Phoenix wrote:While I’m generally a supporter of the death penalty as I mentioned before, I do have some reservations about it. The primary thing being the uncertainty the system creates. If there was a way to be 100% sure the guy did it, then I’d be all for it, but there is just a lot of room for error.

jfrazell wrote:
Actually, this was in reply to the theory that the "offended" had moved historically from the victim to the State and that that was a good thing. I was cautioning: 1) not necessarily correct; 2) agreeing that this is not a good thing. A rational State is a Killer State in this regard. Simple logic of numbers. High recidivism means logically the criminals would be dealt with if its purely the State acting logically. I am not a proponent that this is how it should be (hence my arguing for all of the Bill of Rights).

Well, I may have overstated the extent to which restitution has been eliminated from criminal law. I'm really not sure what you mean by the rest of your paragraph. I would say that a rational state uses the best and cheapest methods to eliminate recidivism. In the current arena, the death penalty is quite expensive due to mandatory appeals and increased death row security. Some, but by no means all of that could be eliminated and still be constitutional, but it's probably always going to be pricier than life in prison. The deterrence factor seems negligible based on all studies. This leaves concepts of retribution (eye for eye) and restitution (compensation to the victims). We clearly disagree on the value of those two aspects of the death penalty, and that's ok.

No. Death penalty advocates generally believe that life is so sacred that the only possible punishment that could equal it is the taking of the life of criminal. There are many of us who would add rape, and child molestation to that list for the same reason, that you have effectively robbed the victim of their life, and that society must show how heinous this crime was, that the only punishment befitting is death. I'm sure not all of us are serious when we're talking explosives etc. but the end result stands.

Its interesting that you added "liberty" to the mix though. What are you trying to argue with that statement, that murderers are getting too severe a sentence with life or otherwise?

If take the concept of retribution as your basis for sentencing, then I can see your point. I'm not sure if I'm able to get past the sheer disconnect that is "Because life is so scared, we have to kill you." I think a better phrasing would be "because life has such a high and irreplaceable value, those that destroy it forfeit their own rights to life." I'm not going to argue against the long term effects of rape, but I'm leery of adding "effectively robbing the victim of life" to the pile of death worthy crimes. Isn't life in prison without possibility of parole effectively robbing the criminal of his life? Again, it becomes a hazy area of drawing boundaries.

I threw in the concept of liberty because most Death Penalty advocates are generally in favor of higher mandatory minimums, three strikes and your out laws, the war on drugs, etc. It was painting a diverse group with a single brush, but given the posts here, I don't' feel totally out of line for assuming many people would consider themselves "tough on crime." I thought I had a point, and I don't think I do. My apologies.

My point isn't to show that the death penalty is bad, or that there are no good arguments for it. I think it was necessary before the modern prison system, and unnecessary now that we can imprison people for life with very, very little chance of escape. I think that it's existence appeals to a primal, dark part of the psyche that craves vengeance. I associate much of the cheer leading for the death penalty as being overly similar to that of a lynch mob. It's pretty clearly just my personal feelings, and I really don't think less of people that support it or anything.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/07 23:21:16

Post by: Polonius

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't think there's ever going to be an absolute 100% when you talk about presenting information to a jury.

But you can get to the point at which alternatives are pretty far-fetched, like a 1-armed man or space aliens or something totally outside of normal human experience.

That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that is, you need to get a dozen men and women to agree that there aren't any reasonable alternatives besides concluding that the accused committed a capital crime. And that's a fairly high bar. It's not so difficult to convince one or two people, especially if you know them. But a dozen strangers? *Much* harder. Just look at YMDC on Dakka!

In practice, in many areas of the country, it's a lot easier to convict then you think. Keep in mind that virtually all criminal cases (90-95%) are handled by plea bargain. The only cases that go to trial are those that are major cases that aren't slam dunk (like murder cases with sketchy witnesses) or are dependents with money. keep in mind that nearly everybody brought into a courtroom is, in fact, guilty. Everybody knows it in the system.

Still, the jury system works really well. It's a great system, the best available, and I think juries make sound decisions. The only thing I'd take away is the victims impact statements. In many states, in the penalty phase, the jury can hear testimony from the victim's family. I don't see the relevance to the issue (was the crime he was convicted of heinous enough for the death penalty), and I think it minimizes those crimes committed against the lower rungs of society.

The biggest racial disparity in the death penalty that black dependents get it more than white ones (although they do), its' that offenders that kill white people get it more often than those that kill black people. IMO, it shouldn't matter if you rape and kill the mayor's daughter or a crack whore: both should receive the same punishment.

In many ways, I actually respect Texas. For them, the death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. It happens all the time, so it's certainly not unusual, and it's done competently and well, with minimal suffering. They have the honesty to show those executed, and their statements. I think if a state finds that Murder, with Malice aforethought is punishable by death, then it should punish many (if not all) of those murders that way, barring plea bargains and the like.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/07 23:40:02

Post by: Frazzled

Polonius wrote:
Still, the jury system works really well. It's a great system, the best available, and I think juries make sound decisions. The only thing I'd take away is the victims impact statements. In many states, in the penalty phase, the jury can hear testimony from the victim's family. I don't see the relevance to the issue (was the crime he was convicted of heinous enough for the death penalty), and I think it minimizes those crimes committed against the lower rungs of society.

So you're arguing for less time for crimes including murder?

Whats wrong with victim statements? He's convicted of the crime, but now the sentencing phase occurs. Surely testimony to the impact of what has occurred should be taken into account? After that occurs in civil legislation-why here? Its incredibly relevant wand was put in place in states because there were too many occurrences happening of demonstrably light sentences (also a spur for mandatory sentencing laws).

How does it minimize crimes committed against the lower rungs of society?

