"Weighing in on a polarizing issue that he rarely discusses, Mr. Obama said the Oklahoma episode, in which a prisoner remained groaning in pain after sedatives were apparently not fully delivered, underscored concerns with capital punishment as it is carried out in America today. While reiterating his support for the death penalty in certain cases, Mr. Obama said Americans should “ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions” about its use." (read more)
So, what do you think?
Should we reconsider the death penalty?
Is it too barbaric for the 21st century?
Or do you hold fast that some crimes are so gruesome that the only penalty commensurate is death.
210 comments:
1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»I'll say the obvious.
Considering the gravity and pure barbaric madness of this guy's crime, I don't care.
Safe legal and rare might be a place to start.
And I concur with those who always conveniently forget the barbarity of the punished crimes. They tend to be the same people who argue that the prisons are jsut full of overly punished pot smokers. It's sickening.
But hey, let's follow Mr Holder's cues and give these prisoners the vote!
It takes the government to find it difficult, expensive and time consuming to kill someone in a facility full of convicted killers. Can't they just ask the locals for advice?
Mammals are painlessly put down by the thousands every single day by the bottom rung employees at slaughter houses and animal "shelters" without incident, and yet teams of doctors and lawyers can't seem to pull it off. WTF? We have been doing this since the dawn of man and we really can't do it all of a sudden?
What is it about government that makes them unable to boil water without burning down the house?
Just because someone innocent may be executed.
I favor limited government.
Criminals botch crimes all the time. What makes us so special that we cant one wrong once in a while. Like chik says... safe legal and rare.
Just because someone innocent may be executed.
This guy was guilty as hell and had it coming.
I favor limited government.
I'm sure you could have found six citizen volunteers to form a firing squad to kill this guy. I'll bet they would have even contributed the guns and ammo for free.
To quote Waylon Jennings
I've been busted
For things I have and have not done
Who ever said life was supposed to be absolutely fair?
This guy was guilty as hell and had it coming.
I don't disagree. The argument is if you allow that then you risk executing someone who IS innocent.
Guess what, appearently killing is not easy. I say that is more evidence condeming people who criminally kill. How is my logic there?
If you think capital punishment is cruel and unfair, then how do you justify locking someone up in a cage with the worst sadist in our society and letting them rot for years for things far less offensive than slowly torturing and killing innocent people for the thrill of it? How can you punish anyone with prison for nonviolent crimes when the most heinous, and vicious crimes get the same punishment, just a little longer. Then consider that many of these murderers find prison actually preferable to working for a living? So, no real punishment at all.
Keeping a murderer alive is a hundred times more likely to result in the death of an innocent person than the chance of executing one. If you care about innocent people being killed, then you should support C.P.
I don't disagree. The argument is if you allow that then you risk executing someone who IS innocent.
My Uncle Benny died in a perfectly senseless training accident in the U.S. while awaiting orders to ship out to the Korean War.
Shit happens.
Obama's overriding concern here should be sending a message to black thugs that they will be dealt with summarily if they commit these crimes.
Instead, he's inciting racial hatred, again. I really don't give a shit about much else he does, but the asshole (Obama) should be condemned for this constant incitement to racial hatred.
He's sending a message to black thugs that will result in the murder of more innocent white victims.
To favor the death penalty you have to believe that the cops and courts are infallible. This seems unlikely.
"The argument is if you allow that then you risk executing someone who IS innocent."
You do this yourself everyday when you drive out of your parking spot. Maybe you should stay on the couch - just to be sure.
“Deeply disturbing,” says the man who had no problem voting against a bill that would provide medical assistance to babies who survive an abortion procedure.
To trust them to keep a murderer from murdering again you have to believe that the cops and courts and jails are infallible.
What the hell do we do that is infallible? Innocent people are killed all day long because we take much less important risks, and we all do it. Grow up.
To favor the death penalty you have to believe that the cops and courts are infallible.
No, you don't. You accept the reality that cops and courts make mistakes like everybody else. That's like saying you won't send troops off to war unless you can be assured nobody will be killed by friendly fire.
I still play in black churches.
There is a strong belief in the black community that violence against whites is justified reprisal for past injustice. Witness the assault on that house painter in Detroit. Crack is a spokesman for that demented bullshit of justifying revenge killing.
Obama is playing to that desire for racial vengeance. Damn him for that.
You do this yourself everyday when you drive out of your parking spot. Maybe you should stay on the couch - just to be sure.
You don't know how to argue with analogies do you?
What is it about government that makes them unable to boil water without burning down the house?
And you trust the government to decide who will get the dp and who won't.
*Now that's an argument by analogy.*
Do you want to compare the number of innocent people killed by state execution to the number killed because murderers were not executed. Do you care about those innocent dead at all, or is it all just about how YOU feel about it in the imaginary scenario where your policy is only responsible for the ones executed, and not the others.
I say give death a fair chance ;)
Its not like we know what happens after you die ;)
PHX, the point of argument by analogy or otherwise is to identify good from bad better from worse, and to suggest the better alternative. Maybe you should concentrate on that rather than style points, which you don't really seem to understand anyway.
Do you care about those innocent dead at all, or is it all just about how YOU feel about it in the imaginary scenario where your policy is only responsible for the ones executed, and not the others.
Oh dear. You just can't argue with me without getting your personal feelings about me all tied up into this, can you?
We're just arguing policies here, bagoh20. It's not a death match between good and evil.
Bagoh20: What is it about government that makes them unable to boil water without burning down the house?
The same skill set that makes it design blue on blue camouflage for Navy personnel so they can hide when fallen overboard.
Shouting Thomas: He's sending a message to black thugs that will result in the murder of more innocent white victims.
Actually, Obama is naive in his racism, or just ignorant...because black thugs kill far more innocent black folks than anyone else. Good of dear leader to assure more of his people are to be killed. I wonder what idiot advisor posed this idea to him?
The government's not infallible. I don't think they should be in the business of capital punishment because they could make a mistake, and I don't want my government making those kinds of fallible decisions if it can be reasonably avoided.
I think it can be reasonably avoided by life with no possibility of parole sentencing.
Some people feel otherwise. It's not a big deal, and it's not a dividing line between who is good and who is bad.
"And you trust the government to decide who will get the dp and who won't.
*Now that's an argument by analogy.*"
No, It's just dumb.
I thought you trusted the government to handle everything including your own and everybody's personal health care.
You see we have a nongovernmental alternative to that, but what is your alternative to the government justice system? It sounds like logically you just can't justify punishing people at all. How do you compensate an innocent person for any wrong conviction. If we can't risk mistakes then nobody should be tried.
I thought you trusted the government to handle everything including your own and everybody's personal health care.
No, I never said that.
"Do you care about those innocent dead at all, or is it all just about how YOU feel about it in the imaginary scenario where your policy is only responsible for the ones executed, and not the others."
"We're just arguing policies here, bagoh20. It's not a death match between good and evil."
In other words, no, you don't care. Got it.
How do you compensate an innocent person for any wrong conviction. If we can't risk mistakes then nobody should be tried.
People get compensated for wrong convictions all the time. They're not ALWAYS compensated fairly, that's for sure.
On the other hand nobody ever gets raised from the dead anymore.
"Do you care about those innocent dead at all, or is it all just about how YOU feel about it in the imaginary scenario where your policy is only responsible for the ones executed, and not the others."
In other words, no, you don't care. Got it.
Okay, you've proven I don't care about the innocent dead. So go argue with someone else who isn't Evil Incarnate, okay?
" it's not a dividing line between who is good and who is bad."
One policy results in many more innocent deaths than the other. I find that knowingly choosing that policy to be less than admirable. You may may see "meh".
