Sex offenders have kerfew

Watermark said:
You're clearly a murderer, and possibly a rapist, from your clear lack of conscious or caring about the victims of such crime illustrated by your desire to put such people back on the streets again. We should never forgive anyone for anything.

Let's think about this again, too. Think about armed robbery. How traumatic is it to have a gun pointed to your face? They should never have the ability to look at a cashier in the face again. WHy don't you care about cashiers? Some cashiers may be children, so you don't care about children. You obviously love child rape, therefore. And therefoer you're a child rapist.
Click to expand...
I love this. While I have never accused you of any such thing you seem to have no problem accusing me even in jest during an argument full of logical fallacy. This is your weakest and most emotive EMO effort, ever.
 
Damocles said:
He thought they were inconsequential because of the smaller percentage of women who commit the crime.
Click to expand...

0.1%, Damo. That's all I said. They're pretty much a statistical blip. You're acting like the Republican who thinks black guys are given special advantages in life by liberals.
 
Damocles said:
He thought they were inconsequential because of the smaller percentage of women who commit the crime.
Click to expand...

yeah I noticed that shrugging off of the female child molester problem.
sigh...

I suspect they are far more common that we think so.

If a man kills/molests a child it is "hang that bassid!" If a woman does it , it is "that poor thing must be mentally ill..."

Generally speaking of course.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Since I believe in the toughest laws in the entire world on the matter, and you don't, you are too lenient.
Click to expand...
This is also logical fallacy. I believe them to be ill-advised as they allow for an "acceptable recidivism" that I disagree with. Those laws are simply, IMO, wrong-headed. There is no, IMO, acceptable level of recidivism in sexual or violent crimes against children. If the "cure" is not 100% effective then there is no responsible action that would allow them to have access to children again.
 
Damocles said:
This is also logical fallacy. I believe them to be ill-advised as they allow for an "acceptable recidivism" that I disagree with. Those laws are simply, IMO, wrong-headed. There is no, IMO, acceptable level of recidivism in sexual or violent crimes against children. If the "cure" is not 100% effective then there is no responsible action that would allow them to have access to children again.
Click to expand...

Yes, for murder and rape too. Otherwise you love murderers and rapists, and consider recividism acceptable, and since you consider recividism acceptable, you are them, and just as bad.

You should be put to death for your evilness, Damo.
 
Watermark said:
0.1%, Damo. That's all I said. They're pretty much a statistical blip. You're acting like the Republican who thinks black guys are given special advantages in life by liberals.
Click to expand...
More fallacy. And where do you get your statistic from? And because they were molested by such a small minority of the problem does it make their victimization less?
 
Watermark said:
Yes, for murder and rape too. Otherwise you love murderers and rapists, and consider recividism acceptable, and since you consider recividism acceptable, you are them, and just as bad.

You should be put to death for your evilness, Damo.
Click to expand...
Murder and rape on children would be included in crimes of sexual or violence on children....

It seems you can't even keep your strawman erect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top