political correctness

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would not hire a repeat sex offender into rape counciling either.

you do believe there is a point where someone is beyond rehabilitation then?

what about this specific case, you think it is impossible for someone with repeat sexual offenses to be rehabilitated?

(and nobody is talking about those dumb "peeing in public" sexual offenses, though that does offer another layer of difficulty to just blanket excluding people based on criminal record, as there is a lot of subjectivity in the law)

Originally posted by inimalist
you do believe there is a point where someone is beyond rehabilitation then?

what about this specific case, you think it is impossible for someone with repeat sexual offenses to be rehabilitated?

(and nobody is talking about those dumb "peeing in public" sexual offenses, though that does offer another layer of difficulty to just blanket excluding people based on criminal record, as there is a lot of subjectivity in the law)

What about College kids that become registered sex offenders for mooning someone? (happened)

Or a couple makin' love in a public park in an "off the beat" location, late at night (happens quite often)?

God bless America.

yup, and those people get put into the registry...

but hey, what else do you propose. We can't differentiate between different types of offenses, its like "zero tolorance" in schools, if we budge an inch its going to be like columbine had a baby with 9-11

Originally posted by inimalist
you do believe there is a point where someone is beyond rehabilitation then?

what about this specific case, you think it is impossible for someone with repeat sexual offenses to be rehabilitated?

(and nobody is talking about those dumb "peeing in public" sexual offenses, though that does offer another layer of difficulty to just blanket excluding people based on criminal record, as there is a lot of subjectivity in the law)

Originally posted by inimalist
yup, and those people get put into the registry...

but hey, what else do you propose. We can't differentiate between different types of offenses, its like "zero tolorance" in schools, if we budge an inch its going to be like columbine had a baby with 9-11

They made a tier system in some places:
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/spoff/faq.html

Originally posted by inimalist
yup, and those people get put into the registry...

but hey, what else do you propose. We can't differentiate between different types of offenses, its like "zero tolorance" in schools, if we budge an inch its going to be like columbine had a baby with 9-11

I was thinking about public indecency and it would just be a fine, not a registry entry. (lol at the Microsoft OS reference on my part. I'm suuuuuch teh cooliez!)

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, but they have to actually be trying to rehabilitate. I might hire a former KKK member, which shows they're trying to get over it, but if they are currently a KKK member that means they are in a dangerous state. And someone who just raped someone a day ago is very different from someone who has been clean for decades.

well, yes, but now you are moving the goal posts

and I can't get behind you on the KKK thing. keep it out of work, keep your face out of the paper, and there is nothing they should be able to do about it.

I believe some pretty radical things, especially if left up to an inquisitor's imaginative interpretation (alliteration accross the nation). Its not a far leap from "racist" to "anarchist" in the eyes of the majority of the public, and its one of those "first they came for the Jews" situations for me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They made a tier system in some places:
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/spoff/faq.html

15 years seems a bit steep, but at least there is a way off of that one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking about public indecency and it would just be a fine, not a registry entry. (lol at the Microsoft OS reference on my part. I'm suuuuuch teh cooliez!)

well, no, that was the joke of course. there are far simpler ways to deal with people who aren't actually sexually dangerous (not in the kinky way though, meow)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, you're not going by the definitions: you're going by your own interpretation and anything else is wrong.

Please tell me that you understand that "unreasonable" is in the eye of the beholder?

Merriam Webster:

Prejudice:

A : (1) preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge B : an instance of such judgment or opinion C : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic

Now let's see. a Despising a KKK card carrying member is not a preconceived opinion formed without just grounds or sufficient knowledge, it's a rather informed opinion based on knowledge of a fact. The fact is this: KKK hates and persecutes people who aren't straight, white, protestant and anglo-saxon for not being straight, white, protestant and anglo-saxon.

It is irrational to hate people for being black. It is irrational to believe that blacks are vile, violent or intelectually inferior, because these things aren't true and can't be demonstrated by facts. It is irrational to believe that homosexuals are out to corrupt and rape children, are hated by god or will destroy society. Again, because it's not true and is quite absurd. You see, race and sexuality do not determine character.