I find that knowingly choosing that policy to be less than admirable.
I see. It's not about what policies are good or bad for the public or the state, it's about how you are a better, more admirable person than your opponents.
Phx : We're just arguing policies here,...
Fine. Tell me just what gives Obama the idea he has anything to investigate or change about policies that are generally delimited to the state? He planning to issue an executive order to criminalize botched executions per se?
Pretty funny really considering the other botched operations resulting in agony & death on his watch...such as the vaunted surge in Afghanistan where the KIA rate doubled in the recent 3 years over the prior 7. Huh? Whoops.
It is just a discussion of policy, so where does Obama get the idea he's got authority in the matter?
I'd suggest he got it from a moron adviser, just like most dumb ass ideas Presidents dream up.
Can't you do this without getting all your emotions tied into it? Try it sometime. Try just arguing on the principles and premises.
Fine. Tell me just what gives Obama the idea he has anything to investigate or change about policies that are generally delimited to the state? He planning to issue an executive order to criminalize botched executions per se?
Hey Ari. I didn't read it, I just figured he was speaking to the federal dp.
If I was wrong though correct me.
PHX, address the argument. You and ARM are advocating policy that results in more innocent deaths, while basing it on avoiding innocent death. It's doesn't stand up. I can only surmise it's because you don't accept responsibility for the negative impacts of your policy which is a bit of a pattern on the left.
Phx : It's not about what policies are good or bad for the public or the state...
Bagoh20 said nothing of the sort. You are parsing now. The idea that leaving murderers alive risks more innocent deaths is plainly an argument of benefit for the public.
The problem today is keeping prosecutors in line, and not letting them over charge in cases of homicide. I also don't like the concept of charging 1st Degree Murder with allowances for a jury to convict for a sliding scale of lessor charges. Prosecutions should be required to prove their single charge without cop-out features. Either prove the initial charge or don't bring it.
I favor limited government
I do too. The decision of whether to administer a death penalty sentence should be left up to the States. The Federal Government should have no ability to interfere.
I also agree with the concept that the death penalty should be rare and only for the most egregious crimes. Petty crimes don't deserve death. Crimes committed in the midst of a storm of passion, that would never have occurred in a rational state of mind should be carefully examined and likely don't deserve death.
The reality is that there ARE monsters among us who deserve to be eliminated from society not only for an example of crimes you should never commit but mostly for the safety of the rest of us. We can do it at the expense of millions of dollars in "humane" jails or we can just cut to the chase and put them down like the rabid sick dogs that they are.
We can put our pets "to sleep" with a simple shot. We can do the same for the human monsters.
Do some innocent people get caught in the system. Yes. This means we need to change the system and stop the prosecutorial abuse that convicts innocent people. We need to stop the plea bargaining process which is abusive and leads to innocent people being incarcerated.
Will we ever be 100% able to assure that not one innocent person is convicted. Nope. That is too bad. Too sad. But we can't throw our safety away for outliers.
If we can't administer a simple shot like we do for Fluffy at the Vet. Then I say bring back the guillotine. It is hard to screw that up.
PHX, address the argument. You and ARM are advocating policy that results in more innocent deaths, while basing it on avoiding innocent death. It's doesn't stand up. I can only surmise it's because you don't accept responsibility for the negative impacts of your policy which is a bit of a pattern on the left.
I can argue that! Thanks. You may not accept but here goes:
Let's accept for the sake of argument that my policy will lead to more innocent deaths (although it still seems debatable). Nevertheless preserving innocent life isn't the ONLY goal here. Ensuring that it's not the state (in our name) unnecessarily taking innocent lives when there are alternatives may be a greater good than preserving future unknown innocent lives.
Saving innocent lives in itself is not necessarily an absolute good. Most people agree on that part anyway.
bagoh20 said...
I thought you trusted the government to handle everything including your own and everybody's personal health care.
You are confused. Doctors handle health care. Bureaucrats, government or private, handle health insurance, plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.
It is much more realistic to try to fix problems with prosecution misconduct, or other failings of the system than it is to prevent further violence from murderers left alive and dangerous. As defective as the system is, its most dangerous and fatal failing is its inability to protect innocent people from murderers. That should be the primary objective of policy change. The mistakes and misconduct are serious problems, but they are fixable. There is only one reliable and humane way to make vicious murders stop their careers.
“At the president’s direction, the department will expand this review to include a survey of state-level protocols and related policy issues,” said Brian Fallon, a department spokesman.
From the article - just skimmed through it.
bagoh20 said...
The mistakes and misconduct are serious problems, but they are fixable.
Bags expressing confidence in the perfectibility of government.
And you trust the government to decide who will get the dp and who won't.
That decision should be decided by "a jury of peers" or by ordinary citizens. I trust (mostly) the consensus of those 12 ordinary people. Have you ever been on a jury?
I favor the death penalty egregious crimes.
Just because I favor the death penalty for some things, does not mean I have faith in the government or the police force as infallible. That is a strawman and a false premise. I have no faith in the government and little in the police either. That doesn't mean that we still should not remove the most dangerous and deranged from our midst.
Nothing is perfect. Get over it.
"Saving innocent lives in itself is not necessarily an absolute good. Most people agree on that part anyway."
Are you sure? Absolute good? Absolute or not, a comparison of relative good is all I'm arguing anyway.
ARM said - "Bureaucrats, government or private, handle health insurance..."
Private industry should handle health insurance. Not bureaucrats.
Not governments.
Sad enough though, with the ACA, more bureaucrats and governments ARE in charge of what should be private. Now with added IRS powers. Oh goodie!
The court systems and each state's laws handle death penalty.
If the pussy blue states want to outlaw the death penalty, let the voters vote for it.
oops. Nope. Obama and Holder are more than likely stepping in with dictatorial executive privilege.
April Apple said...
Private industry should handle health insurance. Not bureaucrats.
Private insurers are bureaucrats, ask any medical professional.
"Bags expressing confidence in the perfectibility of government."
Again, what's the alternative? Justice is necessarily a government function. It's the very purpose of it. I should have said "improve" the problems rather than "fix", but you know I meant that, and are just avoiding the point of this debate because...?
Nothing is perfect. Get over it.
We disagree. I don't expect perfection in many areas of life, but putting people to death in my name is one of them.
Again, what's the alternative?
Life without the possibility of parole.
Nothing is perfect. Get over it.
We disagree. I don't expect perfection in many areas of life, but putting people to death in my name is one of them.
I can respect that position. Just as I can object to abortion but accept that some people do not.
This difference is YET another reason to leave this decision of whether to allow the death penalty and when to administer it up to the States and not the Federal Government. If you feel that strongly, then you move to a State that has prohibited the practice. There.....your moral conundrum is solved. No one will kill people in your name if you don't live in Texas, for example :-)
PS. The government does all sorts of shit in my name that I don't like. Things that you DO like, I would imagine. What would you suggest I do about that?
Again, what's the alternative?
Life without the possibility of parole.
Good. YOU pay for it then.
bagoh @10:13 sums up my response.
theoretically (and in my field) I should be more against capital punishment than I am.
I've just not found the arguments against it very convincing, with the only caveat being shoddy or corrupt trials that lead to the verdict. Which is a big caveat in some cases.
But sometimes the evidence is so clear, take them out back and guillotine them. Let God sort them out from there. I mean that last sentence literally.
A lot of anti-capital punishment derives from a neo-Idealism that bothers me, as that historically has opened the door to naive acceptance of worse horrors, as evil people take advantage of the idealists.
PS. The government does all sorts of shit in my name that I don't like. Things that you DO like, I would imagine. What would you suggest I do about that?
Interesting pov. And I find nothing disprespectable about a pro-dp position, in itself.
