I admit, you are both much more understanding than I am - I don't even want a liberal in my house, much less someone who has broken the law.
LOL, often one in the same I think.
BTW, I agree with your assessment. Their premise was indeed "once someone has done their time, they should be welcomed back into society and given a second chance". Maybe not welcomed back but at least not banished from society. Now that you've nailed them with their own agrument they're trying to create wiggle room. It is not a straw argument. It is a difference without distinction.
Studies? Sources, please. So, what you’re saying is that if I get a speeding ticket, then by default I’m capable of taking it to the next step, ie DUI. So, should I be treated as someone who will be a DUI offender instead of a speeding ticket? What’s the next step after that? Vehicular manslaughter? Do you see the fallacy of your argument? By your own standards, once we’ve been served with a speeding ticket we’re capable of ‘taking it to that next step, and judged accordingly’?
Wow. You continue to try to buttress your emotional reaction to the man and what he did by trying to use logic, and that never works well. Again, you equate gangbangers, drug dealers, pedophiliacs, and speeders as the same? Based on your rationale, you have no choice but to lump in the minor crimes with the major. Have you ever had someone who’s had a parking ticket in your house for a beer or an iced tea. It seems hypocrisy is not only my realm, FRiend.
The argument is indeed a straw argument.