Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 85695	2007-12-18 23:21:00	Just Who The Hell Do You Think You Are? God?	Roscoe (6288)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
622714	2007-12-19 07:33:00	Nobody has thought the gaol definition of KFC even slightly amusing, it seems. The fact that you find that amusing says more about you than it does about posters like myself hung up on 'emotional self-righteous claptrap'. Maybe you just aren't very funny? Read your first post, and then tell us that was written in a 'sensible unemotional' way. Just my 2c, but I question the wisdom of starting a thread such as this, then taking the piss out of people who bother to respond.	allblack (6574)
622715	2007-12-19 07:33:00	You still are not addressing the original question and I'm obviously wasting my time trying to make my point as the majority of think this is a question about kiddy fiddlers and what you, or the courts, might do to them. The above quote has merit but is completely missing the point. The only person that has read and understood the question, and seems to be a voice in the wilderness, is Bruce (thank you for that) and the second post by Plod. All the rest of you seem to think that it is a thread on kiddy fiddlers and what you would love to do with them. Nobody has thought the gaol definition of KFC even slightly amusing, it seems. I suppose the emotional self-righteous claptrap was to be expected. Oh well, so much for sensible unemotional discussion. We might as well close this thread as the people who have an intelligent opinion are definitely in the minority. Be careful, it's a long way down from that high horse. Capill fell a long way and is still falling all the way to Hell. Now all of a sudden you feel that no one understands your superior intellect so you dismiss them with belligerent remarks. Surely you are no different from those prisoners you choose to condemn and imply as barbaric in your original post. You think your intellect is superior so you choose words to try and wound others here - prisoners think they are superior to pedophiles so they choose their fists (and anything else available) to hurt them. So who do you think you are?	sam m (517)
622716	2007-12-19 07:35:00	You still are not addressing the original question and I'm obviously wasting my time trying to make my point as the majority of you think this is a question about kiddy fiddlers and what you, or the courts, might do to them. The above quote has merit but is completely missing the point. The only person that has read and understood the question, and seems to be a voice in the wilderness, is Bruce (thank you for that) and the second post by Plod. All the rest of you seem to think that it is a thread on kiddy fiddlers and what you would love to do with them. Nobody has thought the gaol definition of KFC even slightly amusing, it seems. I suppose the emotional self-righteous claptrap was to be expected. Oh well, so much for sensible unemotional discussion. We might as well close this thread as the people who have an intelligent opinion are definitely in the minority. Go away and die. Your question isn't hard to fathom, Just pointless. Yes, Many of the inmates are scum, They have already proven they have no regard for the rules of society, Its pointless to ask how they can now be so arrogant as to hand out their own punishment while in prison. Having said that, Good on them, Death is a worthy state of being for pedo's. They should get a free t-shirt for every one they help die in painful ways.	Metla (12)
622717	2007-12-19 07:38:00	Now all of a sudden you feel that no one understands your superior intellect so you dismiss them with belligerent remarks. Surely you are no different from those prisoners you choose to condemn and imply as barbaric in your original post. You think your intellect is superior so you choose words to try and wound others here - prisoners think they are superior to pedophiles so they choose their fists (and anything else available) to hurt them. So who do you think you are? :thumbs: And he's calling us self-righteous?	qazwsxokmijn (102)
622718	2007-12-19 08:08:00	Hey Roscoe(s) Meat Patty: What is your view on William Bell? :confused: Let him out? Let him die? Let him live?	bob_doe_nz (92)
622719	2007-12-19 08:11:00	Hey Roscoe(s) Meat Patty: What is your view on William Bell? :confused: Let him out? Let him die? Let him live? Ummm . . . . . in fairness to Roscoe (geez, I am getting benevolent lately :confused: ) . . . what has that got to do with his post?	allblack (6574)
622720	2007-12-19 08:11:00	How many people getting killed on our roads would compel you to give up the convenience of owning a car? Couple hundred deaths a year an acceptable compromise? Not the same thing Metla and you know it. A society choosing to execute the worst of its criminals is not an accident. There's too many cases of wrongful conviction for us to feel safe in executing the worst offenders. Besides, you'd just end up with the US system where they spend decades on death row using up even more money in terms of legal aid fighting the sentence. Screw the expense, I'd rather a murderer knew that a life sentence meant that - the same four walls for the rest of their life. I do think we've gone soft on punishment - I just think the death sentence is a bad idea on several fronts.	Biggles (121)
622721	2007-12-19 08:17:00	True they are different, But we are still prepared to accept the killing of innocent people on our roads so that we can enjoy the freedom and convenience of having a car. Most accidents aren't accidents, They are caused by people not paying attention, or taking stupid risks.	Metla (12)
622722	2007-12-19 08:26:00	Ummm.....in fairness to Roscoe (geez, I am getting benevolent lately :confused: )...what has that got to do with his post? Just wanting his/her opinion.	bob_doe_nz (92)
622723	2007-12-19 08:28:00	But could you offer an absolute guarantee that every person under your solution would turn out to be guilty of the crime they were convicted for? Yes Bruce, I could offer that guarantee. You see I would have two degrees of Murder. First degree Murder would be when the Jury decided without a shadow of doubt the accused was guilty. Bang, game, set and match. (Exit Bell) Second Degree Murder was when the Jury was sure on balance, but had a small doubt, but still beyond reasonable doubt. Say, Watson & Bain. Then the big one. If any cop was found to have set someone up, then they would serve the same penalty. So, if a cop set someone up and he was shot, then you too sunshine. I wouldn’t expect any errors because the juries would err on the side of caution and the cops would be mindful of setting anyone up. I look forward to having the fallacy of my argument exposed. :D	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7