My level of *moral outrage* over this issue would hardly require me to move to another state - a short nap would do just as well. Particularly regarding the guy from OK under discussion.
The moral failings of the government, even under my name, are hardly a moral conundrum for me. I have my druthers but I recognize my impotence in the vast scheme of the government matrix.
While I don't like anyone acting in my name esp. in ways I don't approve of, I'm still the only one responsible for myself.
Private insurers are bureaucrats, ask any medical professional.
Ask any medical professional what they think of Medicare.
I don't go along with your premise, based on my own experience with private health insurance and that of others - like say Bagoh. But...
If private insurers are more bureaucratic, it's only because over the last 30-40 years, the government has forced the bureaucracy through that door. Once bureaucracy gets a foothold, it's like a weed.
Good. YOU pay for it then.
I think the studies have shown it's cheaper to store 'em than floor 'em.
If you support a policy then the negative as well as the positive effects are in your name and your responsibility. That's why I support C.P..
My own brother was shot dead in the street by a career criminal on furlough who should have never been out. When he got out, the first thing he did was get a gun, get drunk and shoot my brother (who he didn't even know) just for kicks. He was convicted. While in jail he harrassed and threaten my elderly mother by mail and phone, because he didn't care. They couldn't do anything more to punish him. He had been in jail most of his life, and didn't mind being there. He did get out on probation after 7 years for 2 weeks before committing an armed robbery and assault and going back to jail. He committed multiple offenses against other inmates in jail, and eventually died of natural causes a few years ago. My mother feared him, until the day he died. I called her with the news, and she just cried with relief after 3 decades or fear.
That story doesn't give me any extra moral authority, but that is the real life result of current policy for thousands of victims everyday, and the victims are growing.
All of a sudden, the house libs distrust gubmint. Welcome, libertarians!
To assist you in your transition to distrust of gubmint, here's a guide to applying your newfound principles to the analysis of other life-and-death policies:
Think of the death penalty as an Obamacare prototype, with the jury as the IPAB and Mr. Lockhart as someone who scored low in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Years. Cost curve: bent!
In this particular case, Mr. Lockhart didn't really help boost his QALY score:
In another letter, Lockett allegedly wrote: "I did shoot that bitch."
I'm against the death penalty for AReasonableMan's reason: because I favor limited government. To allow the state to kill its citizens in cold blood just sends a really wrong message.
That said, among Things The Government Does That Bother Me, it's not in the top hundred.
Barry forgets (and he's the Constitutional lecturer), this is one he can't decree.
But he'll try.
In any case, read what the guy did before you go all wobbly.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
I favor limited government
Yes, Troll thinks it should be limited to the Lefties.
The vilification of private health insurance is mostly a scheme so that the left and the left's cronies can get rich.
bagoh20 said...
Again, what's the alternative?
All the other OECD countries seem to struggle along OK without the death penalty.
Good. YOU pay for it then.
I think the studies have shown it's cheaper to store 'em than floor 'em.
Oh Baloney. Keeping someone in "three hots and a cot" for life. Plus medical care, free dental, exercise equipment, cable television, library access and all the other accoutrements of modern day prison versus a "hot shot" or the costs of a few shotgun shells, like the ones that guy used on his victim. No comparison.
It isn't like prison is a big punishment anymore. We aren't talking Alcatraz.
IF we did actually punish instead of incarcerate in conditions that are often BETTER than what they were experiencing on the outside, REAL harsh conditions for those life without parole situations, then I might actually favor that. We don't. And I don't.
All of a sudden, the house libs distrust gubmint. Welcome, libertarians!
Heh
It amazes me the capacity the left have to grieve for people who commit heinous, depraved, cruel and heatless acts.
It also never ceases to amaze me how the left forget about the crimes committed and turn the criminal into a victim.
Oh Baloney. Keeping someone in "three hots and a cot" for life. Plus medical care, free dental, exercise equipment, cable television, library access and all the other accoutrements of modern day prison versus a "hot shot" or the costs of a few shotgun shells, like the ones that guy used on his victim. No comparison.
I think the expense is actually in the trials and legal disposition of capital cases. That's what makes CP so much more expensive than life without parole. Probably true if you paid for 'em to have satellite tv, the internet and a prostitute once a week.
Those capital cases are bucko tax $.
It amazes me the capacity the left have to grieve for people who commit heinous, depraved, cruel and heatless acts.
Who's grieving? I never hear people make that argument, except maybe priests or such.
Re my 11:30 comment: That's Lockett, not "Lockhart". Damn you, autocorrect!
Apologies to anyone named Lockhart.
""bagoh20 said...
Again, what's the alternative? ""
Both you guys extracted this out of context. The question was: what's the alternative to the government being in charge of justice? It must be a government function, which I don't think many disagree with.
"I'm against the death penalty for AReasonableMan's reason: because I favor limited government. To allow the state to kill its citizens in cold blood just sends a really wrong message."
Normally, I would side with less government, but this is what government is for, and there is no being less responsible for something when it's all your baby. With that understanding policy should be that which creates the least negative impact on the people. C.P. is that policy. If it's done without adequate control and protection for the innocent then that would not be good policy. That is the policy we have now, with CP being rare relative to the number of victims of convicted murderers. No policy is exactly even with any other in effects. The current policy of rare C.P. is clearly worse for the people than a policy that was more efficient about it. Nobody wants blood on their hands, even murderer's blood, but our policy bleeds people one way or the other. It's just who gets bled and how many.
The real costs are neither money spent on trials nor on food and housing. The real costs are not in dollars at all.
@ARM
Yes, the difference is that the U.S. suffers the culture of black violence which you support because excusing it helps Democrats win elections.
The problem is you.
Same for you, phx.
Finding excuses for endemic black violence is key to your political ambitions for the Democratic Party.
If phx's "humane" life without the possibility of parole were to replace the death penalty there would be many more horrendous death penalty worthy crimes committed for the simple reason that life without parole isn't nearly the deterrent that the death penalty is. But it doesn't really matter to phx, since "saving innocent lives in itself is not an absolute good." An astounding statement coming from a compassion monger.
Do we kill homosexuals? Do we put to death women who were raped or caught in adultery? do we put to death anyone who dares proclaim that they no longer worship Allah?
One of these things is not like the others.
Obama wasn't debating the right of the state to execute murderers.
He's inciting racial hatred by suggesting that blacks are targeted unfairly for execution because of racial discrimination.
phx and ARM are deliberately misdirecting the conversation to avoid addressing what Obama actually said. phx's always employs this misdirection tactic.
Because, I believe, both ARM and phx support Obama's efforts to incite racial hatred. Because this is key to Democratic electoral success.
You're jiving phx. And ARM.
The witch hunt going on, phx and ARM, is your party's witch hunt for racists.
Just because evil people do something does not make that thing evil. Those nations also use policies that you would agree with. That doesn't make those polices wrong by association.
The way C.P. is done here is nothing like in those places. In fact, it's not the same thing at all, and you know it.
Here's Shouting Thomas and ricpic - two more guys who want to personalize all political arguments or disputes. ALL of them.
Now if either of you lunkheads think you can argue from principles and premises, you'll find a worthy opponent.
Until then I remember what my daddy used to say. He used to say "Son, don't ever argue with children, mentally ill people or people who take it personally."
The way C.P. is done here is nothing like in those places. In fact, it's not the same thing at all, and you know it.
Wait a minute. In some ways they sure do. Like murderers. In fact, they probably execute them a lot faster and without all the legal safeguards - something a lot of CP proponents in America would like to see here.
In other words, you don't want to answer.
I can certainly understand that.