Reply by: George Spiggott - click to view full reply 

4412

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/07 23:46:23

Post by: George Spiggott

How did he get so fat on a prison diet? *goes to check the calorific value of bread and water*

I blame 'the system', he wouldn't be to fat to kill if 'the system' hadn't over fed him.

Reply by: JD21290 - click to view full reply 

8021

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 00:05:26

Post by: JD21290

life sentance.
spend atleast 5 hours a day exercising.
half food for the rest of his life to ensure this wont happen again.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 00:06:05

Post by: Polonius

jfrazell wrote:
So you're arguing for less time for crimes including murder?

Whats wrong with victim statements? He's convicted of the crime, but now the sentencing phase occurs. Surely testimony to the impact of what has occurred should be taken into account? After that occurs in civil legislation-why here? Its incredibly relevant wand was put in place in states because there were too many occurrences happening of demonstrably light sentences (also a spur for mandatory sentencing laws).

How does it minimize crimes committed against the lower rungs of society?

I'm not sure how you got that I want lighter sentences. In a death penalty case, after a person is convicted, there is a separate penalty phase where the jury then must vote on if the person should be executed. In every other case, the judge makes the ruling, and even in DP cases, the judge can overturn a death sentence. the Jury hears testimony about the murder, about aggravating factors like prior arrests, prior planning, simultaneous crimes, lack of remorse, etc., as well as mitigating factors such as mental illness, coercion, whatever.

A victims impact statement doesn't touch on what happened, how it happened, or why it happened. It generally is about who it happened to, and how it affect them. They're allowed in civil trials because the goal is to determine what the level of damages are. In a criminal trial, it's all about an act and a state of mind, neither of which have any relation to what impact the crime had on a family.

Don't even get me started on mandatory minimums and the stripping of judicial independence. It's a rant for another day. In general, I think that a judge that sees all of the facts and circumstances has a better ability to hand down sentences than a legislature.

A VIS can only work if it shows how awful the crime was. If a prostitute with no family is killed and raped, how will do it? If a well groomed white family speaks eloquently about their loss, isn't' that more effective than a family of immigrants? A jury should be given the facts of the crime, and the facts of the convicted to determine if his culpability reaches the necessary level.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 04:19:23

Post by: sebster

jfrazell wrote:I am not sure about "similar bodies," but as the ACLU has put forth briefs supporting Washington DC's confiscatory position on firearms, and a slew of other interesting things, I'd take that they are defending my rights as incorrect.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, I probably have expressed myself very clearly.

1) There are a group of people who will argue for gun laws on the basis of needing gun laws to defend them against their own government. When talking about guns, they will base their arguments around personal freedoms being absolute, and will show a considerable distrust of government.
2) These same people will be utterly contemptuous of bodies like the ACLU, who are concerned primarily with protecting the rights of individuals against government. These people will be in favour of most draconian measures taken or desired by their government.
3) Holding both beliefs is really weird. As an example, on another forum a month ago I was talking to this guy in two different threads. In one thread he was talking about how he needed his guns in case his government ever got out of line and took away his freedoms. In the other thread he was defending the wire taps and gitmo and other policies of the Bush admin, not seeing how these were the very abuses of personal freedom he needed his guns to stop.


I wasn't necessarily directing this at you, but it does seem to be a uniquely American phenomenom.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 17:40:32

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Polonius wrote:In practice, in many areas of the country, it's a lot easier to convict then you think. Keep in mind that virtually all criminal cases (90-95%) are handled by plea bargain.

Still, the jury system works really well.

In many ways, I actually respect Texas. For them, the death penalty is neither cruel or unusual.

True. But I imagine it's pretty rare to get someone plead to a capital crime. What's the incentive? They only execute you once?

Totally agreed. It may not be perfect (nothing will ever be), but it's about as good a system as once can imagine, given that it necessarily depends upon people.

The biggest thing is to simply enforce the laws, and then to punish accordingly. The biggest failing is to not punish, or to punish selectively, because then the whole system starts to break down.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 17:42:18

Post by: JohnHwangDD

sebster wrote:I wasn't necessarily directing this at you, but it does seem to be a uniquely American phenomenom.

What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 17:46:22

Post by: sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Everyone is hypocritical, my own country is certainly no exception.

But this particular bit of hypocrisy seems uniquely American.

Reply by: Mannahnin - click to view full reply 

963

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 17:54:56

Post by: Mannahnin

I agree with almost everything Polonius (and to some extent Sebster) has posted. Thanks very much.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 18:28:17

Post by: JohnHwangDD

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Everyone is hypocritical, my own country is certainly no exception.

But this particular bit of hypocrisy seems uniquely American.

Oh, OK, that's fair.

Of course, the first part is endemic to Americans because we're one of the few countries for which the citizenry actually have the explicit right to personal ownership of guns.

The second part is whereever the government thinks it knows best, so it's rampant throughout the world. For example, the Brits seem to have no concept of non-surveillance - they're perfectly happy to have cameras *everywhere*.

Reply by: grizgrin - click to view full reply 

3934

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 18:58:41

Post by: grizgrin

JohnDD: Well, I dunno about happy with it. I hear different views on it from different brits I work with, and there are a LOT of them. Some are appreciative of the fact that the surviellance keeps people from just setting gak ablaze at random. Seems the whole yob culture over there, combined with a view on ASBO's by some youth as a badge of honor rather than a notice form authority and government that they are screwing up, is kinda outta control.

Some others are really hacked off by the fact that there is one camera "watching" in the country for every 14 people or so, if their own papers are correct.

Some think that more are needed, some think that less are needed.

Few are happy with the situation as it stands now.

Not too familiar with exactly how much representation John Q. get s in the passage of laws back in blighty. Not too sure how much say they have, nor what had ot be given in order to sacrifice so much freedom.

Certainly not trying to degrade the Brits or their laws and society, but that's just what's come up in my conversations with them. And this is phrased all PC for you guys, because NONE of them would have been NEARLY as nice sounding about it, regardless of their stance. They seem to be people who are pretty stubboorn, and pretty opinionated, and they are fairly blunt. Again, not bad things, but it can take some getting used to if you are not from their culture. It can take some REAL getting used to.

Oh, and John? Don't mind sebster. He just seems to enjoy trolling for Americans. He does it quite a bit. You never see him attacking anyone else, funny that.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/08 19:12:36

Post by: Polonius

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What? That we're hypocritical or don't think too deeply?

I don't think hypocrisy or shallow thought is uniquely American.

Everyone is hypocritical, my own country is certainly no exception.

But this particular bit of hypocrisy seems uniquely American.

Oh, OK, that's fair.

Of course, the first part is endemic to Americans because we're one of the few countries for which the citizenry actually have the explicit right to personal ownership of guns.

The second part is whereever the government thinks it knows best, so it's rampant throughout the world. For example, the Brits seem to have no concept of non-surveillance - they're perfectly happy to have cameras *everywhere*.

It's hypocrisy, but there's actually a pretty compelling social reason for it. Gun ownership isn't just a an abstract right, it's a fact of life. Most people own a gun (I'm pretty sure), and those that don't usually know somebody that does. It's a continually practiced right, much like say... political speech is. Nobody in the US would stand for the total loss of guns, or political speech, because they are a central component of the culture.

Many of the rights that the ACLU and other civil liberties groups have perused have been at the fringes of the culture. Sure, we like the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and a right not to incriminate yourself, or the right to an attorney; but for most people they're abstract. They don't break the law or get falsely accused of it. The average gun owner is a red blooded american patriot, the average guy getting a public defender or getting interrogated by the cops is a scum bag.

So, while it's hypocritical, a big part of it is just self bias: why worry about rights that you don't use or need (or think you need).

And trust me, Americans get fired up about far more than guns, but we're unique in our zest for them.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/10 13:10:37

Post by: sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, OK, that's fair.

Of course, the first part is endemic to Americans because we're one of the few countries for which the citizenry actually have the explicit right to personal ownership of guns.

The second part is whereever the government thinks it knows best, so it's rampant throughout the world. For example, the Brits seem to have no concept of non-surveillance - they're perfectly happy to have cameras *everywhere*.

Sure, having gun ownership written into the constitution makes the US position a lot different to elsewhere in the world. My source of puzzlement is more to do with being nominally so concerned with personal rights at one point, and so disinterested or condemning of the bodies that really do protect our civil rights.

As grizgrin said, the situation in Britain is a lot more complicated than that. Its driven by government response to tabloid media driving up fears of rising crime and immigration, and despite strong support from Daily Mail readers, there's been plenty of resistance and complaints.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/10 13:10:46

Post by: sebster

grizgrin wrote:Oh, and John? Don't mind sebster. He just seems to enjoy trolling for Americans. He does it quite a bit. You never see him attacking anyone else, funny that.

When there's conversations about issues in other countries I'll be happy to talk about them. If someone started a thread on the politics and morality of the Chinese Olympics I'd certainly come down as critical on the Chinese government. If someone started a thread on my own country I'd certainly criticise the politically driven immigration policies of the Howard government, or the recent burst of wowserism from the Rudd government. If we were to talk about my home state, I'd be the first to raise the complete lack of talent in any of the major parties, not to mention the bizarre small town mindset... despite having more than a million people in Perth.

And yet, I love my country and am particularly parochial about my home state... despite being able to see and comment on their failings. One of the things I love about America has been it's ability to do the same, personified by the counter-culture movments but having been around for a long time before that. And I say 'one of the things' because I really like American, find it's people friendly and welcoming. It's also an utterly gorgeous, diverse country I really want to travel to in the next few years. In fact, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that last point in the thread on international travel.

Anyway though, thanks for expressing your opinion. Always good to know who'll give you the benefit of the doubt and who'll rush in and call someone an anti-American troll.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/10 16:23:57

Post by: Frazzled

sebster wrote: If someone started a thread on the politics and morality of the Chinese Olympics I'd certainly come down as critical on the Chinese government.

Sounds like a job opportunity Sebster. Go for it.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/10 17:06:25

Post by: sebster

jfrazell wrote:Sounds like a job opportunity Sebster. Go for it.

What does Dakka Dakka pay for starting a thread these days?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/10 18:21:43

Post by: Frazzled

Twice as much as I get for being a Mod

Reply by: grizgrin - click to view full reply 

3934

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/10 21:28:57

Post by: grizgrin

Hey seb.

Actually, I'm not trying to name call, so much as I am making an observation. Possibly a fine line, I admit. Every thread I see you in, you are bashing Americans. Admittedly, I don't see you in a lot of threads, so I guess we don't "hang out" in a lot of the same places. But yeah, where I see you, that's what you are doing.

Given that, what the heck else is a guy to think? Oh sure, I could start searching all your threads, and finding out what the real sebster is about, and attempting thereby to gain a deeper picture of you as a person. However, that's just a bit involved. And researching posters is not what I came to Dakka to do. Researching our games, that's a bit closer to the mark.

I'm sure there's a lot more to you as a person. There would have ot be, otherwise you wouldn't be able to type a post at all. However, I call it like I see it, and that is what I have seen of you. If and when I see more and different material from you, my view will change. Until then, that is what my opinion will remain; in this case a summation of what I have seen.

Enjoy your trip.

A bit more on topic, I heard a quote form somewhere that someone else is almost guaranteed to remember better but I guess that I will throw out there anyway. "If you want to get anything done, you have to be a radical." I find some sense to that, given our society here in the states. We are continually swinging back and forth between extremes of any type of issue. Gun control is a good example, in that some people favor more freedoms regarding them, and others favor taking them all away for reasons of safety. That's a lot of what our society is suppossed to be like, go one direction for a while and then when that is no longer useful, go another. Hopefully we end up more "tacking into the wind" and making some kind of progress rather than "going in circles".

This guy saying he's too fat to execute via lethal injection? I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Personally, I think it's a crap arguem ent, b/c if it was doctors would never be able to operate on the really large, or morbidly obese. There is an anesthesiologist somewhere who can be consulted to provide an opinion on how much ketamine this guy should be able to absorb before he is knocked out. There is a nurse somewhere who can find a vein on this guy. Worst comes to worst, dose him by mouth or by patch. There's all kinds of ways to get around his weight issue without needing to resort to C&U.

And as far as the people here who are arguing that firing squad is the way to go, I'd like to hear form some of the folks in here who have actually pointed a firearm at someone and killed them. First times a doozie, I'd bet, and that would be an opinion I would respecton the topic. Everyone else is just kind of flapping their gums.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 05:05:53

Post by: sebster

grizgrin wrote:Hey seb.

Actually, I'm not trying to name call, so much as I am making an observation. Possibly a fine line, I admit. Every thread I see you in, you are bashing Americans. Admittedly, I don't see you in a lot of threads, so I guess we don't "hang out" in a lot of the same places. But yeah, where I see you, that's what you are doing.

Given that, what the heck else is a guy to think? Oh sure, I could start searching all your threads, and finding out what the real sebster is about, and attempting thereby to gain a deeper picture of you as a person. However, that's just a bit involved. And researching posters is not what I came to Dakka to do. Researching our games, that's a bit closer to the mark.

I'm sure there's a lot more to you as a person. There would have ot be, otherwise you wouldn't be able to type a post at all. However, I call it like I see it, and that is what I have seen of you. If and when I see more and different material from you, my view will change. Until then, that is what my opinion will remain; in this case a summation of what I have seen.

Enjoy your trip.

It's perfectly understandable that you don't really know much about me, I don't remember us crossing paths at all, and no-one should be expected to look up another poster's history just to have a conversation. But I've found if I don't much about a person it's better to give them a little benefit of the doubt, or ask them to clarify something before dismissing them. It makes life a little more pleasant, and means that just sometimes you might end up learning something new, instead of reflexively putting everyone's arguments into little boxes for easy dismissal... 'he's just being anti-American so I won't think about that'.

A bit more on topic, I heard a quote form somewhere that someone else is almost guaranteed to remember better but I guess that I will throw out there anyway. "If you want to get anything done, you have to be a radical." I find some sense to that, given our society here in the states. We are continually swinging back and forth between extremes of any type of issue. Gun control is a good example, in that some people favor more freedoms regarding them, and others favor taking them all away for reasons of safety. That's a lot of what our society is suppossed to be like, go one direction for a while and then when that is no longer useful, go another. Hopefully we end up more "tacking into the wind" and making some kind of progress rather than "going in circles".

That isn't just the nature of US politics, or even just the US or politics. It's just kind of how the world works, we take stuff from all over the place, including the extremes, and we try it. If it works we (generally) keep it, and if it doesn't we (generally) try something else. It's a pretty inefficient way to progress, but without perfect knowledge it's pretty much how things have to be.

And as far as the people here who are arguing that firing squad is the way to go, I'd like to hear form some of the folks in here who have actually pointed a firearm at someone and killed them. First times a doozie, I'd bet, and that would be an opinion I would respecton the topic. Everyone else is just kind of flapping their gums.

Just another argument for death by explosion.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 20:19:24

Post by: JohnHwangDD

In many cases, the exercise of civil rights is zero-sum. For example, if someone wants to make a speech, then they impose their voice upon others. If someone wants to stage a protest march, then that space is not available to others. This is why many would say that those people should shut up and not make so much noise.

In contrast, my owning a gun takes nothing away from you. This is much more personal, so it's much dearer to our hearts. And it's property, so it's *real*! Everybody in America could own a gun, and that would be just fine.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 20:27:26

Post by: JohnHwangDD

grizgrin wrote:Gun control is a good example, in that some people favor more freedoms regarding them, and others favor taking them all away for reasons of safety.

And as far as the people here who are arguing that firing squad is the way to go, I'd like to hear form some of the folks in here who have actually pointed a firearm at someone and killed them.

If people were really serious about banning the first thing would be to ban TVs and cigarettes (heart disease and cancer are the top 2 killers in the US, with about half of all deaths).

"Accidents" are pretty far down after that, and if one were to break those down into things that can be taken away, the ranking of dangerous things would be like this:
1. Automobiles
2. Swimming Pools
3. Firearms

So the idea that firearms are something to be heavily-regulated is wierd to me, given the other things that kill way more people.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 20:39:42

Post by: Frazzled

JohnHwangDD wrote:In many cases, the exercise of civil rights is zero-sum. For example, if someone wants to make a speech, then they impose their voice upon others. If someone wants to stage a protest march, then that space is not available to others. This is why many would say that those people should shut up and not make so much noise.

In contrast, my owning a gun takes nothing away from you. This is much more personal, so it's much dearer to our hearts. And it's property, so it's *real*! Everybody in America could own a gun, and that would be just fine.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Got to love John Locke.

Reply by: Greebynog - click to view full reply 

6887

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 22:34:34

Post by: Greebynog

grizgrin wrote:JohnDD: Well, I dunno about happy with it. I hear different views on it from different brits I work with, and there are a LOT of them. Some are appreciative of the fact that the surviellance keeps people from just setting gak ablaze at random. Seems the whole yob culture over there, combined with a view on ASBO's by some youth as a badge of honor rather than a notice form authority and government that they are screwing up, is kinda outta control.

Some others are really hacked off by the fact that there is one camera "watching" in the country for every 14 people or so, if their own papers are correct.

Some think that more are needed, some think that less are needed.

Few are happy with the situation as it stands now.

Not too familiar with exactly how much representation John Q. get s in the passage of laws back in blighty. Not too sure how much say they have, nor what had ot be given in order to sacrifice so much freedom.

Certainly not trying to degrade the Brits or their laws and society, but that's just what's come up in my conversations with them. And this is phrased all PC for you guys, because NONE of them would have been NEARLY as nice sounding about it, regardless of their stance. They seem to be people who are pretty stubboorn, and pretty opinionated, and they are fairly blunt. Again, not bad things, but it can take some getting used to if you are not from their culture. It can take some REAL getting used to.

Oh, and John? Don't mind sebster. He just seems to enjoy trolling for Americans. He does it quite a bit. You never see him attacking anyone else, funny that.

I have to agree with pretty much everything here, and that's coming from a geniune Brit.

I'm one of the many who deplore the mass surveilance in this country, London, where I live, is the most watched city in the world, and there's just no legitimate reason for a lot of it. Our government is currently trying to impose mandatory ID cards on us, with a huge database of information on every citizen to go with it. This would allow the government to easily get data about an entire life, and I for one am so far against it it hurts.

The "yob culture" is a big issue in Britain, but mostly for people completley unnaffected by it, middle class housewives from small, backwater towns. The situation is massivley blown out of proportion in the media, and as such gives the government the ammunition it needs to impose draconian controls.

The problem we have in Britain is a complete apathy towards politics by so many people here, and the lack of a real protest culture like France, for instance. When tuition fees for university students were introduced, where were the riots?

As for being a stubborn bunch, guilty. I think that Brits might appear blunt to an outsider, but we're usually quite hard to offend, and sort of expect that of others, probably unfairly. The sense of humour is unique to Britain too, and I imagine all but indecipherable from abuse to someone unused to it.

Reply by: Phoenix - click to view full reply 

217

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 22:59:24

Post by: Phoenix

JohnHwangDD wrote:If people were really serious about banning the first thing would be to ban TVs and cigarettes (heart disease and cancer are the top 2 killers in the US, with about half of all deaths).

"Accidents" are pretty far down after that, and if one were to break those down into things that can be taken away, the ranking of dangerous things would be like this:
1. Automobiles
2. Swimming Pools
3. Firearms

So the idea that firearms are something to be heavily-regulated is wierd to me, given the other things that kill way more people.

I always find it amusing the role media and perception play in things like this. JohnHwangDD here is probably correct in saying that (in the US) more people die due to automobiles and simming pools than to guns. Hummm...lets do some data mining shall we...

USA, 2004 (a year I have numbers for both)
Firearm related fatalities (including murder, accident, suicide and more) = 29,569
Automotive deaths (including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc.) = 38,444
Deaths caused by lightning = 32

The funny thing is how much culture plays into it. Of those firearm related fatalities, just over 1/3 were homicide. So with 11000 murders the US ranks way way up there for violent crime. But are guns really the reason? I always like to compare the US to Switzerland on that issue. In the US, having guns is a right. In Switzerland, having a gun is a requirement (mostly). However, even when you adjust for population, Switzerland's murder rate is 1/5th of that in the US. So obviously there is something else going on here other than just a lot of people with guns. The question is, what is it?

I guess people just expect car death since we have a hard time living without them. They just become a necessary evil that ocasionaly kills us. And when it does, we put up flowers and little shrines at intersections where our loved ones die and move on with life. However when someone gets shot, everyone gets up in arms (pun intended). I suppose its because we don't "need" guns like we "need" cars or something like that.

Reply by: Da Boss - click to view full reply 

4042

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 23:48:27

Post by: Da Boss

One thing about the US is that it is far too big to talk about as one entity. I mean, Detroit (I think it's detroit- that's the place near the canadian border right?) might have a lot of gun deaths, or certain areas of LA, but then head out to Berkley or New Hampshire and there's a lot less.
Switzerland is much smaller, and though fairly culturally diverse in many ways, it is more socially homogenous.
Well, that's what I think anyway. But whenever you look at stats like that it's important to see the wider context rather than simply adjusting for population. Comparing the US and switzerland is not very easy to do because of this.
/geographical stats nerd.
That said, here in Ireland we haven't got many guns and we are ranked quite highly in terms of how free we are in our day to day lives. If Irish people don't like a law being enforced by the government (or the EU) we'll just ignore it en masse. This happened earlier in the year when they tried to introduce new legislation for drivers that would put a lot of people of the roads, and everyone said they would ignore it, the Gardaí said they wouldn't (couldn't) enforce it, and the government had to back down. We're cantankerous bollockses, even without guns.
We're also not under massive amounts of surveilence, have pretty free press, and a lot of political and economic freedom, while still being quite socialist.
(All of that said, Ireland is still a shithole in many respects, with massive tax rates, massive corruption, massive wastage on government projects and a pretty piss poor infastructure for a first world country)

This is a little bit off topic for the debate, but I often see the fallacy that because we don't have guns us Europeans are obviously under the yoke of our oppressive governments, and I wanted to make it clear that this is not always the case.

The brits are all crazy PC anyway, you're not even allowed to smack children over there

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/11 23:48:57

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Yeah, the US averages 40,000 automobile fatalities and around 4,000 drownings annually. My numbers tend to have firearms fatalities floating around 1,000 per year.

