Thread: Working with a sex offender, could you do it?
View Single Post
Unread 12 Jul 2006, 09:23   #33
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Working with a sex offender, could you do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
I do have a problem with the second the post 'or' part, but I really have a problem with this part. It's a claim, 'or' or 'no or' which requires substantiation or explanation of some kind.
Well, it's unfair to quote just that bit, as the or changes the context of it quite a bit.

Consider the statment : "The majority of people in the world are either over 80 or live in Asia/Africa"

If you just quoted "the majority of people in the world are [...] over 80" clearly that can't be substantiated since it isn't true, but then again it's not supposed to be by itself.

That first part of his "or" claim is fairly modest and would probably be true even if it applied to one case a year. Considering that we know that people who download child pornography are categorised as sexual offences it actually strikes me as something which requires almost zero additional support.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote