Actually, I'm quite sure you are proving my point. There's a question that's been posed to you here that you appear unwilling to acknowledge because you know the answer to it undermines your position: if the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world won't be convinced to stop eating people just because you ask them nicely, does that mean that we should throw our hands in the air and say "oh, well, I guess we just have to accept that a bunch of people are going to get eaten," or is it perhaps more constructive to say that a little coercion in his case might be appropriate before he coerces more innocent people into his kitchen?
