204 replies to this topic

[HerNibs]

HerNibs, on 07 October 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

As far as I can tell you have stated a couple of different things.

1.  The individuals discussed in the OP should not be permitted to hold positions of judgement over others because their negative interaction with the judicial system causes them to be biased.

2.  Teachers and authority figures should keep "dossiers" on everyone from birth on in order to "weed out" individuals that could be problems in the future and to limit these individuals to employment that would not allow them to judge others.

Correct?

Nibs

Chimpanzee,

Can you let me know if I am correct on my above statement?

Thanks

Nibs

[The Silver Thong]

Chimpanzee, on 07 October 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

Some might have a grudge.

So by sum you mean all meaning we need to profile "them" all.


I'll add to this but you might be quoting me right now. How about we take it case by case and judge people on there actions not what one thinks there actions might be.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 07 October 2011 - 06:58 PM.

[Chimpanzee]

HerNibs, on 07 October 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

1.  The individuals discussed in the OP should not be permitted to hold positions of judgement over others because their negative interaction with the judicial system causes them to be biased.

2.  Teachers and authority figures should keep "dossiers" on everyone from birth on in order to "weed out" individuals that could be problems in the future and to limit these individuals to employment that would not allow them to judge others.

It sounds like the patriot act but -

1. The individuals discussed in the OP should be monitored in positions of law, punishment and judgement just in case any of them have a vendetta or issues relating to their prior treatment.
2. Authority figures like teachers, lecturers, doctors, priests, civil servants, policemen, army officers and others should monitor people to look out for any danger signs in the population. These will include radical views, terrorist views, unbalanced individuals, people with dangerous attitudes towards others, etc, etc. These individuals should be reported to the state and monitored. Their employment should be restricted to roles where they cant do any harm and if the state feels its nessecary should section them for being a threat to society.

Edited by Chimpanzee, 07 October 2011 - 07:08 PM.

[rashore]

Chimpanzee, on 07 October 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

All people that could have issues should be monitored.

white, black, gay, jew, catholic, every walk of life cant produce nuts.

Ok, cool, fair enough.

Although I don't really agree with you on a lot of what you are saying in this thread, at least it seems like you feel there are suspicious characters from all walks of life, and your statements here are really keeping in the spirit of the OP since it was specifically about homosexual cases.

I do agree with you that sometimes a person with a chip on their shoulder could be problematic in some professions. However, most employers have screening processes, and if those fail, an employees work record can speak for itself.

I'm really not sure how I feel about monitoring with the results being reported to a higher power like government. Right now I think there is already too much binding of hands in the whole process between employer/employee, let alone getting the government more involved with monitoring and reporting.

[smurf0852]

Chimpanzee, on 07 October 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

I'm saying some that have been wronged with prison sentences might have a vendetta but that isnt the same thing as saying homosexuals all have a vendetta.

Nelson Mandela was the leader of the armed wing of the African National Congress and was convicted for sabotage lol. I hope thats just a mistake in your research and you are not trying to incite people to terrorist acts.

Silver Thong needs adding to the watch list lol.

people you will get more common sense out of a house brick than you will out of this person he clearly is deluded about the way the world is.in his world if you are convicted of speeding and later exonorated you will turn into some sort of motorway terrorist ramming police cars off the road or worse still become a traffic officer and randomly beat people up for speeding .

[Bracket]

smurf0852, on 07 October 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

people you will get more common sense out of a house brick than you will out of this person he clearly is deluded about the way the world is.in his world if you are convicted of speeding and later exonorated you will turn into some sort of motorway terrorist ramming police cars off the road or worse still become a traffic officer and randomly beat people up for speeding .

Kinda shows more about him, doesn't it.  

[ChloeB]

Chimpanzee, on 05 October 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

I dont think Homosexuals should be allowed in the Police, Prison Service, Justice system or allowed to become solicitors.

Looking at the strength of their overeactions on these forums alone I think many are incapable of behaving professionally should they encounter people accused of hate crimes, discrimination or in fact guilty of them.

I think the state should keep a database of all homosexuals as a screening aid should they apply for a job connected to any of the above. Old records should be added to the new. Those will convictions from a time when homosexual acts were illegal may be more prone to unprofessional behaviour that others.

Edited by ChloeB, 08 October 2011 - 12:28 AM.

