Caught Red Handed

[ban-all-sheds]

two threads the same is abit confusing! well I'd throw my hat in the ring with ban-all-sheds

Thanks.

Hope you don't mind if people try to stamp on it

but it upsets me to see the way your attacking david and julie,

Well, I'm sorry for that, but I can't help thinking that Julie's story just doesn't ring true.

if you attack anyone for their opinions and they quit the forum you've cut communications and what's the point in that.

As I've said elsewhere, there comes a point where "opinions" cannot be separated from the person, and can't be attacked without attacking the person.

I don't want anyone to leave the forum because they've been attacked, unless they are only here to say one thing, and I've never said that I want to curb anybody's "right" to freedom of speech, just that I think it only fair that if they come here spouting unpleasant views they should be criticised for being unpleasant.

If the weight of public opinion is such that having made a post it attracts such a barrage of criticism that a person thinks "blimey - this isn't popular - I'd better keep quiet about that" then there's not much anyone can do about that, and I don't think it would be a good reason to hold off on the criticism.

someone? puts a thing at the bottom of their posts "be excellent to each other" we should take a leaf out of his book.

Here are two other apposite ones:

"Freedom of speech means the freedom to tell people things they don't want to hear"

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"

 

[kendor]

Ironic that those that advocate the law of the jungle are so against it's way of life. you either live in a civilised society or you don't, those that step over the line of what's called the boundaries to a civilised society should be dealt with by those civilised rules and not by the baying hounds out for blood.
human nature what it is, means that these dark sides are in us all,most can suppress these urges in order to live by the rules of civilisation, some give in to these urges, that doesn't mean the only solution is to eradicate those that don't conform, rather try to condition them or program them the same as we "normal" ones have been.
if we were all animals in the jungle then it wouldn't be a case of what's acceptable but it would be a way of life and accepted.
The old and well used argument to this is what if it was a member of your family? In the past when this subject has come up I have answered I dont know as i really don't know if i will think rationally or allow my real human nature to expose itself, perhaps i would be an animal protecting it's young?
I just don't know but what i do know is society conditions you to adhere to certain constraints and if you choose to abide by these then you conform.
this can take great willpower for some ,others it comes as second nature.
The reason "do gooders" as they are misunderstandedly labelled want to help these individuals is because the rules are forced on us from birth whether right or wrong (another debatable argument) and recognising this help towards putting these people back on the right track is needed rather than the easy route of extermination which is after all just thinking as badly as the offender.

 

[Softus]

kendor, I don't normally agree with what you write, but I can't fault this posting

 

[Slogger]

Ironic that those that advocate the law of the jungle are so against it's way of life. you either live in a civilised society or you don't, those that step over the line of what's called the boundaries to a civilised society should be dealt with by those civilised rules and not by the baying hounds out for blood.
human nature what it is, means that these dark sides are in us all,most can suppress these urges in order to live by the rules of civilisation, some give in to these urges, that doesn't mean the only solution is to eradicate those that don't conform, rather try to condition them or program them the same as we "normal" ones have been.
if we were all animals in the jungle then it wouldn't be a case of what's acceptable but it would be a way of life and accepted.
The old and well used argument to this is what if it was a member of your family? In the past when this subject has come up I have answered I dont know as i really don't know if i will think rationally or allow my real human nature to expose itself, perhaps i would be an animal protecting it's young?
I just don't know but what i do know is society conditions you to adhere to certain constraints and if you choose to abide by these then you conform.
this can take great willpower for some ,others it comes as second nature.
The reason "do gooders" as they are misunderstandedly labelled want to help these individuals is because the rules are forced on us from birth whether right or wrong (another debatable argument) and recognising this help towards putting these people back on the right track is needed rather than the easy route of extermination which is after all just thinking as badly as the offender.

what a load of rubbish

best get rid of the reoffending scum they will never stop doing what they do and you know it as you can look at the statistics

shame on your liberal way of thinking thats the losing path exterminate the vermin thats the winning way

WHO CARES WINS ( cant say many of you do )

 

[markie]

Kendor so what your saying is society should forgive child murders and help them to get on the right track. the only place they need to go is 6 feet under, petty crime yes, killers no there on place in a civilised society for them, once a killer always a killer, thats the saying. if a shark/dog/lion ect, bite/kill anybody they get put down, hunted, shot, there's no second chance for them so why do us

 

[Softus]

Kendor so what your saying is society should forgive child murders and help them to get on the right track. the only place they need to go is 6 feet under, petty crime yes, killers no there on place in a civilised society for them, once a killer always a killer, thats the saying.

Once a fool, always a fool - that's another saying.

if a shark/dog/lion ect, bite/kill anybody they get put down, hunted, shot, there's no second chance for them so why do us

Because we are not sharks/dogs/lions.

 

[Slogger]

you will never change the minds of them

they support the rights of peadfiles to reoffend in our society so really there viewpoint is of a sad and malitious few

cant say i would ever want to think that way i am glad i live in the real world


shame on all those that want to let child killers loose on our children

 

[markie]

Softus so i am a fool for having a diff opion to you ? would u want society to put killers back on the right track ?

 

[Softus]

Softus so i am a fool for having a diff opion to you ?

You made out that the phrase you used, "once a killer always a killer" is a popular saying. All I did was make up a similarly ridiculous saying.

would u want society to put killers back on the right track ?

We already have that society, and, whilst is isn't perfect, I believe that people are striving to make it better. It's you who wants to change it for the worse.

 

[markie]

I never said it's apopular saying, but people say it. and how am i making society worse by wanting killers put to sleep/locked up for life, and i don't mean 20 years or less. society would be worse if you let them out after 15-20 years in case they kill again true or not ?

 

[markie]

Softus people who kill kids are animals in my book so there is no diff between sharks/dogs/lions so they can be hunted. i bet if there was a vote in the UK 99.9 would feel the same as me.

 

[Softus]

I never said it's apopular saying, but people say it.

OK, I stand corrected - you're claiming that people say it, but that it's an unpopular saying. In that case I don't see why you quoted it.

...and how am i making society worse by wanting killers put to sleep/locked up for life, and i don't mean 20 years or less. society would be worse if you let them out after 15-20 years in case they kill again true or not ?

Well, since you seem not to have read this topic properly, and perhaps need it spelling out for you...

Firstly, putting a criminal to sleep is not the same as locking them up for life. Which do you want? Please bear in mind that the current laws prohibit state executions, and if you wanted that law changed then you would need to accept a return to a less civilised period in the history of this country. That is what I mean by making it worse.

Secondly, all killers are not equal - there are those who I would lock up until they reach the natural end of their lives, and others who, IMHO, are capable of rehabilitation, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.

 

[markie]

when i say killers i mean people who kill kids, i am not talking about people, who kill others they didn't mean to like a car crash or 2 people fighting and one dies. we will have to agree to disagree on this one

 

[Softus]

we will have to agree to disagree on this one

Once again, I suggest that you read the entire topic - you should notice that the same views as yours have already been aired, and discussed, debated and argued over.

You haven't really said very much that can be disagreed with, because what you've written isn't at all coherent, but if you aren't willing to explain your impractical and uncivilised plans for proposed changes to the law, then that's a matter for you. It would be interesting to know whether you're an armchair anarchist, or whether you actively lobby your MP and campaign for the changes that you wish for.

 

[kendor]

markie and slogger obviously didn't read my post properly, i said dealt with by civilised rules ie by the courts not by throwing them to the whipped up to a frenzy crowds, after all that would not be civilised.