Vick to be honored... *just shakes head*

Glenn the Great wrote:You act as though there is nothing wrong with the status quo.

People should not have to report their conviction status to an employer.

Once you have done your time or paid your fine, things should go back to how they were before.

Whenever they aren't, that is collateral consequences. It is not a good thing; it is something that needs to be changed.

I am not complacent with how things are right now, as you seem to be.

So you see no problem with someone who is a convicted arsonist becoming a firefighter? A convicted child molester a school teacher or day care worker? How about someone who has multiple DUI infractions being allowed to get a license to drive a big rig?

There are reasons that a persons criminal record is considered when they apply for certain types of jobs. Certain crimes can not be "paid back" by simple fine or time spent in jail. There are consequences of certain crimes that go far beyond that.

I sincerely hope that you are once again merely playing devils advocate Glenn and don't seriously believe that all criminals, once released from jail, are reformed citizens that should have that sames rights as everyone else no matter what crime they committed.

If I were an employer, I would think twice before hiring someone who was convicted of cocaine possession to do finances for my corporation. Glenn, if you're an employer, you want the best, and therefore, you want to know as much about them as you can. If you want to hire an ex-con, more power to you. For me, it would be a detriment to their application.

Trevelyan_06 wrote:...and don't seriously believe that all criminals, once released from jail, are reformed citizens that should have that sames rights as everyone else no matter what crime they committed.

I don't believe that they all are reformed, but I believe that many of them are. I also believe the number that are is much higher than you might expect. Also, I believe that recidivism may be encouraged by the frustration created by collateral consequences.

I'm trying to stick up for those who have reformed, have served their time, and wish to pick up their life and move on.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in their situation. (But of course, you are probably of the mindset that you will never be in their sitation, since you are such an upstanding citizen and such.)

Glenn the Great wrote:
I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in their situation. (But of course, you are probably of the mindset that you will never be in their sitation, since you are such an upstanding citizen and such.)

Of course I wouldn't like to be in their situation. Very few sane people would be. I can't know for sure that I will never be in their situation as I can't foresee the future. However, I don't believe that I will go.

What you are advocating, at least what I gathered you are, is that peoples criminal records never come into play. Even if they are murderers, rapist, arsonists, etc. That is insane. If someone truly wishes the reform and go on with their lives they have to face and accept what they did and have a reasonable burden to prove that they in fact won't do it again. Basically you are saying that someone should be able to get out of jail and go right back to what they were doing before committing the crime like nothing ever happened.

Glenn, I will say that some people do recover, and they have their crimes wiped off their record, and at that point, I do not think that they have to put that on their resume. I can understand why some crimes are impossible to wipe off and it should stay that way.

IF people were *TRULY* reformed when they left jail... there would never be repeat offenders. They would NEVER repeat the offense and would never have to go back to jail.

It's time that people take absolute responsibility for their actions/reactions in their life. Instead when someone does a crime... they plead innocent and act all innocent like "I didn't do anything wrong.... you didn't see me do it... you can't prove a thing"... EVEN when there are eye witnesses that SAW the person doing the crime.

AND on top of all this, Vick would not have been caught/investigated if his cousin hadn't been doing/dealing drugs and investigated for drugs.

Prrkitty wrote:IF people were *TRULY* reformed when they left jail... there would never be repeat offenders. They would NEVER repeat the offense and would never have to go back to jail.

Here you are over generalizing. Your use of the word "people" refers to everyone, lumping every last convict into the category of repeat offender. It simply isn't so.

Prrkitty wrote: It's time that people take absolute responsibility for their actions/reactions in their life.

I take it that by absolute, you mean accepting an eternal (or at least life-long) consequence for an action? Sounds like the old Conservo-Christian mentality again.

phattonez wrote:I can understand why some crimes are impossible to wipe off and it should stay that way.

Would you care to go into further detail on these impossibilities?

Also, yet another instance of phattonez resisting change, like a good neoconservative.

Prrkitty is also a very fine person to give opinions on this matter, being a part of the "Off with their heads!" Salem Witch Trial (or rather, No Trial) culture.

Glenn the Great wrote:I don't believe that they all are reformed, but I believe that many of them are. I also believe the number that are is much higher than you might expect. Also, I believe that recidivism may be encouraged by the frustration created by collateral consequences.

I'm trying to stick up for those who have reformed, have served their time, and wish to pick up their life and move on.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in their situation. (But of course, you are probably of the mindset that you will never be in their sitation, since you are such an upstanding citizen and such.)

See Glenn, I wanted to reply with "You're fucking idiot" to everyone of your posts, but I decided it would not be in my best interests as that could be considered a flame. But moreso, I realized that you are an emotionally corrupt human being with no capacity to understand compassion or responsibility, and I figured posting that would only mentally damage you further, which is my larger motivation for refraining. Although it is incredibly difficult to 100% discern a person's personality and intent through text alone, I can confidently make a rough judgment of your character based on numerous posts you've made, and feel sound and reassured that I made the correct choice by not calling you a fucking idiot.

On topic, obviously I agree that this is an incredibly fucked up thing to do. As far as the NFL is concerned, I at first questioned whether the NFL is correct in taking it upon themselves to punish Vick. Then I realized that playing in the NFL is a JOB. If someone pulled this shit and they were, say a musician, they would not be able to get a job with an orchestra. If they worked at a gas station, they would probably be fired immediately. Just because the NFL is an entertainment-based entity does not mean it needs to stay out of its' employees' lives.

Glenn the Great wrote:Would you care to go into further detail on these impossibilities?

Also, yet another instance of phattonez resisting change, like a good neoconservative.

Neo does not mean ultra, look up what that prefix means if you want a more effective insult.

