"De Roberts" <deroberts2@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wDE8e.64924$B12.44938@trnddc09..
>
> "Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rqD8e.7788$yq6.4244@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net.. 
>
> Since you snipped the section that I was refering too it's no wonder you
> don't see it.  If your going to cut at least acknowledge that you are
doing
> so.

All you have to do is cut and paste something I wrote in which you believe I
turned his statement into such an argument.  The reason you didn;t do that
is because you can't find any such thing.  You made it up.  You invented it
from that rich but undisciplined imagination of yours.
 
>
> Sorry not I'm not Wiccan or a kook.

Gee, Shez decided I was a Christian because I advocated forgiveness, which
is something that good Christians do.  Since you are supporting her lack of
forgiveness and she's a Wiccan, that must mean you are, too.  At least it
does if you buy into Shez's kind of "logic".
 
>
> I'm not.

Not directly, but you're still trying to justify your bigotted stereotypes
by referring to bible passages that your friend, the self-declared Wiccan,
cited as her justification for her bigotted stereotypes.  So you're quoting
scripture alright, but you're doing it second hand.

>  It's a moot point for me as I don't believe the historical Jesus
> ever existed nor do I really care.

Then stop trying to tell people what he really meant, you moron.  That's why
I'm laughing at you.
 
you[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> When in doubt get them on the spelling.

You won't present any substantial arguments to support your claims, and you
won't pay any attention to any arguments that contradict it, so about all
there is left to talk about is how poorly you use your language.
 
>
> They are not harmless.  They harmed a child.

The argument that they should stay incarcerated for the rest of their lives
has nothing to do with what they did, but what you're afraid they might do
in the future.

> Shouldn't someone be punished for their crimes?

They should be corrected.  Do you understand the difference between
vengeance and correction?  Punishment is nothing but sterile vengeance when
it never ends and allows no chance to demonstrate that the lesson has been
learned.

> The 14% was the lowest figure, others were higher.

And none of them are 100%, which is your whole argument.
 
>
> Bullshit.

Wow.  Another rhetorical masterpiece.  How do you think of such wonderfully
subtle and devastatingly effective counter-arguments?  You must be some kind
of genius.  At least you can spell "bullshit" correctly.  It must be a lot
more familiar to you than "cite your sources".

> All Shez has said is that she believes, and I do to, that pedophiles
should
> be jailed for life especially those who victimize numerous children over a
> period of years.

They should all be jailed for life, but especially some of them.  How do you
"especially" jail for life rather than merely jail for life?  And you want
people to believe you're not a kook, when you talk like that.  You're a
silly, bible-thumping, illiterate, pagan kook.

> I'm not talking about minors but people who after they are
> caught it comes out that they have molested numerous children for years.

Interesting.  Now you're imagining that I said you were talking about
minors.  There's another product of that runaway imagination of yours.
Until you can get it under control, you're not fit to decide policy for the
rest of humanity, kook.

> It is not uncommon for fathers to molest each child in turn.

So, let's jail all fathers, too!   They are nothing but pedophiles, or at
least they might be!  We'll jail them all for life!  Then we'll pick some of
them and jail them for life again, this time especially!  Kook.

> Nowhere in society is child molestation excepted.

There you go again.  I think you meant "accepted".  The problem isn't
spelling, you know.  It's diction.  But you can't tell the difference, since
you're barely literate as it is, kook.

> I don't want them anywhere near my children or grandchild.

Ands the Ku Kux Klan doesn't want people of African descent anywhere near
their children or grandchildren because they might be criminals, too.
Perhaps you agree with them.  After all, we can cite (note the diction)
statistics that clearly show that the crime rate is much higher in
predominantly African-American communities.  Who cares that some of them may
not commit any crimes?  It's the danger they represent to the community that
is the important part.  Right?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]