|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 14:35:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 14:36:37 Think of a teenager prison not only as a prison, but as a rehabilitation centre or foster home, too. Then it starts making sense. It is the press that wants you to believe that these kids have a life like in paradise when really they have started their lives with a capital crime and have not yet a real idea of what they have done and yet are expected to take full responsibility for it. To imprison and isolate them while they still need to develop social skills will not make them better people. You want to release them at some point.
And I am sure that the baddies do not get to play in this prison. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 19:13:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 19:17:42
Originally by: THE L0CK No one ever was able to explain to me why even prisoners who got a GED or specialization in prison ended up being repeat offenders.
Free will, hope, faith and humans are not reprogrammable machines.
Quote: Who would you choose?
I would not choose in this situation. I would count the criminal past as an experience the other one does not posses and add it to his experience, but would also try to find something in the other guy to give him a chance, too. If the guy without the criminal record has a hobby that says something about him as a person (a team player, an organizer, whatever), then I would probably choose the one without the criminal record. I would definitely try not to get into a situation where I have to make this kind of choice. If I then give the guy with the criminal record the job, then I would not give him a position where he could do it again either - for his and my own sake. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:30:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 20:31:56
Originally by: THE L0CK You are a manager or business owner, you have to make these decisions as each decision means success or failure for your company.
You are implying that I have no control over the situation. If this would really be the case then I would be a very bad manager and I would quit the job. I would not allow any of my subordinates to drop this onto my table, and any boss who does that to me can find himself a new marionette, and because I do not want to end with an heart attack.
Quote: Aside from locking everything down I don't really see how you could prevent it. And in this case how would you work out the trust factor between him and you?
You are implying that I am paranoid. You cannot prevent it, but you can make the guy's life easier by keeping him away from what may tempt him, and, in case he does steal again do I not want to be the manager who has given him the perfect position to do so. This is why I say "for the sake of both of us".
Quote: Say the criminal is actually better qualified than the non criminal across the board but the position requires them to have a set of keys to the place of business like if they were going to open the shop or whatever and they would be there alone for the first several hours of the day?
They say theft is created by opportunity. I would not want to give the guy this kind of responsibility. Instead, I expect him to say no to the offer and therefore would not even offer it to him. If he is a man then he knows what he has done and that he cannot expect to be given this kind of responsibility with a criminal record of theft. If he is a smart man then he would probably feel offended if I did put this into his hands. Some really weird bosses might probably do this only to test the guy and watch him with a hidden video camera. I would make his criminal record in such a case a disadvantage for him and tell it to his face.
Why would anyone want to hire a cashier with a record of theft for example? Or a medical doctor who has mistreated a patient? The case you have created here sounds more like a conflict in the guys skill sets with his criminal record. Its better to learn a new job. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:39:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 21:41:08
Originally by: THE L0CK But at what point would you think you being careful in preventing opportunities turn into him feeling untrusted? That is my question that I am asking.
This depends entirely on the circumstances I guess.
Quote: Then like many others you have denied him an opportunity at an honest life. And when times get desperate enough he may or would resort to theft once again. Now we understand why these inmates end up being repeat offenders.
No. He still can have an honest life. Ask the cashier, who stole money in his past, why one should trust him now and why he did not choose to learn a new job? Did he not know after he left prison that he could not simply go back to his old life, but needs to make some adjustments? Even people who did not commit a crime can fail at a job and should better do something else. A person in a wheel chair knows that there is little chance for becoming a test pilot. A race driver who never won a single race but only crashes the cars is not someone who you would trust to win a race either. Some people had their chance but could not hold on to it for whatever reason. Rehabilitation then does not mean to give them the same chance again and again until they get it right. You then give the chance to someone else before you give it to the same person again. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:21:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 22:23:12
Originally by: THE L0CK That is not the question I asked.
I did answer your question. Perhaps ask better questions?
Quote: The second involved him actually being better qualified but it would require you as the manager to trust him with the keys in which you outright said no.
No, you are wrong. You want to see his criminal past seperately from his qualifications. For me does a qualification only show a person's experience and so does a criminal record. Asking me to only hire him because of one set of experience but not the other would not be fair. You said so yourself that it is fair to see it as such. Why not now? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: THE L0CK I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The second scenario that I asked was that if the criminal was better qualified than anyone else looking at the position but the position would require him to need a set of keys to the business I wanted to know if you would hire him and you said no which is expected.
How can he be better qualified when he previously failed at this position?