I am correct. Go read Obama's remarks. He did not discuss the legitimacy of capital punishment. He endorsed it and suggested that racism had something to do with this instance.
You've deliberately misdirected the conversation to advance your political ambitions.
I can see why you don't want to answer to that. It's ugly. Your motives are no good.
So, phx, quit engaging in a general discussion of capital punishment, and address what Obama actually said.
Looks to me like you are the lunkhead.
Cease the misdirection strategy.
In other words, you don't want to answer.
It's not that I don't want to argue, it's that I don't want to argue with you.
I have my druthers but I recognize my impotence in the vast scheme of the government matrix.
That is how we got to where we are today. Regrettably. There is a reason that impotence was relieved a bit on the Bundy Ranch. Which was not about Bundy, right or wrong, as much as about federal overreach and militarization of the agencies.
People are growing tired of their captivity and what that may lead to won't be pretty. God willing, it won't...that federal heads will grow clear and back away from such nonsense, as they did at Bundy Ranch. Beyond the absurd and silly militarization, was the cost that BLM felt justified in spending several million in contracting and payroll and per diem costs to collect less than a million.
I am v-e-r-y sure, based upon my personal experience, that about the time armed civilian horsemen were sweeping down from the hilltop under the banner of the American flag, toward a bunch of amateur federal clowns with too many guns and MRAP's, that s-o-m-e-o-n-e quite high up in the Executive Branch rang the fools up and asked..."WTF are you dumb asses doing?!"
Come on, phx, quit personalizing the conversation with the "lunkhead" bullshit, and deal with the reality of what Obama said.
This misdirection strategy you're employing, phx, is a form of deliberating lying.
Shouting Thomas said...
It's ugly. Your motives are no good.
You're lucky my mother doesn't read this blog or she would make you wash your mouth.
Which was not about Bundy, right or wrong, as much as about federal overreach and militarization of the agencies.
I more or less agree with that. Bundy was dead wrong, but he isn't really a racist and the bureau behaved very badly.
Hey phx, I just did argue from a premise you dumb cluck. Here, I'll repeat it: life without the possibility of parole, if it were to replace the death penalty, would ABSOLUTELY result in many more horrendous death penalty worthy crimes being committed against INNOCENT PEOPLE. Why? For the simple reason that there is no deterrent remotely approaching the deterrence of DEATH. And yes, thugs GET THAT.
This misdirection strategy you're employing, phx, is a form of deliberating lying.
Fine. Go argue with someone else.
It's true, ARM.
You're finding excuses for black violence because it advances your political ambitions for the Democratic Party.
And, as I said, the underhanded witch hunter is you.
You know, the guy who allies himself with the black racist?
Now, quit trying to bullshit me and deal with what Obama actually said, instead of this jive BS about whether capital punishment is justified in the abstract.
ricpic: whenever you or ST come in here you call me really bad names. There's no point in arguing with someone like you.
Just because you make ONE comment that doesn't call me "filth" or some such shit doesn't mean I have any kind of moral obligation to argue with you.
Both ricpic and ST can fuck off. There are plenty of conservatives and wingers here willing to give me an argument without acting like psychopaths.
Inciting racial hatred to advance your political interests is a very ugly, vicious thing to do, phx.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Top 5 countries to execute the most people:
China
Iraq
Iran
USA
Pakistan
Which one has a Constitution and Bill of Rights?
(granted, Troll loves his little Messiah for trying to trash them)
Acting like a psychopath seems to mean, in this instance, insisting on discussing what Obama really said, instead of engaging in an ethereal, abstract discussion of the merits of capital punishment.
Yeah, that's pretty psychopathic.
I know. I'm a terrible human being. Now go away.
No. The rest of us have to deal with the results of this shit.
Which one has a Constitution and Bill of Rights?
I'm pretty sure all nation states have a constitution, and I'll bet my bottom dollar all of them account for certain individual (if not unalienable) rights.
Deeds. Not words.
Since ST insists on injecting race into the discussion:
RACE OF DEFENDANTS EXECUTED IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976
WHITE: 643 (56.6%)
BLACK: 393 (34.6%)
HISPANIC: 78 (6.87%)
OTHER: 22 (0.62%)
Most people who have been executed are white.
phx, once again, cease with this bullshit misdirection strategy.
Did Obama endorse capital punishment and then suggest that this instance might represent an instance of racist injustice?
I was gonna say "Hey over a hundred comments already and it's not about racists or gays".
Now that we've thrown that in, we may hit 500. We just need Ritmo to throw in a couple million words about whatever it is he tries say.
Since blacks account for 13% of the populace, that means that they are executed at a rate of almost 3 times that of their demographic representation.
Those "other" people are getting away with murder big time.
@bagoh
I've got a gig, so you'll have to get there without me.
I am correct in my statement about the subject matter of Obama's comments.
Murder Victims by Race (Rounded up):
Black 48%
White 36%
Hispanic 13%
Other 4%
The over-representation of Blacks among victims is a good hint to why Blacks are also over-represented among murderers, but no Crack, there is nothing wrong in that culture.
RACE OF DEFENDANTS EXECUTED IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976
WHITE: 643 (56.6%)
BLACK: 393 (34.6%)
HISPANIC: 78 (6.87%)
OTHER: 22 (0.62%)
Most people who have been executed are white.
So what?
It isn't the race of the criminal as much as it is the nature of the actual crime that warrants the Death Penalty. The same goes for the numbers of people incarcerated in general. It isn't the race of the perp, it is the crime.
Here is a novel thought. If you don't want to go to jail.....don't be a criminal.
In fact, to present a counter argument, we have too many people in jail for petty crimes and things that aren't really criminal at all. This is a symptom of a government out of control where everything under the sun can be a crime. It is costly in dollars and in wasted human potential.
However, there ARE MONSTERS among us. People who do not deserve to live. Who are dangerous and for our own self preservation as individuals and as a society, we MUST eliminate them. Again.....we can do it the most expensive way by permanent incarceration in rather luxurious settings. OR we can cut to the chase and eliminate, permanently such monstrosities.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
So what?
ST, while admittedly a lunatic, insists that Obama or anyone opposed to the death penalty is, to use his terms, a 'race hustler'. Clearly this isn't the case. The case against the death penalty is race neutral.
...but no Crack, there is nothing wrong in that culture.
Oh, there's definitely something wrong in the culture.
Personally I am Pro Life so I am against the death penalty
I do note that the people against the death penalty have no problem killing innocent babies
I do note that the people against the death penalty have no problem killing innocent babies
That's only true sometimes. Many Catholics as well as others have a consistent life ethic.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
I don't believe that he stated that. You are interpreting his words.
These are ST's words in this thread alone:
Obama tries to sell race hatred... again.
Instead, he's (Obama) inciting racial hatred, again. I really don't give a shit about much else he does, but the asshole (Obama) should be condemned for this constant incitement to racial hatred.
Obama is playing to that desire for racial vengeance. Damn him for that.
the U.S. suffers the culture of black violence which you support because excusing it helps Democrats win elections.
Finding excuses for endemic black violence is key to your political ambitions for the Democratic Party.
He's inciting racial hatred by suggesting that blacks are targeted unfairly for execution because of racial discrimination.
I believe, both ARM and phx support Obama's efforts to incite racial hatred
The witch hunt going on, phx and ARM, is your party's witch hunt for racists.
You're finding excuses for black violence because it advances your political ambitions for the Democratic Party.
the underhanded witch hunter is you. You know, the guy who allies himself with the black racist?
Inciting racial hatred to advance your political interests is a very ugly, vicious thing to do, phx.
I often wonder why ST gets a pass on his constantly calling people racist. Apparently it is because no one actually reads what he writes.
