theloadeddragon
Well-Known Member
short term confinement does not prevent future occurrances and the debt for a candy bar is what precisely? in accordance with the 3 strikes law.... its enough for a life sentence (READ IT).Well first of all I don't condone sending someone to prison for stealing a candy bar. Secondly the act of imprisonment is not meant to bring the candy bar back, but to prevent you from stealing future candy bars. When you have paid your debt and get out then your future actions can be judged for themselves.
You don't have to follow through on an emotional response in order to color the response. If you hate gay people and have fantasies of taping them up and torturing them to death solely for the fact that they are gay, then those are sadistic and hate filled thoughts regardless of whether you actually carry them out. The only thing carry them out does is change them from a thought to an action. The thought remains the same either way.
something of the fundamentals of argument: do not address a point by bringing up a separate and all together different issue simply because there is a correlation. Address the the point specifically and identify directly related info that is validated in order to disprove the point.
Is this your argument? that it is ok to have the "knee-jerk" reaction of an emotional response, but not acknowledge it express it, and explore your feelings? that sharing those feelings with the most general of descriptions is inappropriate when I know I could go into grossly detail?
Im would like to discover how it is reasonable to restrict the healthy freedom of expression? Am I not entitled by life itself to have my own feelings? To explore, express, and understand them?