The charges that I would never want wiped off the record are murder, rape, pedophilia, assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and some others that I can't think of. It would be very hard for me to trust these people, let alone hire them for a job.

phattonez wrote:...and some others that I can't think of.

Beautiful. This sums it all up right here.

^^How does that sum it up? I can't possibly think of every single case that I would deem necessary to stay on a record for life. Can you think of all crimes that a human being can do?

phattonez wrote:I can't possibly think of every single case that I would deem necessary to stay on a record for life. Can you think of all crimes that a human being can do?

Uh huh. All crimes a human can do should be on record for life. Thanks for being honest in your opinion already.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you're saying that all crimes should be on record for life, but that employers should just ignore that?

No. I'm trying to say that YOU might as well make all crimes on record for life. I was pointing out your "open clause" style of deciding what crimes should carry lifetime consequences.

I was expecting to see a few heinous things listed. The reality is that you didn't even really know. I saw very minor things like drug possession on your list, followed by an admission that you couldn't even really think of it all. It almost sounds more like you were struggling to think of some things that SHOULDN'T carry lifetime consequences. Or perhaps, that you were trying to sugar-coat the fact that you want lifetime consequences for all crimes.

Maybe this will make you happy, misdemeanors can be wiped off after a while and as long as there is no repeat behavior, and felonies should always stay on. But since nothing makes you happy, why should I even care. Apparently you would hire a cocaine addict just on a matter of principle.

phattonez wrote:Maybe this will make you happy, misdemeanors can be wiped off after a while and as long as there is no repeat behavior, and felonies should always stay on. But since nothing makes you happy, why should I even care. Apparently you would hire a cocaine addict just on a matter of principle.

If I think he'll do a good job for what I'm hiring him for, then yes.

So you own a bank and one of the applicants was convicted of money laundering. Would you hire him because you think he would do a good job?

Glenn the Great wrote: Prrkitty is also a very fine person to give opinions on this matter, being a part of the "Off with their heads!" Salem Witch Trial (or rather, No Trial) culture.

Glenn I have absolutely NO desire to cuss 'n discuss ANYTHING with you. I have come to the realization that your mental capacity to rationalize things isn't what it should be. And no matter what kind of a discussion I was in with you... we would never see eye-to-eye on anything.

So... if you think I am/was part of the Salem Witch Trial culture... so be it. You think what you want of me... I don't really give two hoots.

Glenn,

Before the discussion spirals anymore out of control we need to review a few keys points.
1. How is Prr a member of the "Salem Witch Trial" group? I have yet to see her going around accusing people of being witches, nor even have I seen her going around saying that things are "of the devil". Which, however, would be funny. Especally if she found amusing things to call "of the devil", such as mayonnaise.

2. You really should follow Phattonez's advice and research your insults. Calling him a neo-con implies that he once considered himself a liberal and then converted to conservatism (which is a fun phrase to say). I don't think this is the fact.

3. I don't think that Phattonez was attempting to say that all crimes should go on a persons record permanently. Instead he was merely saying that not being well versed in the various laws he could not produce a list of heinous crimes at will. Merely saying that he in fact wants all crimes to stay on a persons record permanently simply because it serves your argument does not make it true.

4. You do not put people who've committed certain crimes in a position in which they can easily repeat those crimes, no matter if they say they are reformed or not. It's irresponsible behavior towards society and the person themselves. For instance, you would not make someone who has committed a bank robbery an armed bank guard. Neither would you make a pedophile a babysitter. Even if the persons are reformed, truly reformed, there is no need to put the temptation on them.

As usual, Glenn, I can understand why you take that view, but I DO NOT agree with it.

First of all, there is a VERY big difference between saying "People should be held responsible for their actions" and "hey, crops are failing, the people are demoralized, so let's say that that weirdo over there is a witch, blame everything on them, and then kill them in public! cool! It's a popular idea! let's keep killing random innocents!".
As you can see, not at all the same thing.

also, I think that most crimes SHLOUD be on record, but it depends on the crime.

You should not get a record for minor felonies, and unless it's a major crime, it is not mentioned to employers unless it is related.

Ie, convicted bank robber will have his crime brought up if he tries to become a bank security guard.

I also think that if a drug user has reformed, it should no longer be referenced after X amount of years. Being turned down for a job for having experimented in high school is a bit stupid, IMO. Same thing if you shoplifted a T-shirt on a dare when you were a teen, or stuff like that.

But in all honestly, If someone has committed murder, rape, or pedophelia, it should DEFINETLY be referenced. If a person has commited a major crime, employers have the right to know just who they're hiring. If they decide to hire them, good for them. If not, the Government should try to find employment of some kind for them.

[/personal opinon]

This is the one and only warning for this thread. Back on topic of Vick and the charges against him or shut up. If you wanna talk about whether animals have organs and can feel pain then make a new thread.

Glenn stop trying to disguise your flames as legit posts and stop trolling.

I think he should pick Underdog for this match. Despite the name, Underdog is pretty good at fighting and the only real trouble might be Ren because he's likely to use some sort of weapon.

The rest of them are pushovers so my money's on Underdog.

My money is on Goofy. He'll sniff out anything ... truth or false.

my money's on stimpy or snoopy. cuz i love them both 😊

Stimpy was a cat.

fine, ren or snoopy :tongue: it's 2 am...work with me, here 😉

Yes, Ren would go crazy on him. Stimpy would be the one to hold him back. There is no way that any of them could fight like Underdog. I've never seen anything about him, but I know that he's the only one with super powers.

Snoopy would beat him to a pulp. Just look at his eyes, that says it all right there.

I don't know, Scooby is staring intently and I wouldn't say that he's a threat against Vick.