No, I'm not.Zombie_Affair wrote:
We are both doing the same thing, avoiding the context of eachother's posts lol.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Where did I say they don't seek help?Zombie_Affair wrote:
No they don't. They generally seek help. People of the Community are so against their actions they refuse to help. Employers won't give them jobs because they don't want a registered sex offender working for them.
I said they don't get it.Where did I say any of that?Zombie_Affair wrote:
You're also saying, that performing illegal actions, like raping a minor, has nothing to do with the mental state of mind. You think they want to do it? Most of them had bad upbringings and can't help it. That's why they get help. But of course they get locked up as well, they broke the law.Except that you haven't pointed out any discrepancies.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Never said you were wrong at all. I agree mostly with what you have been saying. I'm just pointing out minor descrepincies.
Further, your comment that you'd protect your kids from your family ignores the context: the comment was made in relation to the uselessness of a register.
Poll
Should law offenders be put on a register like sex offenders?
| Yes | 34% | 34% - 13 | ||||
| No | 47% | 47% - 18 | ||||
| Other (State Opinion) | 18% | 18% - 7 | ||||
| Total: 38 | ||||||
I don't know what to say back. Whether you agree or not, we are doing the same thing, our arguments are only going to go around and around.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, I'm not.Zombie_Affair wrote:
We are both doing the same thing, avoiding the context of eachother's posts lol.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Where did I say they don't seek help?Zombie_Affair wrote:
No they don't. They generally seek help. People of the Community are so against their actions they refuse to help. Employers won't give them jobs because they don't want a registered sex offender working for them.
I said they don't get it.Where did I say any of that?Zombie_Affair wrote:
You're also saying, that performing illegal actions, like raping a minor, has nothing to do with the mental state of mind. You think they want to do it? Most of them had bad upbringings and can't help it. That's why they get help. But of course they get locked up as well, they broke the law.
Except that you haven't pointed out any discrepancies.
Further, your comment that you'd protect your kids from your family ignores the context: the comment was made in relation to the uselessness of a register.
No, my responses are based on you comments. You said they get help, I said they don't, you said of course they seek it. You either didn't read or didn't understand what I said. This has happened with several of the arguments. Everything I've said has been a logical response to what you've said. The same cannot be said of you.
Your taking what you think is logical and saying everyone else is wrong. You're not open minded enough for me to continue an argument. I simply have no response, I've said what I wanted to say.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, my responses are based on you comments. You said they get help, I said they don't, you said of course they seek it. You either didn't read or didn't understand what I said. This has happened with several of the arguments. Everything I've said has been a logical response to what you've said. The same cannot be said of you.
Agree with both of you...and 3 dui's is already too much....usmarine2 wrote:
well, I would say only felonies, but i think people who have had more the three DUI's should be on there also.SpIk3y wrote:
Only serious crimes, like armed burglary or murder. Putting someone in a registry for something like vandalism is silly.
No, I'm saying unless you provide me with a substantive reason, I'll continue to think what I think. As an example:Zombie_Affair wrote:
Your taking what you think is logical and saying everyone else is wrong. You're not open minded enough for me to continue an argument. I simply have no response, I've said what I wanted to say.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, my responses are based on you comments. You said they get help, I said they don't, you said of course they seek it. You either didn't read or didn't understand what I said. This has happened with several of the arguments. Everything I've said has been a logical response to what you've said. The same cannot be said of you.
You say: I can see the reasoning behind a list of offenders because I want to protect my children. This is has no substance because you fail to demonstrate the list will help protect your children.
You could say: I can see the reasoning behind a list of offenders because it allows me to protect my children against those who reoffend. Of course, I've already proven this statement wrong on the assumption that it's what you meant, but it at least has some logical reasoning to it.
I've pointed out several times (although earlier in this thread).. Maybe look at the first few pages.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, I'm saying unless you provide me with a substantive reason, I'll continue to think what I think. As an example:Zombie_Affair wrote:
Your taking what you think is logical and saying everyone else is wrong. You're not open minded enough for me to continue an argument. I simply have no response, I've said what I wanted to say.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, my responses are based on you comments. You said they get help, I said they don't, you said of course they seek it. You either didn't read or didn't understand what I said. This has happened with several of the arguments. Everything I've said has been a logical response to what you've said. The same cannot be said of you.
You say: I can see the reasoning behind a list of offenders because I want to protect my children. This is has no substance because you fail to demonstrate the list will help protect your children.
You could say: I can see the reasoning behind a list of offenders because it allows me to protect my children against those who reoffend. Of course, I've already proven this statement wrong on the assumption that it's what you meant, but it at least has some logical reasoning to it.
My answer would depend very much on what the register would be used for and who would have access to it.
The UK has a national database of crimes committed, driving offences etc. Also a separate database for civil actions, bankruptcies.
Only the Police can access the criminal one and only give out the information in certain circumstances.
All offences remain on it indefinitely, but are regarded as spent after a certain period of time. The period depends on the seriousness of the crime.
Its possible to request your record from them, eg to to supply for a job application, but if a conviction is spent it will not be shown on the record.
The UK has a national database of crimes committed, driving offences etc. Also a separate database for civil actions, bankruptcies.
Only the Police can access the criminal one and only give out the information in certain circumstances.
All offences remain on it indefinitely, but are regarded as spent after a certain period of time. The period depends on the seriousness of the crime.
Its possible to request your record from them, eg to to supply for a job application, but if a conviction is spent it will not be shown on the record.
Fuck Israel
I'm not going to dig through the thread to find your answers for you.Zombie_Affair wrote:
I've pointed out several times (although earlier in this thread).. Maybe look at the first few pages.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, I'm saying unless you provide me with a substantive reason, I'll continue to think what I think. As an example:Zombie_Affair wrote:
Your taking what you think is logical and saying everyone else is wrong. You're not open minded enough for me to continue an argument. I simply have no response, I've said what I wanted to say.
You say: I can see the reasoning behind a list of offenders because I want to protect my children. This is has no substance because you fail to demonstrate the list will help protect your children.
You could say: I can see the reasoning behind a list of offenders because it allows me to protect my children against those who reoffend. Of course, I've already proven this statement wrong on the assumption that it's what you meant, but it at least has some logical reasoning to it.
One too may zombies, I am getting confused.
I got confused quoting half the time. Kept putting his name in my quotes and vice versa.usmarine2 wrote:
One too may zombies, I am getting confused.
So was I when he first started posting. Totally "I DID NOT SAY THA............oh, right, carry on".usmarine2 wrote:
One too may zombies, I am getting confused.
I did the exact same thing. Wouldn't be suprised if people got us confused.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So was I when he first started posting. Totally "I DID NOT SAY THA............oh, right, carry on".usmarine2 wrote:
One too may zombies, I am getting confused.