So basically, you believe dangerous people should remain in society? Habitual criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself and your family, and you wouldn't even call the police?
>So basically, you believe dangerous people should remain in society?
>Habitual criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself and your family, and you wouldn't even call the police?
One of these sentences is a reasonable, if a bit reductive, summary of the GP's point. The other is wild hyperbole.
Fully half of the comment I'm replying to is total nonsense, putting words in another's mouth, disingenuously representing another's opinion in the hope of making that person seem monstrous.
To what end, gwkoehler? Is your position so tenuous that you feel you must misrepresent your opponent's? If your comments weren't an attempt at a counterargument, is it really so important to tell kiliantics that you disagree with his opinion and wish to paint it as unwise?
I was trying to spark discussion, because I honestly do not understand this point of view. If you believe criminals shouldn't go to jail, it stands to reason that you're ok with coexisting with some very violent people next door. Someone has to.
A great way to understand another's point of view is to strawman it!! If you're actually interested in GGGP's position, look at his second sentence -- it's not that he's some insane opponent of Law and Order, it's that he seems to believe that the US penal system is so monstrous a punishment that he'd rather not visit it on anyone. Regardless, asking open-ended questions, rather than hoisting Cunningham's Law and charging, is probably a better way to 'spark discussion'.
In my state the moment one of those people enter your home uninvited you have a right to execute said criminal. I won't call the police on them, but I'm not going to let those sorts of people back out into society either. That said I'd vote not guilty for any victimless crime.
>Habitual criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself and your family, and you wouldn't even call the police?
One of these sentences is a reasonable, if a bit reductive, summary of the GP's point. The other is wild hyperbole.
Fully half of the comment I'm replying to is total nonsense, putting words in another's mouth, disingenuously representing another's opinion in the hope of making that person seem monstrous.
To what end, gwkoehler? Is your position so tenuous that you feel you must misrepresent your opponent's? If your comments weren't an attempt at a counterargument, is it really so important to tell kiliantics that you disagree with his opinion and wish to paint it as unwise?