Sex Offender Signs Publicly Identify Convicted Predators In Florida

As I said, that comparison you made isn't close to the issue we are all discussing. Apples/Oranges.

I'm not trying to "fight you", as you like to put it. If you want a fight, look elsewhere.
You clearly are...you still have added nothing to this.

And what is not similar about breaking the law to enforce the law or sentencing someone to a punishment which is illegal when it is the same thing in both scenarios?
 
Enjoy your day EQnoble.

I'm not "fighting" with you. I posted my thoughts. Thanks.
Sure thing...but my thoughts are that if you try to say that everything someone says means nothing and then you cannot dignify them or the people reading along with a response to why that is than clearly you are trolling me trying to start a fight.

If you can't follow up with an explanation of what makes it ok to say my ideas are invalid, than really you have no business saying my ideas are invalid in the first place.

You are not welcome.
 
Sure thing...but my thoughts are that if you try to say that everything someone says means nothing and then you cannot dignify them or the people reading along with a response to why that is than clearly you are trolling me trying to start a fight.

If you can't follow up with an explanation of what makes it ok to say my ideas are invalid, than really you have no business saying my ideas are invalid in the first place.

You are not welcome.

Call it trolling, call it whatever you'd like that makes you sleep better.

If I am telling you I am not starting a fight, yet you obviously keep saying I am trying to... looks to me like you are the one doing it.

As I said before, twice. Your comparison is nothing like what the situation is. Apples/Oranges.

Not sure what else I can say. I don't recall saying your ideas are "invalid". I looked. Again, thanks.
 
Call it trolling, call it whatever you'd like that makes you sleep better.

If I am telling you I am not starting a fight, yet you obviously keep saying I am trying to... looks to me like you are the one doing it.

As I said before, twice. Your comparison is nothing like what the situation is. Apples/Oranges.

Not sure what else I can say. I don't recall saying your ideas are "invalid". I looked. Again, thanks.
That is not an explanation...and saying every example I posted is moot is starting a fight if you can't explain why...saying it's apples and oranges is NOT a good enough reason to say anything I have said has no merit.

The fact that I have lots of thoughts and displayed them as text in this says I spent time and really thought about while you have...well ...apples and oranges.

The situation I described...is allowing the law to be broken to penalize a criminal...putting up signs on criminals lawns is public humiliation and it is illegal . How can those NOT be compared.
 
That is not an explanation...and saying every example I posted is moot is starting a fight if you can't explain why...saying it's apples and oranges is NOT a good enough reason to say anything I have said has no merit.

The fact that I have lots of thoughts and displayed them as text in this says I spent time and really thought about while you have...well ...apples and oranges.

The situation I described...is allowing the law to be broken to penalize a criminal...putting up signs on criminals lawns is public humiliation and it is illegal . How can those NOT be compared.

If the law is being broken why are the signs up? Looks to me like you just want an argument and lets just say why not leave it at "if your wanting to sympathise with sex offenders" then that is certainly your privilege, is it not?
 
mmmm
popcorn.gif
 
Tevery example I posted is moot is starting a fight if you can't explain why...saying it's apples and oranges is NOT a good enough reason to say anything I have said has no merit.

Your example of the cons fighting is what I am talking about.

YOU may not think it is good enough reason to say something, I do. Simple as that. What part of this are you not understanding. You do not decide when/if/why someone puts the thoughts they put. It is your right to say what you want, why is it not my right to disagree?

Yet, I am the one arguing. :rolleyes:
 
If the law is being broken why are the signs up? Looks to me like you just want an argument and lets just say why not leave it at "if your wanting to sympathise with sex offenders" then that is certainly your privilege, is it not?

See what you are doing there...

Again you and your friend stew there trying to invalidate my thoughts...you saying I sympathize with sex offenders is a complete perversion of everything I have said and then you acting like you are being at all civilized about it by offering the thought of enforcing the lie like it is a fact.

I argue on the merits of the Constitution, not the sick lies that you are insinuating at this time.


Your example of the cons fighting is what I am talking about.

YOU may not think it is good enough reason to say something, I do. Simple as that. What part of this are you not understanding. You do not decide when/if/why someone puts the thoughts they put. It is your right to say what you want, why is it not my right to disagree?

