Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOP DebateFollow

#52 Sep 09 2011 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Huntsman is the new Ron Paul.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#53 Sep 09 2011 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
I wish a few of these guys would be the new R. Bud Dwyers.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#54 Sep 09 2011 at 7:21 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
The problem is, he's going to have a rough time winning anything in the bible belt or anywhere else where mormons are scary.
I love the Bible Belt's "You can be anything you want to be, as long as you're white and Christian" mentality sometimes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Sep 09 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I wouldn't vote for the guy or cross the street to dump a bucket of water on him if he were on fire.
I bet you would. I'd even put my lips to his for a little mouth to mouth if it was a matter of life or death.

My friends and I had a saying back in the day: If I found him in a well, I'd throw him a rope but I wouldn't help towel him off.

I suppose that more accurately expresses my feelings.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Sep 09 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,958 posts
If you 'toweled off' a GOP politician, It would probably generate a scandal.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#57 Sep 09 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Default
**
580 posts
I loved the reaction to the question Perry got when he was ask about how he felt on his state carrying out the most executions. Seeing how hes the Bible thumpers man. Not saying states having the right to use that punishment is wrong or right. It just goes to show these "Good Christians" don't really care about life when its some one they don't like.
____________________________
.
#58 Sep 09 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,055 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
I loved the reaction to the question Perry got when he was ask about how he felt on his state carrying out the most executions. Seeing how hes the Bible thumpers man. Not saying states having the right to use that punishment is wrong or right. It just goes to show these "Good Christians" don't really care about life when its some one they don't like.

Without meaning to sidetrack the entire thread, you are an idiot, your observations are misguided at best, and your understanding of the distinction between capital punishment and "caring about life" is about as sharp as a beach ball.

Go play in a dumpster and leave the big kids to talk.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#59 Sep 09 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Default
**
580 posts
No its right to the point that if it not a group that they like its ok to kill them. Did I offend a bible thumper if so awesome. This whole we hold life at a higher level then other groups (Muslims mainly) is what they hold up all the time as to why they are better then everyone. I have no problem with the Death penalty only time I feel it can not be used is in cases of terrorist that would be better to imprison for the rest of their life's then give them the honor of dieing for their cause.
____________________________
.
#60 Sep 09 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,757 posts
Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#61 Sep 09 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
No its right to the point that if it not a group that they like its ok to kill them. Did I offend a bible thumper if so awesome. This whole we hold life at a higher level then other groups (Muslims mainly) is what they hold up all the time as to why they are better then everyone. I have no problem with the Death penalty only time I feel it can not be used is in cases of terrorist that would be better to imprison for the rest of their life's then give them the honor of dieing for their cause.


Um... Assuming I interpreted your mangled post correctly, aren't you kinda missing a key point? The choice to have a death penalty in a given state (or not) really has nothing at all to do with religion. I don't recall Christian groups being front and center and fighting for the death penalty. Do you? So I'm curious why you associate the legal status of such laws to religion?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Sep 09 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
No its right to the point that if it not a group that they like its ok to kill them. Did I offend a bible thumper if so awesome. This whole we hold life at a higher level then other groups (Muslims mainly) is what they hold up all the time as to why they are better then everyone. I have no problem with the Death penalty only time I feel it can not be used is in cases of terrorist that would be better to imprison for the rest of their life's then give them the honor of dieing for their cause.


Um... Assuming I interpreted your mangled post correctly, aren't you kinda missing a key point? The choice to have a death penalty in a given state (or not) really has nothing at all to do with religion. I don't recall Christian groups being front and center and fighting for the death penalty. Do you? So I'm curious why you associate the legal status of such laws to religion?
Really? You can't see where he's coming from since these same groups fight so hard to end abortion and keep marriage between a man and a woman, but they do nothing/very little to stop capital punishment in their states? Right or wrong, it's pretty easy to see where his view would be coming from. If your heads not buried in the sand that is.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#63 Sep 09 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Really? You can't see where he's coming from since these same groups fight so hard to end abortion and keep marriage between a man and a woman, but they do nothing/very little to stop capital punishment in their states?


I see a distinction between not fighting against something and fighting *for* something. Show me where these "same groups" have spent time and money fighting to prevent repeal of death penalty laws and the point would be valid. But simply because they didn't? That seems weak. So every single group who didn't fight to end the death penalty in some state is now to be judged on their positions on everything else?


That just seems like arbitrarily targeting religious groups because they are religious. I don't think it's wrong for a group to focus on the things that matter the most to them. I don't blame the NRA for focusing on the 2nd amendment and not on the environment. And I don't blame the Sierra Club for focusing on the environment, but not on abortion. And I don't blame religious groups for focusing on abortion but not on the death penalty. And I don't blame the innocence project for focusing on the death penalty but not on the 2nd amendment. Shocking, I know!

Again, you'd have a point if these same groups were fighting to prevent the elimination of the death penalty. But I'm not aware of *any* that do (if there are, they are darn few). There are many religious organizations which do oppose the death penalty though. I suspect the problem is that some people equate religious with conservative. They're not the same. People are religious for different reasons than they are conservative (and vice versa).


Quote:
Right or wrong, it's pretty easy to see where his view would be coming from. If your heads not buried in the sand that is.


Oh, I saw where his view was coming from. I don't think it's sound logic though. He's making some pretty amazingly stretched equivalences and just plain bad logic to arrive at the statement he made. Um.... And that's not to mention the incredibly broad brush strokes he's using to define the issues at hand. There's a lot more to those issues than simply being for or against them.

Instead of making a point to attack religious groups, he at least would have been in the ballpark to talk about the GOP planks involving those two issues. He'd still be wrong for other reasons, but at least he'd be identifying a single "group" which more or less holds the two positions he believes to be in opposition. So yeah. I'm going to point that out. It was a completely unfair and out from left field claim to make.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Sep 09 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,363 posts
I think the point is that they spent all their time and money trying to prevent teh gays from getting married, which does nothing to end life, instead of fighting to stop the death penalty, which does very little to protect life.

My mom was brutally murdered in 2004. The lawyer gave us the option of pressing for the death penalty or allowing him to settle for a plea bargain of 150 years in prison. We chose the latter, because we felt no need for blood vengeance, and while I am agnostic, my older sisters are devout Catholics and they believe the death penalty is never justified, no matter how heinous the crime.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 9:02pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#65 Sep 09 2011 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,797 posts
So in your world it's perfectly okay to let someone die, assuming you aren't responsible for whatever initiates whatever circumstances that end their death?

That's interesting.

Your reasoning is also crap, since you fail to account for the fact that a democratic gov't is its people. You don't get to just step back and say "wasn't me" when the peoples' gov't murders a person. Anyone who didn't attempt to prevent that scenario is responsible for the death.

Of course, you have this desperate need to see gov't as something as distinct from the people who comprise it, since that would completely undermine your "liberals are fascists" idea.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#66 Sep 09 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
So every single group who didn't fight to end the death penalty in some state is now to be judged on their positions on everything else?
No. They're being judged on their fights to end abortion because it's murder and then turning a blind eye to another state allowed murder. They are not completely separate. Not when the most verbal argument they use is that abortions are murder.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#67 Sep 09 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
ALL LIFE IS SACRED

Offer void if participant leaves womb.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Sep 09 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,757 posts
I'd rather leave some sick ******* to rot in prison for 50 years than give him early release through the death penalty.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#69 Sep 09 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
**
580 posts
Opened up a can of worms but look at the debate. Perry almost got a standing ovation when asked about his state execution rate. that was one point I was trying to point out. This after all his bible thumping he been doing to get the bible belt vote. His pray meet he had right before entering the race was pure propaganda for the Bible belt vote. So these groups call for a end to abortions but its clear they like killing when its some one they don't like.
____________________________
.
#70 Sep 09 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Default
**
580 posts
Adding a little something. The main reason I like the Death penalty is what happen in catwho case. If all you stand to lose is your freedom rolling the dice is not that bad of a bet. When you use the death penalty it adds a a greater risk to that roll. Now when Death penalty cases come up you must always include a lesser charge the jury can convict on. As a deterrent it doesn't work getting pleas and ensuring at least justice is served in some way it works better.
____________________________
.
#71 Sep 09 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
I disagree completely. When someone is committing crimes that could get them life in prison, I seriously doubt they are thinking "Well, it's not the death penalty at least."