If we could just change the culture in Omaha and Butte, we could make a big impact on the murder rate in Detroit and Compton.
Of course I'm in favor of the death penalty. The sentimental nature of people over this issue is absurd. 17,000 murders a year! Why aren't you all broken up about that? 40,000 annual deaths from auto accidents, probably 10,000 of which occur because we insist on driving at 70 MPH instead of 45 MPH. And of course Wars. How many dead innocent civilians in Afghanistan this year?
But that's all Ok. No, lets get all teary-eyed because someone who raped and then buried alive a 19 year girl was executed. Oh, the horror.
BTW, I assume if you're against the death penalty you're also against the use of deadly force to stop fleeing criminals and also against Homeowners killing criminals who are only coming to burgle or rob. After all, if they're not coming to kill you, you're giving the "death Penalty" to burglars.
I often wonder why ST gets a pass on his constantly calling people racist. Apparently it is because no one actually reads what he writes.
It's not just calling people racist - it's constant non-stop namecalling. Fuck him. I'm putting him on ignore from now on until he can stop acting stupid. Tough love.
I think we ought to make better use of prison conditions as deterrents.
The worse the crime, the worse the prison you go to. Put killers exclusively among other killers, and watch the murder rate fall.
Except in prison, of course. Which may or may not be a bug.
I am ok with the death penalty.
tits.
What could be funnier, or more satisfying, than the complaints of a couple of racism hucksters bitching that the same tactic was employed successfully against them?
The only thing missing is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of your women.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
I don't believe that he stated that. You are interpreting his words.
Shouting Thomas said...
What could be funnier, or more satisfying, than the complaints of a couple of racism hucksters
Obama had no problem with a baby born alive in botched abortion being allowed to suffer and die in unimaginable agony on a cold metal table. He voted for a bill that would allow this.
On the other hand he is concerned that a vicious and racist murderer got the death penalty.
That says it all right there.
I will say that although I am against the death penalty that does not mean I am against appropriate punishment against these murderers.
They should be put in a small concrete cell with no contact with the outside world for more than two hours a week. Just what they did to John Gotti in the Supermax prison after his last conviction.
That would be economical since you wouldn't need to spend a lot. Just on concrete and baloney sandwiches to feed them.
Isolation from society and human contact would be the best punishment. They have proved by their actions that they are not truly deserving of being part of our society. This guy would have benefited by being held in a small windowless room for twenty years eating rancid food and drinking warm water.
It would only be a matter of time until he became a gibbering idiot.
Of course then he would be the typical Obama supporter.
No wonder they want to give felons the vote.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
I don't believe that he stated that. You are interpreting his words.
These are ST's words in this thread alone:
Did you miss the part of YOUR statement that I bolded? Where you say or anyone?
I didn't see "or anyone" in those comments. If you want to argue with what people say, which is a perfectly good thing to do, then don't be adding your own words into theirs or try to argue with your filtration of what they actually did say.. If you can't argue with accuracy from your side, then please don't put words into my mouth either.
Maybe it's barbaric maybe it's not. Maybe it can be researched to make all the less barbaric. But as any fool from Illinois should know, once you give the state the power to kill people, that's a hell of an over-reach when it comes to mistakes. It really amazes me that fools who feel the government is always incompetent and never gets anything right, feel pretty snappy about letting it kill people - especially when moratoria have to be passed to reconsider the fact that 13 people had to be released from death row in one 4-year term due to evidence shown to be clearly wrong.
That should put a chill down the spine of anyone with an adult sense of morals.
Anyone declaring himself a libertarian or opposed to government over-reach in zealous favor of applying the death "penalty" is a downright liar and absolutely full of shit.
I often wonder why ST gets a pass on his constantly calling people racist. Apparently it is because no one actually reads what he writes.
Including himself.
Then I am sure that you will join me in condemning the bill that Obama voted for in Illinois that mandated that a baby born after a botched abortion be left to die.
Note that this is an innocent human life not a convicted torturer and murderer as the fact in this case. So I have no doubt you will stand with me. Stand for life. Not just for murderers, rapists and terrorist. But for innocent babies. The ones Obama and the progressives have no problem murdering.
I also agree with the concept that the death penalty should be rare and only for the most egregious crimes. Petty crimes don't deserve death. Crimes committed in the midst of a storm of passion, that would never have occurred in a rational state of mind should be carefully examined and likely don't deserve death.
The reality is that there ARE monsters among us who deserve to be eliminated from society not only for an example of crimes you should never commit but mostly for the safety of the rest of us. We can do it at the expense of millions of dollars in "humane" jails or we can just cut to the chase and put them down like the rabid sick dogs that they are.
I actually agree with Bunny somewhat. Although state-sanctioned killing is obviously violent and just as error-prone as any other decision, I can see instances where it's hard to imagine a more appropriate reaction. Of course, I'm not against war either and due to not being a pacifist alone, would never claim that I wouldn't sympathize with a retributive impulse, even though I know it's not the best one.
Her 2nd paragraph here is where it gets interesting, though. As I understand it, in the UK they're allowed to lock up people on the discovery that they're sociopaths, alone. That's a bit much for the U.S. system, and starts to approach Minority Report concepts of "pre-crime". Not all sociopaths are recidivist offenders, but 30%+ of prisoners are sociopaths (and in an age of non-violent incarceration, that's a bunch).
The further we come toward identifying biologically impulse violators and violence-perpetuators, it's possible that we might make better progress in finding appropriate resolutions (or, God forbid, "punishments") or better yet prevention strategies for every instance. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking the power we give the state to get it right will be implemented justly at all. We lower the bar on errors getting through greatly the more we allow it to implement violence and be swayed by the retributive impulse, and that error rate has to be figured into our concept of "justice". And if you're ok with that, you have to accept responsibility for the fact that you're admitting your preference for allowing the state to kill the innocent. Especially if you're a raving "justice-provider" like some in this thread and have no concept of the importance of all the caveats a woman with as much foresight as Bunny is able to describe above.
As I've stated a bunch of times my primary issue with anti-choice purists is equating a zygote with sentient life and have always been willing to negotiate with them when it comes to determining that 6-week or even 1st trimester abortions have nowhere near the moral gravity to consider of 3rd-trimester abortions, and that most of those are rare anyway, involve threats to the mother's life, or would result in life-threatening conditions on the part of an individual beset with complications that medical science wouldn't be able to fix before a soon and usually certain death anyway.
But all that having been said, I have no problem preventing the ex utero killing of a viable, at-term birth, so long as natural deliveries aren't forced and the state is funded by conservatives tasked with taking care of living infants and children that would have to grow up (if healthy enough) in decent orphanages or with sane, capable foster parents (not always available) to take care of them, and with the medical care required should they actually be as deformed as a number of these individuals are.
Her 2nd paragraph here is where it gets interesting, though. As I understand it, in the UK they're allowed to lock up people on the discovery that they're sociopaths, alone.
That is just wrong! Having tendencies to do something is entirely different than actually acting out those tendencies. It is like being an alcoholic. You have the tendency but if you never take a drink or have the willpower to stop once the condition is diagnosed, then there should be no action that anyone, other than the alcoholic, needs to take.
Thought crimes are (or should not be) not punishable. Acting on those thoughts is another issue. This is why I have big problems with what is happening now. Punishing people for having unpopular thoughts or even destructive thoughts is beyond the pale. Acting on those thoughts....well.
On the other hand....always arguing both sides of the issue.....when someone is a dangerous sociopath, who hasn't YET acted out, how do we justify not getting some preventative help and hopefully stopping the violence. If Ted Bundy had been 'treated', even against his will, would it have saved multiple lives. Do we have the right to stop people, incarcerate them, because they MIGHT do harm but haven't done so? What if they NEVER act out?