I'm surprised that you have 30,000 firearms fatalities per year. That is a huge discrepancy, and I am wondering what your source is.

____

Oh yeah, we're not supposed to smack our children over here, either.

At least, not with anything that leaves marks that can be photographed and entered as evidence in a court of law.

So I'm now wondering if American and British parents ought to be using rubber hoses, or maybe waterboarding...

Reply by: Da Boss - click to view full reply 

4042

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 00:01:29

Post by: Da Boss

My dad used to boot me up the arse for anything from walking in the yard in my socks to back chat, and it never did me any harm.
Once I tried to fight him when he was drunk, and he punched me in the hip. That was pretty funny. The moral of the story is to never fight a guy who's been 20 years in the Garda Siochána. No guns = resolving all violent situations with sticks and fists = tough bastards.
But now I'm waaaaaaaay off topic.
(I often wonder if yob culture would be as prevailent if you instituted the good old kick in the arse method. But hey, most british folk I meet are lovely people, if a bit under educated in their history )

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 00:13:04

Post by: Redbeard

Polonius wrote:
What bugs me is, as Hordini pointed out, is the casual or even eager way people seem to advocate it. Crime or no crime, I think a state sanctioned termination should be treated solemnly. I also think that far too much of the support for the death penalty comes from the desire to have vengeance. What do you hear after every execution? "Well, now the victims family can have closure." I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

I believe in the death penalty for a far more practical reason. As a taxpayer, the idea of putting someone in jail "for life" at a cost of $50k/year strikes me as absurd. The jails are overcrowded, and people are paroled well before they've actually "paid their debt" to society, and the prevalance of repeat offenders seems to show that not everyone is being rehabilitated.

So, I believe the death penalty should automatically apply in two cases:
1) You were sentenced to life in prison. Well, your life just got a lot shorter, and we saved a lot of money and reduced overcrowding the jails for everyone else.

2) You are convicted of anything after having already served one term in jail. Some people never learn, we should cut our losses and spend our time, energy, and money on those who aren't habitual offenders.

Reply by: grizgrin - click to view full reply 

3934

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 01:49:14

Post by: grizgrin

Greeby: You are the first brit i have met to call that on the yob issue in britain. I appreciate your perspective and opinion, as one who can only get his news on it 2nd hand at best. I must admit most of the sources I have are either a)sensationalist media or b) 50+ yr old white males (narrow demographic sample prob. cotriubtes to narrower range of opinions).
As far as the Brit sense of humor, I'm one of the few Americans I know who actually enjoys it. However, I have learned not to partake myself. But it's fun to listen to, til you get some wettin-his-panties-Nancy-boy with thin skin. Freakin merciless!

I'd have to wonder about Da Boss' child rearing methods and their uutility in addressing the situation. Sounds like he and I are fairly like-minded, albeit I have never had much reason to spank my kids at all. He and I may differ in degree. However, if John and Da Boss are really looking to dodge the bullet in court, then what they are looking for is a phone book for a major metropolitan area, or beating the bottoms of the feet because they don't bruise (Thank you, Charles).

Phoenix: in switzerland gun ownership is (almost) REQUIRED??? I am enthralled. Tell me more about my new favorite place on earth. This sounds better than Disney.

Legislating guns, cigarettes, TV's, and fast food: I don't think they should outlaw any of it, however I think there should be a ridiculous amount of testing done with requirements to make the data easily available on a 8th grade reading level. Clear, concise, complete. Caveat Emptor.

Topic: No, he's not too fat for a bullet. Applied at the right spot, he can't have THAT much fat on him.

Reply by: Squig_herder - click to view full reply 

7413

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 02:02:00

Post by: Squig_herder

Greebynog wrote:He's clearly a monster, I say don't give him the satisfaction of death. Leave him in solitary with *just* enough plain bread to survive for the rest of his life. Much worse.

You dont have to give him the satifaction, give it to me! i'll kill him for you!

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 03:52:19

Post by: sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:In many cases, the exercise of civil rights is zero-sum. For example, if someone wants to make a speech, then they impose their voice upon others. If someone wants to stage a protest march, then that space is not available to others. This is why many would say that those people should shut up and not make so much noise.

In contrast, my owning a gun takes nothing away from you. This is much more personal, so it's much dearer to our hearts. And it's property, so it's *real*! Everybody in America could own a gun, and that would be just fine.

Except there is the counter right of public safety. The freedom to walk down the street without being threatened by the weapons of random nutters. If you want to disagree then you have to argue that everyone has the right to their own Abrams or tactical nuke… unless of course those need to be banned due to the right of the public to a certan level of safety.

It really becomes a case of which rights is greater in individual cases. When talking about the right of an individual to purchase her own howitzer personal safety likely triumps. When talking about the right of the individuals to purchase his own shotgun, the right of gun ownership likely triumphs. Somewhere in between there’s a debate to be had on each case.

But to dress up the argument for gun ownership as purely a matter of freedom with no reduction in any other freedom… it’s just plain wrong.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 03:52:26

Post by: sebster

Redbeard wrote:I believe in the death penalty for a far more practical reason. As a taxpayer, the idea of putting someone in jail "for life" at a cost of $50k/year strikes me as absurd. The jails are overcrowded, and people are paroled well before they've actually "paid their debt" to society, and the prevalance of repeat offenders seems to show that not everyone is being rehabilitated.

So, I believe the death penalty should automatically apply in two cases:
1) You were sentenced to life in prison. Well, your life just got a lot shorter, and we saved a lot of money and reduced overcrowding the jails for everyone else.

2) You are convicted of anything after having already served one term in jail. Some people never learn, we should cut our losses and spend our time, energy, and money on those who aren't habitual offenders.