And statistics don't show ANY positive correlation between the death penalty and the rate of crime, iirc.

Which isn't at all surprising. Anyone who's thinking rationally about what they are about to do and its potential consequences isn't going to go through with it if they identify any risk of getting caught (be it a ten year, twenty year or death sentence). You commit a crime when you are convinced you won't see the punishment, or because you haven't actually logically approached the situation.

Though it isn't surprising that I'd oppose the death penalty--I'm an idealist who believes in rehabilitation over punishment.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#72 Sep 09 2011 at 10:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,363 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
Adding a little something. The main reason I like the Death penalty is what happen in catwho case. If all you stand to lose is your freedom rolling the dice is not that bad of a bet. When you use the death penalty it adds a a greater risk to that roll. Now when Death penalty cases come up you must always include a lesser charge the jury can convict on. As a deterrent it doesn't work getting pleas and ensuring at least justice is served in some way it works better.


Er, I really doubt the guy who killed my mom in a fit of schizophrenic rage was at all concerned about what punishment he was going to get at the time he did it.

Edited, Sep 10th 2011 12:23am by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#73 Sep 09 2011 at 11:15 PM Rating: Default
**
580 posts
I see using the death penalty for leverage for getting a plea not a deterrent. Reality starts setting in fast once your facing down a jury. Making a plea to save your life looks real good when faced with death. The family gets closure and justice is served. It doesn't work every time, seen that in Fl this year. The taking heads said it best when they said we don't see that many capital crimes go to trial, they get pleaded out.

Going back to Perry it disturbing that he could get the nomination on the backs of the evangelicals which seem to not mind state sanction killing but get up in arms over abortion. That is the point I was pointing out to start. They don't mind when you kill people they deem unworthy to live from the get go. If you are going to use the all life is sacred then you should stick by it and apply it to everyone not getting applause when the rate of execution gets brought up.
____________________________
.
#74 Sep 10 2011 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
*****
19,797 posts
I hate that plea bargains exist. I really, really do. We have a system in which a crime is heard by a jury of the people for a reason--anything that allows us to be taken out of the equation is not okay with me.

Same reason why I don't like military tribunals (ignoring the horrifying inequalities of them).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#75 Sep 10 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,958 posts
Uh, plea bargains are for times when a certain jury decision is all but assured. They end up saving time and money so it can be better used to determine the guilt or innocence of those whom the facts aren't so clear cut.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#76 Sep 10 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
*****
19,797 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Uh, plea bargains are for times when a certain jury decision is all but assured. They end up saving time and money so it can be better used to determine the guilt or innocence of those whom the facts aren't so clear cut.


Except that this isn't how they are used. This might be why they were first conceived of, but it definitely doesn't reflect our current system.

In reality, cases where the conviction is assured are those where they DON'T get a plea bargain offer, because the DA has no fear of losing and the wins are good for the prosecutor's record (which increases chances for promotion, and decreases chances they'll lose their position).

The people who are offered pleas are the ones where the DA is worried about a loss--the majority of cases in the US (easily) are the result of plea bargains. And the DA loves them, because it's so much less work on their end.

But, in reality, it comes at a massive price. Since the system is pushing prosecutors to make deals before ever going to court, they need to make their offer really attractive. They can't just make it increasingly lenient, so they trump up the charges they are threatening people with--literally adding every possible charge they can, as extreme as they can (even to the point where they would certainly never be able to actually prove the defendant deserved it in court).

And that creates another problem--innocent people get charged with crimes. And it happens more often than anyone is happy about. A system that revolves around plea bargains means that they are getting the absolute worst charges slapped onto them, beyond what they would deserve if they were guilty. That makes going to court increasingly terrifying, since their actual innocence means relatively little at the point where they are standing trial, since the prosecution has some kind of evidence against them.