I got gigs tonight and tomorrow, Ritmo.
Real live women. Been a while for you there, hasn't it?
You're gonna be bullshitting from the basement all night again, right?
Did Mommy bake you a cupcake?
On the other hand....always arguing both sides of the issue.....when someone is a dangerous sociopath, who hasn't YET acted out, how do we justify not getting some preventative help and hopefully stopping the violence.
"We" don't. There is no "treatment" preventive or otherwise for being a sociopath (just look at Shouting Thomas, for instance) so there's nothing that can be done - at least not from that standpoint. Further, not all sociopaths are serial killers. I'm not even sure of the match-up, there. Apparently, serial killers have an "urge" that simply can't be met by other means, the way normal people require food.
I looked at a book recently by a claimed sociopath named M.E. Thomas which was interesting. She runs blog forums where other alleged sociopaths and non-sociopaths discuss. (KInd of like here). What's interesting is that, despite their lack of any natural conscience in the sense that we would recognize it, some have other rules or interests that keep them law-abiding or at least acknowledge a lack of interest in being violative or law-breaking.
Many of them are claimed to be near-geniuses, which makes sense. If a brain is "freed" from the task of developing any moral concern for others and society, it must follow that an awful lot of what's left over can be put toward pure, genius-levels of rational calculation. They tend to love games, for that reason, which also plays into their interest and skill at manipulative behavior. Clearly there is more to understand about the condition, or at least how it is understood and dealt with. But make no mistake, the lack of something that fundamental is a hugely important and chilling feature that no amount of love or concern or interest can overcome. The only disincentive on their part against eating you alive is a lack of interest in it. There is no moral disincilination against it.
That was such a doofus windbag bit of puffery that I couldn't get past the first sentence, Ritmo.
Why don't you try writing your scholarly tomes and submitting them for publication?
Chicken shit?
DBQ: Note how ST believes his inability to read something that wasn't addressed to him entitles him to edit it for his own purposes. Typical sociopath behavior - no respect for boundaries.
This is funny!
You're such a predictable stooge, Ritmo, but you're a little behind the time.
A couple of years ago was the high point of the era when lefties called everybody they didn't like a sociopath.
As usual, you aren't even original.
So, what are you and mommy doing tonight?
I don't think ST's really a sociopath, but he certainly has no respect for others. His respect for authority and power are too high. If he was put in prison and bashed against a wall, he would have respect for that. He would also think he was pretty cool if he was allowed do that to someone else.
Sociopaths are usually smarter, much more cunning - and have no respect for someone too unclever to keep out of too much trouble.
Tom's just a garden-variety idiot and bully. His blogposts are at about a 4th-grade reading level and he craves attention too much to be a sociopath. Others here think he's just senile.
But I wouldn't rule out some Axis II thing of some sort going on - narcissistic tendencies, probably. He probably realizes his face looks like a bowling ball bag or old, unshaved vagina and requires respect and attention through means that allow him to feel he's overcome the power of his physical ugliness and stupidity.
What's interesting is that, despite their lack of any natural conscience in the sense that we would recognize it, some have other rules or interests that keep them law-abiding or at least acknowledge a lack of interest in being violative or law-breaking.
Many of them are claimed to be near-geniuses, which makes sense. If a brain is "freed" from the task of developing any moral concern for others and society
I'm quite familiar with this having been accused/diagonosed of being somewhat a socialized psychopath myself. It isn't that I have a lack of moral concern for others and society. I do. It is just not what everyone else has or does: or to be more exact it is what works for me and mine. I have no interest in harming people in any way, and most certainly not animals or children who are helpless and deserving of protection. That is just sick. Wait....I DO have interest in harming people who DO harm animals and children.
I can have some empathy for people who have been put upon by others or who are in unfortunate circumstance. I have no empathy for people who bring their troubles to themselves.
I don't think you can "cure" this way of thinking/being. I don't actually think there is much wrong with it or a need to cure and in fact the tendency and mindset can be quite useful in some occupations and careers. If a person can can recognize it in themselves and not act out or try to be more mainstream, that is good. If you want to, that is :-)
What I was talking about in the Ted Bundy types is those mentally ill sociopaths who want to harm and cannot control their tendencies. How do you determine this without actual evidence. Thought crimes are not actual crimes.
Would you like me to dedicate a song to you tonight, Ritmo?
"But all that having been said, I have no problem preventing the ex utero killing of a viable, at-term birth, so long as natural deliveries aren't forced and the state is funded by conservatives tasked with taking care of living infants and children that would have to grow up (if healthy enough) in decent orphanages or with sane, capable foster parents (not always available) to take care of them, and with the medical care required should they actually be as deformed as a number of these individuals are."
Can't you come up with a few more caveats and exemptions and exceptions to cover the fact that you will not stand up fair and square for a live baby that they want to kill?
It is simple. A bright red line just as it is a bright red line for the death penalty. You are for it or against it. Simple.
I should write a song about you Trooper.
What does bra fitter rhyme with?
Titter
Quiter
Babysitter
The list goes on and on.
I like simple rhyming schemes.
We sociopaths have to keep it simple.
And, Ritmo, you should do some story writing.
You could start by writing a novel starring all the characters you've imagined me to be.
You've fantasized dozens of personnae for me.
If you have any empathy at all you are not a sociopath - especially if it is in an impersonal way. Sociopaths can only feel something toward people - if they feel anything at all - insofar as they have a "use" to them. They can feel about a person the way you would about a prized possession or a fun toy.
They lack any sort of moral impulse/conscience - regardless of how ordinary people disagree on how those feelings should be applied.
Not all sociopaths are serial killers. Serial killers have an urge (like ST's urge to be the center of attention) that they can't overcome. They feel a thrill through the taking of life (like ST does about physical violence) that is often overpowering.
The sociopaths who do not violate simply lack an interest in violating. But they are all better at manipulating than anyone else you know - if they want to be.
"and that most of those are rare anyway, involve threats to the mother's life, or would result in life-threatening conditions on the part of an individual beset with complications that medical science wouldn't be able to fix before a soon and usually certain death anyway."
This is simply not true. The gruesome record of Doctor Gosnell is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no competent medical regulations of the abortion industry because they are fearful of the political cost of protecting innocent babies.
It is the height of hypocrisy to decry the execution of murderers and rapist but to just shrug your shoulders at the death of innocents at the hands of people like Gosnell.
It is not something open to negotiation. It is right or wrong. Simple.
See, Ritmo, you keep elaborating on your character.
Try doing something useful with the imaginative process.
@Trooper
Pretty funny that after all the "coat hanger" bullshit from the left, the coat hanger thing proliferates during the era of legal abortion.
You could start by writing a novel starring all the characters you've imagined me to be.
You've fantasized dozens of personnae for me.
Literature is interested in the morally degenerate - i.e. the "evil". It's not hard to find a number that apply to your character.
"Personnae" is a narcissist's word.
Do you go through withdrawal and have tantrums when you can't be the center of attention?
I love playing the villain, Ritmo.
Write your serial killer novel starring me as the killer and I'll be glad to see if I can expand the idea into a concept album.
I always am the center of attention, Ritmo, even from you.
There's a reason for that.
So, I don't have to go through withdrawal.
You should try accomplishing things. It's quite fulfilling.
It is the height of hypocrisy to decry the execution of murderers and rapist but to just shrug your shoulders at the death of innocents at the hands of people like Gosnell.
I never did anything of the sort. Find these "more like Gosnell" and we can talk about them, too.
There is no competent medical regulations of the abortion industry because they are fearful of the political cost of protecting innocent babies.