It does not matter how someone failed. An accountant for example can fail at his job, because he is just very bad with maths, and he can fail because he could not withstand the temptation to fake numbers.
If he then leaves jail and has the qualification for being an accountant and is good with maths, but has a record for stealing while being an accountant, too, then the sum of both is worth nothing.
You need to give a better example. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:14:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 23:17:06
Originally by: THE L0CK Read the question again please.
I did and I do not think that you are asking a fair question.
It is simply not possible for him to be better qualified and to give me a problem at the same time.
Either he is better qualified and that means there is no problem, or he is not better qualified and because there is a problem.
If both candidates give me a problem then I am not going to hire any of them. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:45:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Whitehound on 27/07/2009 23:59:49
Originally by: THE L0CK Which would you end up choosing and why?
I am not trolling you. I will simply not allow anyone to put me into a fixed situation which is directed at me making an uninformed decision. I would have to ask the guy what computer courses he had, and I would ask him what he stole and why he did it. I would not ask him if he would do it again, but I need more information than just what you are willing to give me.
So lets just say that he did the courses that make him interesting for me and that I asked him some technical questions and his answers were right.
You can now answer the questions regarding his crime and 1) why he did it, 2) what he stole and 3) what the circumstances were.
And does he have a parole officer or someone like that I can talk to? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 18:35:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 18:35:46
Originally by: Awesome Possum You spank a child who's done wrong, to show them that what they did was wrong.
You also need to love a child not only spank it or else it will be all it knows. And you should know this, too. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Awesome Possum I was tempted to just flood this thread with facepalm pictures, but can't be ass'ed to really.
You want to facepalm? That sure is funny! You would need to to hide your shame.
In case you have never heard of it but some kids only get one beating after another. And guess what? Their parents think just like you that they did something wrong.
And some kids get mistreated in much worse ways. Guess where they all end? No, it is not here in this forum ... --
|
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:19:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Whitehound on 28/07/2009 22:19:36
Originally by: THE L0CK Theres a bit of a difference between a spanking and a beating.
And what is it? Is it the way you hold your hand? The amount of force you put into it?
I would like to see you and Awesome giving me a description of the difference between a spanking and a beating! --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 22:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: THE L0CK I bet you would dirty boy, but I've spent enough of my time simplifying things for you already. I'm sure you'll be able to figure out which is which on your own.
Why so defensive? You are the one who always likes to dish out, no? Now say, is spanking a child the same as loving it or can you only make silly comments? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 08:27:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 08:28:53
Originally by: nahtoh Learn to read dumbass...
You are a chav with an Internet connection. Learn to love yourself. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 13:54:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 13:54:59
Originally by: nahtoh And you are a total feckwit.
You can neither write or spell. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 15:09:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 15:09:38
Originally by: Malcanis Nor.
No, I choose or over nor in this particular case. In an educated conversation would it be wrong, however. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 17:44:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 17:45:49
Originally by: LordSwift ... Basically i think if you commit a crime. Whatever it is. You should have no comforts ...
And you would probably think that a homosexual in prison has a life like a sex god, too? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 17:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: THE L0CK How do you come up with those wonderful ideas and assumptions?
It is the same stupid way of thinking.
Even murderers are allowed to read books. Why not give people in prison some comfort? We, who put them behind bars, are not the criminals. Do not forget that. Unlike criminals do we still posses virtues like mercy and forgiveness. It is usually the stupid who end up in prison, and not the merciful and forgiving. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 18:37:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 18:45:34
Originally by: THE L0CK But then again you were the one to equate spanking to discipline and beating out of anger as one and the same.
No, I did not.
I quote:
Originally by: Awesome Possum You spank a child who's done wrong, to show them that what they did was wrong.
You do beat the child. If you cannot see this then you are a horrible father and your children have all my sympathy. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 19:00:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 19:02:34
Originally by: Awesome Possum You may not think you did, ...
And still have I not said anything about anger. You are one sad and horrible father to me. You think to know ("imply") what others think and probably do the same with your children, too. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 19:13:00 -
[20]
Originally by: THE L0CK ...
Who the hell are you talking to? Are you talking to yourself now, or are your comments actually meant for someone to read? --
|
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 19:20:00 -
[21]
Originally by: THE L0CK And he goes back to trolling. Seriously that is all you ever do in every thread I read.
You need to get out of here. You are talking to yourself and you have lost the ability to follow the thread. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 19:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Awesome Possum That is one of the points of being a parent, knowing exactly what your child is thinking and doing.
