sigh...

I wouldn't be surprised if sex offenders are already wearing something similar.

Anklets have been proposed, indeed.

Your 'it will come to pass' reasoning doesn't make any sense.

You know - people always say it doesn't make any sense - and then it happens.

That's one of the many reasons why history repeats, I guess...

That's a really premature and broad speculation as to the implications of something. No one is going to 'for the children' create a public registry of every single person's face and address of every single member of society.

Well, combine the paedophile scare, the drug scare, the terrorism scare and for good measure the immigration scare, and you have a damn good argument that the government really needs all that info. Several EU countries are coming close already...

It would be entirely meaningless for protecting children.

Irrelevant.

It never has been about protecting children.

Doing it selectively for people who have prior offenses does make some sense.

If they're really so dangerous, why even release them???

They are released because they know they aren't as dangerous as they themselves claim.

but I understand the purpose,

For some random reason, I suddenly remembered the Cagots...

I might start wearing the goose foot sign...

and you have to realize that there is no clear purpose in doing it to everyone,

Yes there is. Think of the children!!! Would Natascha Kampusch have taken so long to be found??? Would we still be wondering who killed Jon Benet??? or where is Maddie???

so you really have to come up with a convoluted reason for making that kind of analogy between skipping from criminals (sex offenders at that) to stalking every member of the public 'for the children'.

Someone will do it.

Yeah I know Your 'someone will do it' reasoning doesn't make any sense., but again, it never does until it happens...

Failure to communicate is an issue for a lot of people on parole too... sex offender or not.

I don't mean to the police, silly.

I mean that you have to tell you're a SO in many more instances than just the local police dept.

The problem with deference to biblical inerrency being used in your argument is that the expression 'killing your soul' isn't in the bible, it's being uttered by the public. Public advocates of biblical inerrency do not necessarily not use (or even avoid using) errency/metaphor in their own lives. Arguing for the sake of arguing? :p

So you're saying that when antis say "killing their soul" they really mean "tickle their toes"???

Sorry, but if they don't literally mean "killing their soul" they should stop talking like they do.

Even so, the soul concept doesn't seem very clear in judaism.

Especially for the time this happened, yep.

Furthermore, the concept of being able to kill it is something you're drawing out of the casual phrasing of antis and not from the bible so taking it literally like that just seems to be an effort at poking fun or causing trouble

No - it's an effort to Biblically disprove their argument that having sex with a child is worse for the child than death.

and ignoring the kind of problems they're basing their outrage on, which do exist.

Whether I ignore them or not, it's irrelevant, because I don't have any means to help those who won't help themselves, least of all over the distance of the internet.