Well, it seems that I am becoming the butt end of some less than courteous posts, so I promise this will be my last post on this subject. And again, I do apologize for hijacking the thread, but not for expressing my views.
Quote:
Strawman. I said you changed views from "should not go to jail" to should.
Same thing. I said "should not go to jail" referring to first time offenders and "should go to jail" to repeat offenders. Two different posts, same argument. Just an expansion/clarification.
Quote:
You wonder why, for something like drinking and driving, the punishment is the same the third time and on?
Your idea is absurd. So some guy could potentially do every crime in the world once and would get that first chance leniency every time?
Don't act dumb. Of course that's not what a repeat offender system is. Firstly, a repeat offender system can only be used for minor crimes (ie. drugs, alcohol, etc.) and it doesn't matter what the nature of the first crime was, as long as you commit ANOTHER criminal after it, it means you have reoffended.
Quote:
It depends on the entirety of the post. You tried to say that you somehow did mention suspended sentence through this
I've been explaining this whole time that I mentioned suspended sentence in the post after it, and that it should be considered as one post.
Quote:
So I ask again for the third time. How does that mean what you say it means?
That quote was a genuine mistake on my part. I should have included what I said in my second post.
Quote:
That's pretty weak. Our debate could be on "Did you make a mistake?" or "Did you change views?" My opinion is that you did. Yours is that you didn't. It's completely fair.
Again, if I had the opportunity to say YOU made a mistake, then it would be a fair argument.
ALL in ALL, you have your views and I have mine. I personally believe that my posts were concise, fluid and carefully explained, while you thought they were contradictory and flip-floppy. I have already admitted that I see where the confusion could be made, but I have also clarified the meaning in my posts and how they are meant to be read. I am pretty sure that you know where I stand, but you are nitpicking at small passages that are somewhat unclear and blurry. But just in case, I'll say that I am firmly opposed to drugs, I believe they should remain illegal, I think first time offenders should receive suspended sentences and repeat offenders face jail time. Now if you have any problems with my OPINIONS, then feel free to PM me or start a thread. If you have a problem with the wording and/or meaning of my sentences, then please direct them otherwise. The intention of this post is not to make me look like the "bigger" or "better" man. I don't think I was in the right, but not necessarily in the wrong either.
Again, I apologize to everyone for hijacking this thread, but not for wanting to defend myself.
P.S. rlrlrl you have the last LAST word
. You can either PM me or post it here. I'll read it, but I won't reply to it.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