So tell, how do you do this? Are you omni-present and -knowing like a God? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 20:22:00 -
[23]
Originally by: THE L0CK Its one of the ...
I was not asking you, THE L0CK. Now let Awesome Possum answer the question.
Or shall I say "be a good kid"? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 22:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Qui Shon Also, if it's wrong, it's wrong. You can write it incorrectly on purpose if you want, but that doesn't change it's status as wrong.
Grammar serves us, but we do not serve grammar. If I choose to write something wrong, then I am obviously not doing it to serve grammar but a different purpose. It may not get me applause from a grammar teacher, but if it gets you thinking then it is a superior win. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 23:00:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 23:05:07
Originally by: THE L0CK Gets me thinking that I need a Whitehound to English translation script.
You need more than that. You would need to stop that train of thought of yours from spinning around in circles. Read a book or watch a movie! --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 23:24:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Whitehound on 29/07/2009 23:26:13
Originally by: Munchees We should just let criminals run around free because it's not their fault they were sent to jail. It's the cops fault.
I have a better idea! We watch them and if they behave well then we reduce their sentence!
How crazy would this be? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 06:58:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Whitehound on 30/07/2009 06:58:49
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: Awesome Possum That is one of the points of being a parent, knowing exactly what your child is thinking and doing.
Real parents are those who are aware of what their children are reading and watching. ...
You still have not answered the question. How do you know what exactly your child is thinking and doing? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 20:18:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Whitehound on 30/07/2009 20:22:23
Originally by: Awesome Possum This is why you shouldn't breed.
I have already answered your question. The Lock has already answered your question. Keep your pants on.
I have now reported you.
Please, give a proper answer. I want to know from you how you can know what exactly a child does and thinks.
I think that you post only BS and that you have no real interest in any discussion. Instead, when you are being ask to take responsibility for your comments do you only side step and bring insults. Frankly, you do not fit into here. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 21:19:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Whitehound on 30/07/2009 21:22:46
Originally by: THE L0CK I guess I'm gonna get reported as well ...
Yes, for trolling.
You are no help in this discussion. Instead, do you both have a problem with me and I cannot help you, and the only people who can help you are the moderators. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 06:23:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Awesome Possum I agree with legalizing prostitution.
Who needs it? --
|
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 07:48:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/07/2009 07:50:20
Originally by: Qui Shon Don't know about "need", I haven't heard about people dying from lack of call girls, ...
I was hoping for "because of Falcon", really.
It is not about what you need, but about what women need. Women do not need it and men shall not be allowed to pay for it. Women will do almost anything to support a family or just their own life. That does not mean there is a market for a new service. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 08:55:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/07/2009 09:08:34
Originally by: Qui Shon Oh, and just for the record, I have never used such services, as you define them, nor am I likely to, and that wouldn't change depending on legality. I wouldn't start using pot either if it became legal, though I did my share of experimentation during Uni, but I still think it should be legal.
If it is of no importance to you then why do you not want it to be illegal and to protect women? You do not want children to prostitute themselves either, do you? There are enough people out there who pay for this, too, and I am sure you never used such a service either or need it ("it" being the service).
And get over your problem of the word "need". I need women. It would be a dead world without them. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 10:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Munchees Smoking weed causes your mind to go a bit funny for a few hours. But it's nothing like getting hammered.
As soon as you legalize it will people get hammered and stoned. No, but thanks. Alcohol is evil and smoking is, too, but never should they be a reason to legalize other drugs. Instead, it is good that more and more people stop smoking. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 20:55:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/07/2009 20:56:05
Originally by: Awesome Possum Its not about women, ..
It is about women. You do not see many men on the street, do you?
Quote: Your arguments imply that legalizing prostitution is going to force women into it.
No. And, yes, it does force women into it regardless of the legality.
Make it legal and you have women selling themselves for the minimum wage and while paying taxes for what you like to call "service". Their "customers" would not be allowed to choose a prostitute based on the age of the woman, because it would violate the right for equal employment. The "costumers" would not be allowed to bring a chicken or eat excrements out of a shoe, because it would violate health regulations, etc.
You really do think prostitution is a proper business, don't you?
I tell you what it is: prostitution is creeps and weirdos f'cking around with women. It has got little to do with what you call legally consenting adults. Prostitution is illegal by law. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 22:01:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich ...
Politicians get caught with prostitutes on a regular basis, which puts an end to their careers. Governments like to get taxes out of any money transfer regardless of what the money is being used for. And people use sex for marketing. But what is your point? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 22:35:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich If you didn't see it the first time then I can't help ya bud, sorry.