Yet, I am the one arguing. :rolleyes:
Saying my idea is moot because it is apples and oranges is childish and a playschool like tactic to get someone mad. You can not explain how the two are different and just wanted to say I was wrong.

What part don't you understand that I have an opinion that if you are going to stand out with a one liner saying my thoughts are moot I am going to take that as disrespect and respond(and still trying to talk about the topic...which you have not.)?

Shelley for instance...is implying that I sympathize with sex offenders....it is not her right to say that because I have not once expressed that general notion in any way and that is offensive to me...she should have a sign on her lawn for that.

You in this instance are saying I am wrong, and not why or how it applies to the topic...

You two are arguing with me and that is the end of the matter.
 
If the law is being broken why are the signs up?
Because our legal system and government is hypercritical and loves double standards. What is OK for them is not OK for everyone else.

You're under the assumption that we're all under the same rules... That's not the case. It should be, but realistically it is not how things are.

There are double standards, triple standards, and more. :eek::confused:

A little off topic ......

But I appreciate your ignorance to this fact. Don't take that the wrong way... I really do appreciate the simplicity that you and many others still believe things are working as they should. In that unknowing ignorance I'm sure you find some level of peace and things are so much simpler.

And at the same time, it bothers the hell out of me....

Because as much as I know the truth would shatter your conception of reality & faith in the system; I can't help but hold out hope that if more people woke up to the way the world really is... Maybe something would be done about it.

We're not held to the same standards or rules. The Government is currently above the people and is the law, whenever and however it chooses to be. And that's a problem.
 
When the constitution forbids something it can't be overwritten by state law...for example slavery is illegal per the US Constitution, Florida can't go make that legal.

I don't see a sign in the yard as "cruel and unusual punishment". The sign is a notification. And again, per Florida statute, it is allowed.
 
I don't see a sign in the yard as "cruel and unusual punishment". The sign is a notification. And again, per Florida statute, it is allowed.
wikipedia
The United States Bill of Rights consists of the 10 amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[21] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

In post-Colonial times, judicial use of public humiliation punishment has largely fallen out of favor since the practice is now considered cruel and unusual punishment, which is outlawed in the United States Constitution.[2]
 
wikipedia


Okay, like I said. I don't see a sign as cruel and unusual punishment. I have seen signs used before. You don't need to quote wiki for that. Not sure what the point in all that was.

You may feel it is, and that is completely your right.

Obviously the Sheriff in the town doesn't see it as cruel or unusual, because they are being placed in yards left and right.
 
Okay, like I said. I don't see a sign as cruel and unusual punishment. I have seen signs used before. You don't need to quote wiki for that. Not sure what the point in all that was.

You may feel it is, and that is completely your right.

Obviously the Sheriff in the town doesn't see it as cruel or unusual, because they are being placed in yards left and right.
The sign is in public and is humiliating and shameful...

textbook definition of public humiliation

that is not an opinion



and what the sheriff wants does not over rule constitutional law
 
The sign is in public and is humiliating and shameful...

textbook definition of public humiliation

that is not an opinion

and what the sheriff wants does not over rule constitutional law

In your eyes, and the convicted felon's eyes it is humiliating and shameful.

That is still not "cruel", nor is it "unusual". Cruel and unusual is having them stand nude in a crowded mall with that sign. Regardless, he (the Sheriff) is not doing anything wrong. Hence the use of the signs.
 
In your eyes, and the convicted felon's eyes it is humiliating and shameful.

That is still not "cruel", nor is it "unusual". Cruel and unusual is having them stand nude in a crowded mall with that sign. Regardless, he (the Sheriff) is not doing anything wrong. Hence the use of the signs.
no stewart that is opinion not fact, it has already been determined that public humiliation is outlawed....

if you read before you would know what the wiki quote was about...
 
I don't see a sign in the yard as "cruel and unusual punishment". The sign is a notification. And again, per Florida statute, it is allowed.
And they stopped making women who committed adultery from wearing scarlet letters, but you don't see the word sign or scarlet letter in "cruel and unusual punishment" do you? Doesn't mean it's not valid.
 
Castrate the *******s. That'll stop them.


Actually, it's been proven not to. Both chemical and physical castration has been used in the past and the offender re-offends. Most of these types are not in it for the sexual gratification - but the feeling of power it gives them (and yes, I know from where I speak - 14.5 years as a patrol officer/investigator and 8 as a correctional officer).
 
Top Bottom