[Chimpanzee]

smurf0852, on 07 October 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

people you will get more common sense out of a house brick than you will out of this person he clearly is deluded about the way the world is.in his world if you are convicted of speeding and later exonorated you will turn into some sort of motorway terrorist ramming police cars off the road or worse still become a traffic officer and randomly beat people up for speeding .

No, if you are convicted of speeding and given 15 years which ruins you life then you might have issues relating to your treatment.

I own a shotgun and go hunting do you know that?
Are you now going to descend back into your irrational paranoia?

Will I awake tomorrow morning to find a lynch mob outside my house made up of left wing extremists who have come to sort me out because I think records should be kept and yet (gasps) I own a shotgun?

If you were leader of the state I could see millions of people going missing thanks to your fear, paranoia and laughable but scary level of hysteria directed at them.

You would make Stalin proud or maybe that should be Pol Pot.

Edited by Chimpanzee, 08 October 2011 - 10:24 AM.

[shadowhive]

Chimpanzee, on 08 October 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

No, if you are convicted of speeding and given 15 years which ruins you life then you might have issues relating to your treatment.

I own a shotgun and go hunting do you know that?
Are you now going to descend back into your irrational paranoia?

Will I awake tomorrow morning to find a lynch mob outside my house made up of left wing extremists who have come to sort me out because I think records should be kept and yet (gasps) I own a shotgun?

If you were leader of the state I could see millions of people going missing thanks to your fear, paranoia and laughable but scary level of hysteria directed at them.

You would make Stalin proud or maybe that should be Pol Pot.

Question then: should you be on a register for owning that shotgun of yours? After all it IS a weapon that's capable of killing someone. Wheather you use it for hunting or not is irelevent. Fact is if you own a gun you're more likely to shoot someone (sound logic no?) which is a lot more dangerous then what you're trying to imply others are capable of (with no evidence to back it up I might add).

[Chimpanzee]

shadowhive, on 08 October 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

Question then: should you be on a register for owning that shotgun of yours? After all it IS a weapon that's capable of killing someone. Wheather you use it for hunting or not is irelevent. Fact is if you own a gun you're more likely to shoot someone (sound logic no?) which is a lot more dangerous then what you're trying to imply others are capable of (with no evidence to back it up I might add).

In the UK you require a liscene to own a shotgun and the criteria for gaining it means potentially violent people are screened out. Gun owners are less likely to shoot someone because of the screening they go through.

Can you not think of any scenarios where someone imprisoned for 15 years because of homosexuality would snap or go on a rampage?

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Chimpanzee, on 08 October 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

In the UK you require a liscene to own a shotgun and the criteria for gaining it means potentially violent people are screened out. Gun owners are less likely to shoot someone because of the screening they go through.

Can you not think of any scenarios where someone imprisoned for 15 years because of homosexuality would snap or go on a rampage?

Derrick Bird and Michael Ryan aside...?

[Chimpanzee]

BrianPotter, on 08 October 2011 - 04:33 PM, said:

Derrick Bird and Michael Ryan aside...?

So? wheres all the ones that kill that dont own guns

Dont post distorted points

[Karlis]

Chimpanzee, on 08 October 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

So? wheres all the ones that kill that dont own guns

Dont post distorted points

Hi Chimp -- I think if we follow your *general* line of reasoning, then Derrick Bird should have been on a "watch list". He was under severe stress as taxi driver; the taxation people were persecuting him; his twin brother betrayed him; and possibly other reasons ...

Edited to add: And if he changed jobs because he was persecuted -- and worked as a law enforcement officer, he would have had a gun. Must be a zillion Derrick Birds around.

Edited by Karlis, 08 October 2011 - 05:05 PM.

[shadowhive]

Chimpanzee, on 08 October 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

Can you not think of any scenarios where someone imprisoned for 15 years because of homosexuality would snap or go on a rampage?

No I can't. You know why? Because it's unheard of.

Now if gay people that were imprisoned were snapping on a regular basis you may have an arguement there.

Again I ask of you: can you provide even a single example where the scenarios you claim have actually happened?

All I'm seeing from you is paranoia about something which has never actually happened.

Edited by shadowhive, 08 October 2011 - 05:05 PM.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Chimpanzee, on 08 October 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

So? wheres all the ones that kill that dont own guns

Dont post distorted points

You said that you had gone through police checks to get a license to own a firearm but with your distorted views maybe you should have been rejected if under your regime....clearly unsuitable to own a firearm in my opinion with your views....as for distorted.....