Suppose your lawyer has told you that he thinks you have a 50/50 shot of winning. On the one hand, there's freedom. On the other hand, there's 10 years in prison. That plea bargain of 2 years is looking pretty **** attractive at this point...

And the worst part is when it comes to sexual indecency cases, where you find an absurd number of innocent people going to prison. It's so hard to fight these convictions, since our society is inclined to convict even in cases where the evidence is half circumstantial, half testimony. You get people going to prison (and being labeled *** offenders) even when they didn't do it, because accepting the plea is almost certainly getting them a reduced sentence.

But this is only part of the issue--the other part is that we are now creating punishments almost specifically to force people into pleas. The majority of armed robberies are actually punished as unarmed, for instance. The only substantial reason, then, that the armed robbery charge is so severe is to make the unarmed offer attractive. But how is it just that some people get unarmed charges, but others don't even get offered a deal and need to take the armed one, for the same crime in the same place.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#77 Sep 11 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
In reality, cases where the conviction is assured are those where they DON'T get a plea bargain offer, because the DA has no fear of losing and the wins are good for the prosecutor's record (which increases chances for promotion, and decreases chances they'll lose their position).

Forgive me for my skepticism, but since it sounds like your only knowledge of our legal system stems from old Law & Order reruns, I'm finding it difficult to give you any credibility here.
#78 Sep 11 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Default
*****
19,797 posts
Majivo wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
In reality, cases where the conviction is assured are those where they DON'T get a plea bargain offer, because the DA has no fear of losing and the wins are good for the prosecutor's record (which increases chances for promotion, and decreases chances they'll lose their position).

Forgive me for my skepticism, but since it sounds like your only knowledge of our legal system stems from old Law & Order reruns, I'm finding it difficult to give you any credibility here.


It's a very real issue. And you focused on what is literally the least important part of the whole problem.

The problem is that people are coerced into taking deals rather than facing the fair trial their rights guarantee them. A bargain is a way for prosecutors to avoid the risk of them getting off.

NINETY-FOUR percent of all cases are settled via guilty plea rather than a trial. That's an absurd number. Our system was based around the idea of trial under a jury of your peers and the ability to not be forced to testify against yourself.

Allowing a system in which a prosecutor will up your charges to the point where incriminating yourself and sacrificing your right to a fair trial is fundamentally opposed to those principles.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#79 Sep 11 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,363 posts
In our case, the plea bargain was used because 1. a capital one murder trial can take years and cost millions of dollars 2. the guy, once he was on medication again, realized what he had done and admitted it 3. the evidence was overwhelming anyway. 150 years and sparing his life and ending the trial in three days versus fighting to have him put to death, wasting many years of our lives, and possibly still losing in the end? No thanks.

A plea bargain has to be accepted by both sides to be approved. Either side has the right to say, no, we want to have a proper jury trial. Prosecutors choose that when they feel the plea bargain offer isn't harsh enough, and defendants choose it when they believe they are (or actually are) innocent and the evidence will show them as such.

Edit: To clarify, when I say "either side" I mean the family of the victim in cases where there is a victim. If we had wanted him put to death, we could have denied the plea bargain and had the full trial. Our lawyer respected our wishes.

Edited, Sep 11th 2011 12:50pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#80 Sep 11 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Default
*****
19,797 posts
But that's only one small (and relatively uncommon) type of case. The vast majority of cases involve low-income peoples up for some stupid charge like disorderly conduct or drug possession. They don't have the funds to hire their own lawyer, and public defenders are so overworked that they can't really do much for their clients.

So they largely end up accepting plea deals (even when innocent), because they just don't have the resources to go to trial and attempt to prove their innocence. And because our systems essentially target them, doing so is much harder than it should be, even if they refuse a plea bargain.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#81 Sep 11 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
Quote:

NINETY-FOUR percent of all cases are settled via guilty plea rather than a trial. That's an absurd number. Our system was based around the idea of trial under a jury of your peers and the ability to not be forced to testify against yourself.
This has to include speeding tickets and the like.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#82 Sep 11 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Idiggory, do you have any actual data, or are you going to just continue to pull numbers out of your ***?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#83 Sep 11 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,797 posts
Why yes, yes I do.