No. It's because those politicians are more ignorant of medicine than the physicians are of ethical circumstances.
It is not something open to negotiation.
It certainly is. This is not the Vatican. It's the United States.
It is right or wrong. Simple.
Again, you can call something "simple" by outlawing stem-cell research, and complain that you're being misconstrued by preventing the advancement of our understanding of diseases like Alzheimer's. Even Nancy Reagan couldn't stomach your pro-life ideas, because they were more pro-cell than pro-person.
I am not saying that you are necessarily the hypocrite Ritmo but Barack Hussein Obama is the essence of such.
I ask that you rethink your position and stand for innocent human life without nonsense about conservatives "supporting" them in any way other than with their normal onerous tax burden. If we are judging the worth of human babies based on who would support them then we would logically force every woman on welfare or food stamps to get an abortion. Of course that was the plan of famous liberals like Margaret Sanger who was the "mother" of Planned Parenthood.
A baby is a baby regardless of the economic circumstances it is born into....Honey Boo Boo just as much as George Windsor.
I always am the center of attention...
Paging Ann Althouse.
We are not talking about stem cells here Ritmo. We are talking about real live babies that they will leave to die. Simple. Don't change the goalposts.
@Trooper
Last week, when Pope John Paul II was beatified, a video of a press conference with His Holiness and President Clinton got a lot of play.
Pope John Paul used the opportunity to deliver a pretty stern lecture on the evils of abortion.
It was pretty funny to watch Clinton fidgetting in the background.
Gotta go do sound check, Ritmo. Keep working on your fantasies for me.
I am an absolutist about Human Life. That is why I think the death penalty should be illegal.
Simple if you believe in right and wrong. Taking life is always wrong except for very specialized circumstances. War. Legitimate self defense or defense of others in imminent danger of losing their life. That's about it in my book.
R &B: ...you can call something "simple" by outlawing stem-cell research
You need to add "embryonic" to that.
But it's more fun to conflate & confuse, isn't it?
I'm assuming you'll still be here when I get back at 2 a.m., Ritmo?
A baby is a baby regardless of the economic circumstances it is born into....Honey Boo Boo just as much as George Windsor.
No one's saying otherwise. They just want the "every cell is sacred" chorus to put forward the funds for taking care of all the cells that become living people (25% of pregnancies are miscarried before the woman even knowing she's pregnant, anyway. Some God!)
And they also want the "every cell is sacred" chorus to provide willing uteruses.
Some foster families are horror shows. Look at how orphanages used to be. Honey Boo Boo's got a tv show. Using abhorred pregnancies to justify abhorrent childhoods sounds abhorrent to most people, because it is. There's a reason people express moral outrage over something that they know will never get more than 35% to change - because Americans are better moralizers than they are scientists. And apparently, they know this.
But I am a simple man. Maybe even a simpleton. I just think people tie themselves up in knots to justify the unjustifiable. To placate the politically correct. To win elections.
Maybe that is what people need to do to gain their own selfish ends.
I don't know the answer. I just know when something is wrong. Really, really wrong.
Last week, when Pope John Paul II was beatified, a video of a press conference with His Holiness and President Clinton got a lot of play.
Pope John Paul used the opportunity to deliver a pretty stern lecture on the evils of abortion.
But not on the evils of perpetuating and protecting child molesters. No, that's not important. More important to play the role of amateur biologist and pontificate and moralize on that. Especially while celibate.
One thing you can say about those millions of aborted babies, Ritmo, is that they are blessedly relieved of the danger of being molested.
Janet Reno followed a similar rationale in Waco.
Good night!
Being interested in simplicity does not make you a simpleton. You are an intelligent man, Trooper. Don't fall prey to fears. If Obama sponsored a bad bill, then he did a bad thing. The issue might not be as simple as you wish, but there are fears and there are people exploiting those fears. Some of them might even be people you trust. Or people I trust.
But if I know one simple thing, it's that we can't legislate out of fear alone.
One thing you can say about those millions of aborted babies, Ritmo, is that they are blessedly relieved of the danger of being molested.
By you or by people you're just never quite so rebellious enough to even stomach questioning?
What a coward!
Yeah, good night, narcissistic bully-coward. We didn't care that you showed up to begin with. All it did was ruined the thoughtful parts of the conversation. But Ann Althouses and prima donnas will do what Ann ALthouses and prima donnas will do.
We can hold people accountable for what they vote for and what they stand for. By voting to kill babies who survive a botched abortion and for killing American Citizens with drone attacks without benefit of trial or jury...Obama has forfeited his right to discuss the death penalty. He does not have standing to use a legal term.
The problem with the molesters in the Catholic church is that they allowed homosexuals to become clergy. 99% of the victims were adolescent boys who were molested by homosexual priests.
Very, very few if any of them were actual pedophiles who molested girls or both sexes. That is the simple fact that people who bash the church never mention.
All legislation is based on fear.
Fear of actions that will adversely affect society. Fear of accidents informs DUI legislation. Fear of gun violence informs gun control. Fear of freedom informs affirmative action. Fear of liberty informs anti-discrimination laws.
All laws are based on fears. Some legitimate. Some laughable.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Did you miss the part of YOUR statement that I bolded? Where you say or anyone?
You are making a distinction without any meaning. The only people relevant are Obama and the liberals on this thread, all of whom he slandered repeatedly. ST is indefensible as a commentator. I have no idea why anyone would attempt to do so.
"Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).
To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."
If that doesn't work, I suggest just asking Jerry Sandusky's wife of many decades if she ever noticed any interest in adult men on his part.
Trooper, I had no idea we agreed on the death penalty.
When is there going to be a Ritmo/ST cage match. We could put it on PPV.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I suggest just asking Jerry Sandusky's wife of many decades if she ever noticed any interest in adult men on his part.
This is a weird and largely unexplored aspect of this issue, probably because of the large ick factor. Homosexual men are generally as put off by these child abusers as heterosexuals. They really are in a different category, much like sex abusers who target underage girls. This being said the Catholic Church has developed a culture that encouraged both gay men and child abusers to join and they can't change that quickly.
I think he already had one with Seven Machos. 7M basically danced around him and told him what a racist asshole he was, while Hyena responded (if you can call it that) with cries of how invigorated that made him feel to hear it.
Which is basically how it works now, and with all his conversations.
As is evident above, he's essentially a narcissist like Althouse (although with other obvious psychiatric issues), so his only point is to get attention, as his constant harping on the size of his ukelele shows.
The crowd here used to revere (as some still do) Althouse though, until they saw her true colors.
At some point, I think the same realization will become evident to those here who sympathize with Hyena Man.
That's true, ARM. The other link I found was to a Harvard Health Publication noting the following, as was also alluded to in the other link:
Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual.
The RCC has its own issues to deal with. While I have no problem with people loving the idea of a majestic physical institution of a religion, I think the bureaucratic hierarchy not only discourages personal responsibility for one's own moral worldview, but a reliance on authority that can be very unhealthy. It is not hatred to point that out. The laity are considered like a flock of sheep, and those attracted to the shepherder role were perhaps more likely to consist of people of a persuasion prone to being excited at the thought of accessing helpless people to guide.
It's unfair to make too many stereotypes, as the existence of many good Catholic people, better than many Protestant people (such as Trooper) attest. But the metaphor is too clear for me. I really feel compassion and pity for Catholics who are so drawn to that magesterium and yet don't see what such intoxication also draws out from the woodwork and into their midst. It's sad.
Mumpsimus said...
I'm against the death penalty for AReasonableMan's reason: because I favor limited government. To allow the state to kill its citizens in cold blood just sends a really wrong message.