On the other hand, it is not irrational to hate racists, because racism actually denotes character traits and morals. It's not irrational to despise people for their actions, personal moral systems or attitudes.

Again, prejudice isn't the same as deslike or even hate. Prejudice is hate based on irrational or uninformed beliefs about specific groups that do not correspond with reality. Therefore, hating racists is not prejudice.

Originally posted by 753
Merriam Webster:

Prejudice:

A : (1) preconceived judgment or opinion

/discussion

Thanks for playing.

Prejudice doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hate.

👆

Originally posted by Bardock42
Prejudice doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hate.

Name one example and then tell me how it applies to the exact context we are discussing.

But it won't matter anyway because 753 already posted something that made him wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but now you are moving the goal posts

and I can't get behind you on the KKK thing. keep it out of work, keep your face out of the paper, and there is nothing they should be able to do about it.

I believe some pretty radical things, especially if left up to an inquisitor's imaginative interpretation (alliteration accross the nation). Its not a far leap from "racist" to "anarchist" in the eyes of the majority of the public, and its one of those "first they came for the Jews" situations for me.

I don't see, to be honest, how you can believe it is right for the government to not allow muslims to veil themselves, but think it should be beyond the government's position to regulate people from racist organizations with known terrorist activities.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Name one example and then tell me how it applies to the exact context we are discussing.

But it won't matter anyway because 753 already posted something that made him wrong.

I'm agreeing with you. I was just saying that his "Prejudice is hate based on irrational or uninformed beliefs about specific groups that do not correspond with reality. Therefore, hating racists is not prejudice." is not necessarily true, since prejudice can have nothing to do with hate at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
/discussion

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Used in that definition, prejudice is not necessarily a bad thing. I have prejudice against using homeopathy for all my medical needs, and i'm probably much healthier for it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm agreeing with you. I was just saying that his "Prejudice is hate based on irrational or uninformed beliefs about specific groups that do not correspond with reality. Therefore, hating racists is not prejudice." is not necessarily true, since prejudice can have nothing to do with hate at all.

K.

Cool.

Didn't seem like it since it is really directly contradictory to what I was saying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When you join the KKK, you are devoting yourself to hurting, in some form or another, minorities. Hiring someone who is devoted to undermining their co-workers is silly. Even if they keep it out of work, hiring someone from the KKK is like hiring an al-qaeda member. Hiring someone who is part of a terrorist organization is quite simply not wise, in fact you're supposed to report them to the police if you know they are from al-qaeda, iirc. Why it should be different for the KKK is beyond me, in fact the KKK has caused way more deaths in the US than radical muslims have.

employers aren't the police. I'm not against any form of group affiliation, so if someone is al qaeda, so long as they keep all that at home, i dont care. if i see them break the law, ill call the police, but i dont believe in discrimination, especially in the work place, against ideological affiliation

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see, to be honest, how you can believe it is right for the government to not allow muslims to veil themselves, but think it should be beyond the government's position to regulate people from racist organizations with known terrorist activities.

i even corrected you in that thread...

Originally posted by inimalist
employers aren't the police. I'm not against any form of group affiliation, so if someone is al qaeda, so long as they keep all that at home, i dont care. if i see them break the law, ill call the police, but i dont believe in discrimination, especially in the work place, against ideological affiliation

I don't think I get you anymore.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So... muslims cannot wear veils, but they can join terrorist organizations?

I don't think I get you anymore.

??

do you really think I'm against muslims veiling?

like, when i responded to you in that thread I explained that i tend to sympathize with muslim issues worldwide, and even here, I told you that I corrected you.

put plainly: I am against banning the veil. As you correctly identified, my initial post in that thread was essentially to mock, sarcastically, what i feel is an intellectually untenable position.

So no, I'm cool with masked al qaeda people, I can't say the prospect of islamic terrorism is something that keeps me awake at night

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're correct: it's in the eye of the beholder which I said several posts ago. 👆

K.

Cool.

Didn't seem like it since it is really directly contradictory to what I was saying.