[EDIT]

Also, 27% of people exonerated after DNA evidence was reexamined confessed against themselves or plead guilty. 60% of people exonerated were black.

(And note that cases where DNA evidence can be used to clear a person are largely those cases where they were receiving the harshest penalties--meaning the cases where they were bargaining to avoid life in prison or the death penalty, despite being innocent).

[EDIT2]

Forgot the second source.

Edited, Sep 11th 2011 5:34pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#84 Sep 12 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Capital punishment argument aside, another debate tonight... this one hosted by the Florida Tea Party!

"Governor Perry... Mr Obama: supreme socialist or king communist?"

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 1:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Sep 12 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Earl Grey or Monk's Blend, go.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Sep 12 2011 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Darjeeling
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#87 Sep 12 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
WHAT did I have for breakfast this morning??
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Sep 12 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So every single group who didn't fight to end the death penalty in some state is now to be judged on their positions on everything else?
No. They're being judged on their fights to end abortion because it's murder and then turning a blind eye to another state allowed murder. They are not completely separate. Not when the most verbal argument they use is that abortions are murder.


Your argument only works if one assumes that both abortion and the death penalty are viewed identically by the people in question. That seems like an extremely unlikely and unfair assumption to make given that most people making it *also* don't treat the two identically. There are a whole **** of a lot of people who oppose the death penalty but support the right to abort. If we apply the same assumption to them, aren't they being just as inconsistent and/or hypocritical?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Sep 12 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So every single group who didn't fight to end the death penalty in some state is now to be judged on their positions on everything else?
No. They're being judged on their fights to end abortion because it's murder and then turning a blind eye to another state allowed murder. They are not completely separate. Not when the most verbal argument they use is that abortions are murder.


Your argument only works if one assumes that both abortion and the death penalty are viewed identically by the people in question. That seems like an extremely unlikely and unfair assumption to make given that most people making it *also* don't treat the two identically. There are a whole **** of a lot of people who oppose the death penalty but support the right to abort. If we apply the same assumption to them, aren't they being just as inconsistent and/or hypocritical?


And gbaji misses the point.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#90 Sep 12 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So every single group who didn't fight to end the death penalty in some state is now to be judged on their positions on everything else?
No. They're being judged on their fights to end abortion because it's murder and then turning a blind eye to another state allowed murder. They are not completely separate. Not when the most verbal argument they use is that abortions are murder.


Your argument only works if one assumes that both abortion and the death penalty are viewed identically by the people in question. That seems like an extremely unlikely and unfair assumption to make given that most people making it *also* don't treat the two identically. There are a whole **** of a lot of people who oppose the death penalty but support the right to abort. If we apply the same assumption to them, aren't they being just as inconsistent and/or hypocritical?


And gbaji misses the point.


No. It's exactly the point. This is about judging one group by a very different standard than you judge others by. What do you think people are doing when they assume that it's hypocritical for one group to oppose abortion but not the death penalty, while not making the same assumption of another group which opposes the death penalty but supports abortion rights? In one case, they are allowing for the likelihood that the group in question does not view those two things identically, but fail to make that allowance in the other.


Which kinda seems unfair, don't you agree?

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 2:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Sep 12 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we apply the same assumption to them, aren't they being just as inconsistent and/or hypocritical?
Yes, they are. I'm opposed to neither.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#92 Sep 12 2011 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,797 posts
No. There's a key difference. People who oppose abortion do so because they believe it is murder. Those who support abortion do so (generally) because they don't recognize the personhood of a fetus, and so it is not murder.

No one opposes the idea that a convict is a person. It's still murder. Whether or not you think it's okay is a separate question.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#93 Sep 12 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
The death penalty is just a very long term abortion, IMO.
#94 Sep 12 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No. There's a key difference. People who oppose abortion do so because they believe it is murder. Those who support abortion do so (generally) because they don't recognize the personhood of a fetus, and so it is not murder.


Yes. So you recognize that what one person views as murder may not be viewed the same by another person? Great! You're half way there.

Quote:
No one opposes the idea that a convict is a person. It's still murder.