I object to Mumps' use of the phrase "in cold blood." Killing is killing, but you're ignoring motive. When a killer shoots an innocent victim for no apparent reason, that's cold blooded and is not the same as when the State takes a life after much deliberation. This is related to the moral slipperiness which devolves into candlelight vigils and sympathy for ruthless killers which I see people are distancing themselves from here now.
If you want to label all killing as "cold blooded" then start with wars and admit you're a pacifist.
But all that having been said, I have no problem preventing the ex utero killing of a viable, at-term birth, so long as natural deliveries aren't forced and the state is funded by conservatives tasked with taking care of living infants and children that would have to grow up (if healthy enough) in decent orphanages or with sane, capable foster parents (not always available) to take care of them, and with the medical care required should they actually be as deformed as a number of these individuals are.
Diagram that sentence!
I have a more positive view of the Church than you. Compared to the hucksters that drive tele-religion and prosperity churches here the Catholics look pretty good. They retain some meaningful connection to the original principles of the religion and the current Pope seems to understand that protecting this legacy lies at the core of the Church's mission. The state of native US religions is truly depressing. Christians often get outraged at atheists contempt for much modern US religion but they should take a long hard look at much of US 'christianity' before they get too judgmental.
The current pope's a decent guy but they have no choice but to take what they're given and many others haven't been anything like him. While his flock's got a better sense of community than some, it still comes at the expense of promoting the moral independence of the people. "Native US religions" have been in decline ever since Columbus' guys brought over smallpox. I suggest attending a Lakota sweat lodge though if their experiences seem elusive - I'm sure it would be as fulfilling as it sounds and probably much better than eating sacred morsels, reciting phrases, listening to sermons or talking about what a bad person you are.
I choose the phrase "native US religions" with some care, I am uncomfortable calling many of them Christian. I am not religious but I respect religious tradition, more so than many of the supposed adherents.
@chickenlittle: By "in cold blood" I meant deliberately, with forethought and planning; I did not mean to imply malice or evil. I used the phrase to distinguish execution from, say, a policeman shooting a violent criminal.
I am not religious but I respect religious tradition, more so than many of the supposed adherents.
I think that's the problem. More people like the idea of religion than the real thing.
I'm one of them, but at least admit it's just about aesthetics. Catholic churches are very pretty. Bahai temples are very pretty. Rituals are pretty.
Dogmatic ideologies are usually pretty ugly.
Native religions at least put you in touch with the reality of human existence, instead of some indoctrinated ideal.
Correctives to this include watching cable specials such as "Rome" and "Vikings", which allow you to see how pagans were usually as advanced as we are, but simply had belief systems that accounted for a broader aspect of human nature and desire than do the trinitarian and unitarian monotheists.
"In cold blood" used to mean thoughtlessly or without reason, so it's interesting that its meaning has come full circle.
How premediated were Perry Smith's killings in 1959?
Rhythm and Balls said...
More people like the idea of religion than the real thing.
I agree with this and also that much of the appeal of religion is aesthetic. The thing with the Church, which you really feel much more in Italy than here, is just how old it is. Much as I want to see the redwood forests preserved I want the Church with its traditions and history to persevere and prosper, it is a big part of human history. I feel much the same way about Buddhism.
ARM +1
The Death Penalty is for killing malfunctioning fetuses outside the womb at a later date. The Law is a Cold Vagina, not a Penis.
Interesting sermonettes from the anti-death penalty commenters regarding religion.
In the old Hollywood movies, the priest always visited the condemned man before the execution for a last minute confession or some kind of absolution. Rarely was the man of cloth seen to interfere with the business of the State. And it's been like that for a long while, hasn't it? Was there a period during the time when the Church ruled Europe when the death penalty was disallowed?
I grew up in Wisconsin which abolished the death penalty in the 19th century. That wasn't the Church's doing though -- it was mostly German socialists.
It is a big part of human history that Henry VIII thankfully did his best to make sure to keep within the bounds of what human freedom requires. And if you like being able to marry whom you like, being able to determine your own country's policies, or being able to have any say over your own moral conscience, then you'd be glad that he and Martin Luther did, also.
The alternative, in the form of control the church had over people in the 15th century is unfathomable to most and happily hidden from your sight as well. But no matter to aesthetes - we can admire the living fossilized remains as happily as we can that of the local museum's T rex bones - and leave what it would have meant to have lived with such beasts at the height of their wordly power to the imagination - or to the history you seem to either be forgetting or unaware of.
...it was mostly German socialists.
Yes, many of them were awesome people and commendably upstanding reformers - not anything like the reprobates a half-century later who would appropriate their name and nothing else about them.
Rudolph Steiner was probably the best example - but I'm sure there are more than a few others.
Rhythm and Balls said...
It is a big part of human history that Henry VIII thankfully did his best to make sure to keep within the bounds of what human freedom requires.
Was he the King who abolished the death penalty?
History takes longer than that, Chicken. First he abolished something at least as meaningful - and that was the power of excommunication. From there it's a much shorter step to realizing the importance of human dignity and the fallibility of all worldly authorities, democratic governments and kings no less than popes.
Remember that only little over a century after Henry challenged the meaning of papal authority, Britain challenged the authority of the monarchy in itself - more than a hundred years before the French did the same. I don't think this was a coincidence but instead reflected the steady progress of Britons in becoming more enlightened and civilized at earlier stages than the rest of Europe (and the world) did.
Sir Thomas More had a lasting effect as well.
Sure.
But as I was about to add, it didn't mean it was all leaps and bounds. I think it wasn't until the early 19th century until the last sentence of being drawn and quartered was passed, for instance.
Rhythm and Balls said...
or to the history you seem to either be forgetting or unaware of.
Not unaware but also cognizant of the fact that the temporal power of the Church has been significantly degraded. Militant atheists ignore the fact that religion in one form or another has been part of every human society. While not literally part of our DNA it may as well be and it is not simply going to disappear because we anointed our age The Age of Reason. Science does not displace religion. There is some overlap, Science provides an alternative creation myth/explanation, but otherwise science and religion are largely independent. Except for the hard-core literalists they are not incompatible.
Unfortunately many "hard-core literalists" seem to persist in America. And don't forget that evolution can be fast. If the human mind sought evolutionary advantage in rituals that tied together the mystery of life and death, the moon and the stars, it can also find evolutionary advantage in feeling more comfortable with rational answers - or where they are lacking, no answers.
Dogs evolved from wolves in the evolutionary blink of an eye. People evolved furlessness, then dark skin to avoid burning, and then lighter skin once again to absorb vitamin D when settling northward - again all in the blink of an eye. Changes in skull dimensions and almost surely cerebral function all seem to have occurred over less than 2 millenia in Europe. Changes in immune function to resist the diseases prevalent amidst the poor sanitation commonplace over the last few hundred years also appear to have taken place.
Evolution is the norm, not the exception. Perceptible changes take a while but don't discount the rapidity with which imperceptible changes take place. And the insitution to defend is evolution itself, not one supposed aspect of it that seems less necessary to the Age of Enlightenment than it did in the bronze age.
Rhythm and Balls said...
don't forget that evolution can be fast. If the human mind sought evolutionary advantage in rituals that tied together the mystery of life and death, the moon and the stars, it can also find evolutionary advantage in feeling more comfortable with rational answers - or where they are lacking, no answers.
This is a interesting point and plausible although the time frame is probably longer than you think. Skeptics have existed for a long time, at least since the early Greeks but from anecdotal accounts even in primitive hunter gatherer tribes. It is conceivable that the modern world creates a selective advantage for skepticism over mysticism. Not clear to me that this is the case. Whatever else they may do religions tend to favor procreation, which is the ultimate measure of fitness.
Post a Comment