linking that abominable forum on my blog. It's vile, people visit a forum full of pimps, why would you even visit that forum?
ReplyDeletebecause that's where the TNP reporters posted their post, dumbass.
Delete1) I'm assuming that all men are all irrational like how your hero TKL assumed that all men are rational. And my assumption made more sense psychologically.
ReplyDelete2) So where is your concrete source? TKL assumption?
3) I don't just enjoy calling any people retard, i only call retard as retard.
4) No intention? The fact that they're looking for an 18yo teen service should be enough for intention. Incomplete information? Like you've said they're high fliers, and the fact that they're old seems to be enough of an argument that they should have some knowledge of our twisted law. And to trust a pimp? Seriously?
5) And aren't you in turn just assuming that they would be more rational? Seems like you're ignoring "high fliers" issue you've brought up.
So again i ask, would a high flier with reasonable education and life experience put his reputation at risk by trusting the a pimping agency? Wouldn't they have the rationality of checking or asking her directly when they met up? I would say when they saw her, rationality would've disappeared.
Seems like you're getting heated up now, nice, I like.
ReplyDeleteSo what if the TNP reporters posted their post their? doesn't mean you gotta link it, retard. Unlike you i have no need for visual interpretation.
And the rest of his argument
ReplyDeleteTKL - "For a person to be charged for a crime, there must be evidence that he knew of the crime or had the duty to find out."
So is he suggesting that the men have no duty to check? Isn't it a risk, would a rational high flier, not check? Now TKL is suggesting that they're irrational.
TKL- "Quite likely, the prostitute would not want to show her real name by producing the identity card."
Well, quite likely something is fishy, would a rational high flier still have her service, if they're rational? Again TKL suggesting that they're irrational.
So even the context after his analogy, is fkin stupid.
Bye retard.
Fred Wz, you have NO respect at all for the commenters. Anyone that doesn't see the same point as you is considered a "retard". In this case, it makes you a "retard" as well. Enjoy your little well, frog.
ReplyDeletehttp://freddwzz.blogspot.com/2012/04/using-word-retard.html I don't see the need to respect individuals that have a choice and still act like they have some mental defect.
DeleteI think Fred is actually a woman in disguise HA! Fred don't even freaking understand a simple analogy like that, got all kind of twisted ideas, reply like she is on PMS!
ReplyDeleteIts a simple analogy that is why its fking dumb, when its not a case you can refute with simple rationality, impulse and motivation must be factored in.
Delete