Hang on, what? A guy gets caught in a break and enter, does his time then a year after release gets caught stealing a purse… and you would kill him?

I mean, there’s hardline, then there’s draconian, then there’s psychotic.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 03:52:46

Post by: sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, the US averages 40,000 automobile fatalities and around 4,000 drownings annually. My numbers tend to have firearms fatalities floating around 1,000 per year.

I'm surprised that you have 30,000 firearms fatalities per year. That is a huge discrepancy, and I am wondering what your source is.

There’s between 800 to 1,000 accidental gun deaths a year. A lot of pro-gun sites will use this figure as the only real gun deaths, arguing that homicide and suicide gun deaths would have occurred by other means anyway. To an extent they have a point, but they’re drawing a long bow in excluding all other deaths. And if they present the 1,000 odd deaths in isolation without pointing out they’ve excluded homicide/suicide deaths they’re being disingenuous, or have been misled by a source that was disingenuous.

Meanwhile, there is around 40,000 gun related deaths in the US each year, once you include homicides and suicides. Type US firearm fatalities into google, you’ll see the numbers repeated a few times on the first page. Note it’s impossible to tell how many of these would have occurred if no gun had been available, but it’s ludicrous to assume they all would have, just as its ludicrous to assume that none would have. It’s also impossible to tell if any proposed gun law would have stopped a person accessing a gun in each case, and it’s ludicrous to assume that all access would have been stopped, just as its ludicrous to assume none would would have.

But there is no doubting the US is an absolute outlier in gun deaths, especially amongst developed nations. I personally put it down more to culture and ineffectual enforcement of existing gun laws than a need for more extensive laws, but I’m by no means an expert.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 19:37:36

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that you were counting suicides and homicides.

In that case, do we adjust for DBC and automotive suicide?

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/12 20:02:04

Post by: Ahtman

If we do can we then bring Japan's suicide rates into play as theirs is monstrous and they have more gun control.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 02:47:07

Post by: sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that you were counting suicides and homicides.

In that case, do we adjust for DBC and automotive suicide?

It's one of those things, as long as you spell out exactly what your number includes and excludes reasoning behind using it you're probably going okay. It's when people just throw out a figure like 1,000 or 40,000 without explaining what it includes and what it doesn't include that we get into trouble. It leads to people comparing swimming pool accidents to gun accidents while happily ignoring the number of firearm related homicides.

Suicides by firearm are generally included because there's a high correlation between gun ownership and suicide. I don't know how much has been done to examine the relationship though, as related factors like living in the country could explain much of the relationship (as people in the country are more likely to have a gun, and are more likely to kill themselves).

Reply by: Hordini - click to view full reply 

91

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 02:57:46

Post by: Hordini

Woah, people in the country are more likely to kill themselves? Mind going into a bit more detail? What are the likely causes, besides a higher likelihood of having a gun?

How big is the difference between their chances and people who live in urban areas?

I would definitely agree that people in the country are more likely to have a gun though.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 06:20:14

Post by: sebster

Hordini wrote:Woah, people in the country are more likely to kill themselves? Mind going into a bit more detail? What are the likely causes, besides a higher likelihood of having a gun?

How big is the difference between their chances and people who live in urban areas?

I would definitely agree that people in the country are more likely to have a gun though.

I don't have a source, I learnt about in a seminar from a guy from BeyondBlue, an Australian non-profit depression group. He was talking about Australia specifically but did seem to imply it's a worldwide thing.

I did a quick bit of googling and found plenty of sites that support the rural/urban divide, but solid numbers are hard to come by. I remember it being statistically significant, but not an order of magnitude or anything.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 07:46:34

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Um, guns don't cause suicide. If anything, suicidal tendencies spur gun purchases that are realized later.

There's a high correlation between the two because guns are merely an efficient tool for killing people. Whether you point it at yourself (suicide) or someone else (homicide), makes little difference.

In the suicide case, when someone gets past the show-off / grab attention stage of cutting across their wrists, it's simply a question of finding a the "right" method. Whether they choose DBC, single-vehicle fatality, jumping, poisoning, or firearm makes little difference - these are all very effective approaches. Having no guns means that they just choose another method. Aside from the amount of pain they suffer and the amount of cleanup they impose on others.

IMO, if one wanted to break the correlation between the guns and suicide, it might be enough to show some documentaries on *failed* suicides.

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 12:11:43

Post by: Redbeard

sebster wrote:
Hang on, what? A guy gets caught in a break and enter, does his time then a year after release gets caught stealing a purse… and you would kill him?

Yes. This hypothetical criminal obviously didn't learn from his time in jail. Within a year of release he's out terrorizing innocent people again. On what basis do you believe that this hypothetical person deserves to live in a civilized society? And, if we can't trust him to live among us, why should we pay $50k/year for the rest of his life to support his ass while he's in jail?

I mean, there’s hardline, then there’s draconian, then there’s psychotic.

It's not psychotic, it's practical. There are some people who simply cannot function according to societies rules. What do you do with them? Keep them locked up forever? Ship them to Austrailia? Is it really any worse to condemn someone to a quick death than it is to lock them in a 4"x8" cell for 30 years?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 12:28:29

Post by: Frazzled

Hardcore Redbeard. Me likey.

But be magnanimous - the Three Strikes rule is pretty effective in this regard.

Reply by: Grignard - click to view full reply 

5030

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 14:09:55

Post by: Grignard

Ahtman wrote:If we do can we then bring Japan's suicide rates into play as theirs is monstrous and they have more gun control.

One can also argue that you should have a right to do with your life what you will, and if you choose to end it, then a firearm is generally regarded as one of the better methods, and people should have access to that.