You want to have sex with other women and do not want your wife to know about it. Hence your appreciation for regular check-ups of prostitutes.
Is that it? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 22:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Qui Shon prostitution IS LEGAL BY LAW.
Since you use caps and bold will I respond.
How often do you use prostitutes? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 23:36:00 -
[38]
You do not have a view point.
If you stand up for the legalization of the prostitution of women then you first need to explain why you want women to become prostitutes in the first place.
Prostitutes can see a doctor at any time. The legalization however forces them to see a doctor. Once a prostitute becomes infected does she start working illegally. She will not give up her job. The legalization is nothing but a method to register and to tax prostitution. It does not change prostitution. It creates more prostitution.
Declaring it as illegal allows the law to prosecute men who pay women for this "service" as well as the women who prostitute themselves. If you do not use prostitutes then this should be not a problem for you. So why do you want it to be legal? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:05:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Awesome Possum Of consenting adults. Not women.
The same law that declares who an adult is and and who is not declares what prostitution is. So you cannot use it as an argument. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:49:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Whitehound on 01/08/2009 00:50:50
Originally by: Awesome Possum Wrong.
No, it does not matter what the name of the law is. Either shut up or say that you want prostitution and why. It is this simple. --
|
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 00:59:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Qui Shon Brilliant logic....not. If I do not intend to, say, blackmail someone, and am unlikely to end up a victim of blackmail, why would I care if it's illegal or not? Durrr.
What is your logic? You want to legalize blackmail? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:02:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Whitehound on 01/08/2009 01:03:50
Originally by: Maik Sarsei soz, but if your mind has such gaping holes in logic don't be surprised that other posters simply refuse to argue with you
No, it is not a category mistake. It is an example of how open-mindedness can be abused (aka "bull-sh*tting"). Do not try to argue with me when you do not like losing. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 01:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Awesome Possum ...
You would actually want your mother, your sisters and your wife on the street offering themselves to other men? --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 03:13:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Munchees The thing is if you legalize it actual businessmen can set up brothels, and not pimps who are criminals. Nevada is an example of this.
What makes you think these are real businessmen? The pimps only start wearing suits and hire a tax consultant. Consequently do they stop being criminals once you have changed the law. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 12:18:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Awesome Possum People have been selling sex for millennia. Nothing will stop it.
The law does not stop crime. It reduces crime.
Even when you put the death penalty on murder do people continue to commit murder.
It is no reason to legalize prostitution or any other crime. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 18:26:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Awesome Possum Its only a crime if it is illegal.
And prohibition makes a mockery of your thought that laws reduce crime.
No, it does not.
How can you now compare the prohibition with prostitution? The prohibition in the United States, which is what I guess you are referring to, was introduced while everyone was drinking alcohol. Of course it had to fail.
Try today to declare smoking as illegal and it will fail just the same, which is why it is being banned only slowly.
Prostitution however is not a wide spread problem and therefore does it not require legalization or a step-by-step program to solve it. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 16:00:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Tajwel Kura On average 25% of males worldwide visit prostitutes.
What is your point? All you have done is to bring another incoherent argument. I do not even know if you are for prostitution or against it. And are these 25% of all men seeing prostitutes on a daily basis or just once in their whole lifetime?
I repeat the one number, which you should be thinking about, for you:
Originally by: Mr Reeth Would you leave prostitution: 87%
You can use the number and type it into a calculator. I think women do not like prostitution, but for some this is news. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 16:03:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Whitehound on 02/08/2009 16:06:00
Originally by: Tajwel Kura Criminalization and prohibition is the way of backwards, barbaric societies that will chop of your hands if you steal bread. Which world do you stand for?
Are we chopping off the hands of prostitutes and their "customers"?
People then stop smoking, because of the increasing costs and the fewer places where they are allowed to smoke. And, yes, a better information helps, too. --
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.08.02 20:10:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Tajwel Kura ...
I do not contradict myself. You are taking it further off the topic.
And no one is labelling prostitutes as criminals here.
Do you think of people who get caught speeding as criminals and do you label them? No, you do not. If anyone needs to be labelled as criminal then it is the men who use prostitutes.
This thread was originally about teenagers in prison, and because Awesome Possum wanted wanted to legalize prostitution are we now talking about it. Prostitution has very little to do with prohibition. This is now about the abuse of women living in poverty also known as prostitution. Prohibition is about the abuse of alcohol. Women are then not the same as alcohol ... --
|
|
|
|