4 ms·
> False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food This appears as a perfect false equi
by RaceWon 7y ago
> False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food
This appears as a perfect false equivalence imo. Would you also let someone who was convicted of poisoning people serve you fast food?
Here's some [0] stats about repeat offeders
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
- colejohnson66 7y agoNo I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc.
- RaceWon 7y ago> No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc. However; a robber can serve as a jurist? I don't understand your logic; if it was you who were on trial, wouldn't you hope that the jury of your peers had a higher degree of ethics than a gal who robbed a bank? I know I would.
- colejohnson66 7y agoThe logic is: they have served their debt to society, let them be free. Don’t continually punish them even after they’re out. If you want to punish them more, keep them in prison longer.
- kevingadd 7y agoAre you claiming most poisoners act randomly and would continue to do so after release? What's your basis for that? Poison is often used as a method for specific assassination/murder, and murder is sometimes committed in scenarios of domestic violence or taking out personal grudges. Why would people from those scenarios then go on to poison fast food customers?