JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: takebackourtemple on June 13, 2010, 09:03:14 PM
-
http://wcbstv.com/seenat11/peter.melzer.nambla.2.1658182.html
-
Now you know why his parents named him "Peter"! :P
He should be executed, and if that doesn't work maybe just castrated. :o
-
No, he should not be, as he has not been convicted of any crime.
-
I vote castration. :thumbsdown:
I'm not talking chemical castration either.
He hasn't been convicted of a crime. :o
What about prevention of a crime?
It is too late once an animal like that has been convicted.
Countless lives have been ruined at that point. ???
He should be executed, and if that doesn't work maybe just castrated. :o
Too funny! It took me a minute to get that.
-
He hasn't been convicted of a crime. :o
What about prevention of a crime?
you want to give the state the power to remove people's individual rights, to arrest, detain, stigmatise people in order to prevent a crime that they may or may not commit in the future? that is a dangerous precedent.
I am sure Mr long-legged mack daddy is would love to use that power to arrest and imprison every potential terrorist (i.e. conservative, patriotic American) and to seize every firearm "for the children."
It is easy to be in favour of "free speech" for nice people, it is the hard cases such as the rights of Nazis and paedos that is the true test of your commitment to free speech. This man may commit a crime in the future, at that point he should be killed. As he has not ben convicted of anything, the state cannot touch him. If I give the government the power to infringe his rights, I am implicitly accepting that the govt has the authority to infringe mine.
That said, I agreed with your overall sentiment, I certainly wouldn't trust him and I would not let him anywhere near my kids.
-
He hasn't been convicted of a crime. :o
What about prevention of a crime?
you want to give the state the power to remove people's individual rights, to arrest, detain, stigmatise people in order to prevent a crime that they may or may not commit in the future? that is a dangerous precedent.
I am sure Mr long-legged mack daddy is would love to use that power to arrest and imprison every potential terrorist (i.e. conservative, patriotic American) and to seize every firearm "for the children."
It is easy to be in favour of "free speech" for nice people, it is the hard cases such as the rights of Nazis and paedos that is the true test of your commitment to free speech. This man may commit a crime in the future, at that point he should be killed. As he has not ben convicted of anything, the state cannot touch him. If I give the government the power to infringe his rights, I am implicitly accepting that the govt has the authority to infringe mine.
That said, I agreed with your overall sentiment, I certainly wouldn't trust him and I would not let him anywhere near my kids.
In my mind I agree with the overall sentiment of your post. >:(
My heart tells me that he should be kept paralyzed and sedated on a gurney. Sorry.
We must keep children safe.
-
Castration. Period. Children must be protected from pedophiles.
-
Execution
-
I think we should try do anything that makes life a living hell for a monster like that.