Has it occurred to you that someone else might not see execution as murder? It's the same kind of distinction, just for a different reason. Some might not see abortion as murder because the fetus isn't a person. Others might see execution as murder because the death is the result of a sentence in accordance with our legal system and resulting from actions performed by the person in question.


Quote:
Whether or not you think it's okay is a separate question.


This is all about whether we "think it's ok". We normally call a killing "murder" based on it *not* being "ok". If you kill someone in self defense, do we call that murder? If not, then we must accept that it's not just that someone is killed, but *why* that person is killed, and even to some degree whether said person deserved it, or the circumstances required it.

Can you at least acknowledge that those who support the death penalty do *not* consider it murder? It's exactly the same as those who support abortion rights not considering abortion murder. My point is that it's bizarre to accept one person or groups definition of murder in one case, but not in the other. You're free to disagree with either or both, but you can't say that the person you disagree with is being inconsistent. By his own definitions, his positions are consistent.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Sep 12 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we apply the same assumption to them, aren't they being just as inconsistent and/or hypocritical?
Yes, they are. I'm opposed to neither.


Interestingly enough, so do most religious groups.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Sep 12 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I get gbaji's point, but damned if he didn't make it in the stupidest possible way.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#97 Sep 12 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I get gbaji's point, but damned if he didn't make it in the stupidest possible way.


The problem is that in order to get it to sink into some posters heads, I'm forced to go about it this way. I you recall, I started out making this point in a very simple direct way, but that kinda flew past most people's heads. I've learned over the years of posting in this forum that I often have to walk people through what to me is blazingly simple logic one painfully moronic step at a time else they'll stray off into some bizarre tangent never to be seen again (and perhaps even eaten by a bear).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Sep 12 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,576 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No one opposes the idea that a convict is a person. It's still murder. Whether or not you think it's okay is a separate question.

gbaji wrote:
Has it occurred to you that someone else might not see execution as murder?

Because it's starting to matter and is no longer merely a technicality, you both should be aware that murder is specifically the unlawful killing of a person. If it is legal to do so, as in both abortion and execution, then it's not murder.

You're both using the word connotative to mean "bad killing" which is just mucking up your argument. Legal executions are definitely not murder and definitely are killings.
gbaji wrote:
We normally call a killing "murder" based on it *not* being "ok".

Just to reiterate, no we fudging don't, not if we're not morons.
#99 Sep 12 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Allegory wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No one opposes the idea that a convict is a person. It's still murder. Whether or not you think it's okay is a separate question.

gbaji wrote:
Has it occurred to you that someone else might not see execution as murder?

Because it's starting to matter and is no longer merely a technicality, you both should be aware that murder is specifically the unlawful killing of a person. If it is legal to do so, as in both abortion and execution, then it's not murder.


Sure. That's not terribly useful in the presumed conflict over what should be considered "unlawful killing" in the first place. If it makes you feel better, assume folks are arguing over what should be unlawful, and therefore what is "murder".

Quote:
You're both using the word connotative to mean "bad killing" which is just mucking up your argument. Legal executions are definitely not murder and definitely are killings.
gbaji wrote:
We normally call a killing "murder" based on it *not* being "ok".

Just to reiterate, no we fudging don't, not if we're not morons.


We do if we're trying to decide what our laws should define as murder, right? What method would you use? If we assume that our laws should call "murder" any killing which society views as "bad", then it makes sense to look at what our society considered "bad" within this context.

Or is that too complicated for you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Sep 12 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,466 posts
and those wrongfully convicted? When they are killed is that not murder? Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly). But at least I can recognize the validity of the counter argument, **** I even agree with it. Its a hard choice to kill someone, even harder if they didn't 100% do it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#101 Sep 12 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
and those wrongfully convicted? When they are killed is that not murder? Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly). But at least I can recognize the validity of the counter argument, **** I even agree with it. Its a hard choice to kill someone, even harder if they didn't 100% do it.


I'm not arguing the issue of the death penalty, nor of abortion. I'm arguing that it's not inconsistent at all to hold one position on one and a different position on the other. That's it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (28)