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 14:11:02

Post by: Redbeard

Depends on the severity of the crime, I supose. Three strikes may be enough for someone stealing purses.

How would you like it to be your wife/girlfriend who was raped by someone after they got out of jail for similar offences twice before?

The right for innocent people not to be victims trumps the rights of criminals in all cases, in my opinion.

Reply by: Lormax - click to view full reply 

3320

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 14:40:16

Post by: Lormax

Phoenix wrote:In the US, having guns is a right. In Switzerland, having a gun is a requirement (mostly). However, even when you adjust for population, Switzerland's murder rate is 1/5th of that in the US. So obviously there is something else going on here other than just a lot of people with guns. The question is, what is it?

An armed society is a polite society

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 15:25:00

Post by: Frazzled

Agreed. However, I'd posit that one event is not a repeat offender. Now I'm all for sentences that would insure one offense puts him away for a long long time in this circumstance (actually I support execution in this instance).

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 15:34:56

Post by: Redbeard

Phoenix wrote:
In the US, having guns is a right. In Switzerland, having a gun is a requirement (mostly). However, even when you adjust for population, Switzerland's murder rate is 1/5th of that in the US. So obviously there is something else going on here other than just a lot of people with guns. The question is, what is it?

The US is an inherently violent society with extremely mixed up priorities. Movies depicting fairly extreme violence are pushed through the rating system, often getting no more than a 'PG' rating, whereas showing a nipple is automatic grounds for an 'R'. The human body is to be shunned, but blowing it apart is ok, and even fun. Violence is glorified in video games as well.

Even the sports in the US tend towards the glorification of violence. American Football (while I'm a big fan of the game) emphasizes violent collisions. Boxing wasn't violent enough, so MMA fills that niche. We even get it though the mindless TV drivel of 'American Gladiators'.

Combine this with disparities in income far greater than in Europe, and you can see why those who are among the 'have nots' often seek to lash out with what they've seen glorified throughout the society.

Other mixed up priorities: The US drinking age is considerably higher than most of Europe, while the driving age is much lower. Rather than treat alcohol as something to be enjoyed in moderation from a young age, it's this forbidden thing that's suddenly available. Rather than treating driving as a privilledge to be earned, it's considered a right. The consequence of this is that the US also has the highest drunk driving rates. You're allowed to (again with the violence) join the military and train to kill other human beings before you're allowed to have a glass of wine with your dinner.

Reply by: reds8n - click to view full reply 

5394

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 16:00:46

Post by: reds8n

Da Boss wrote:
The brits are all crazy PC anyway, you're not even allowed to smack children over there

err.... wrong

oh this might be of interest

Prior to 1998, British parents were afforded the right to use “reasonable chastisement” to discipline their children but the subjective term “reasonable” was never well explained. In September of that year, the European Court of Human Rights decided that this law did not adequately protect children’s rights and so the Children’s Act of 2004 sought to clarify the laws surrounding smacking. Under Section 58 of the Act, smacking remains legal as long as it does not cause visible bruises, grazes, scratches, swelling or cuts. As of June 2007, these conditions provoked a Ministerial review of Section 58 of the Children’s Act with some Ministers again calling for an outright ban on smacking children. Scotland operates some smacking bans, and strict definitions of “reasonable” punishments. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People is seeking a full and outright ban on smacking children.

Again this is one of those cases which is pretty much blown out of all proportion by both sides of the media. It's another one of those laws that will get dragged up every now and again when someone somewhere.

That said...

· Since Sweden banned smacking a decade ago child deaths at the hands of parents have fallen to zero. In Britain they run at one a week. Smacking has been banned in 12 European countries in the past 30 years.

· The British government has refused to move from its position that parents should be allowed to use "reasonable chastisement".

· Children's charities point out that hitting someone over the age of 18 could put the assailant in court. Hitting a child is perfectly lega

So.. eventually it will in all likelihood become illegal.. throughout the whole of Europe anyway.

....... When it happens I guess it would be a good time to buy shares in manufacturers of green card perhaps ?


[/hijack]

Reply by: Phoenix - click to view full reply 

217

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 17:02:41

Post by: Phoenix

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm surprised that you have 30,000 firearms fatalities per year. That is a huge discrepancy, and I am wondering what your source is.

It was from the Center for Disease Control. I'm having trouble finding the article I used before, but here is one with data from the 90's. Death rates haven't changed all that much.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/194/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities.html

Reply by: Phoenix - click to view full reply 

217

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 17:13:00

Post by: Phoenix

Redbeard wrote:I believe in the death penalty for a far more practical reason. As a taxpayer, the idea of putting someone in jail "for life" at a cost of $50k/year strikes me as absurd. The jails are overcrowded, and people are paroled well before they've actually "paid their debt" to society, and the prevalance of repeat offenders seems to show that not everyone is being rehabilitated.

I think that we could learn a good lession from south east Asia. I'd like to see caining introduced as a form of punishment. Not only does a good horse whipping seem to straighten out people (particularly the ones guilty of soft crimes like embezelment) but its a whole heck of a lot cheaper than maintaining prisons. If we put in a system like that, all the petty crime that gets people less than a year in prision can just go to caining and be done in a day. No fus, no mus, and a heck of a lot cheeper. In the end though, we'll still need some prisions to keep the really nasty ones off the streets. The problem with all of this is that a huge political road block will be put up and the ones who are going to be spear heading it are going to be construction companies and the prison guard union (both of which have huge loby power).

So, I believe the death penalty should automatically apply in two cases:
1) You were sentenced to life in prison. Well, your life just got a lot shorter, and we saved a lot of money and reduced overcrowding the jails for everyone else.

2) You are convicted of anything after having already served one term in jail. Some people never learn, we should cut our losses and spend our time, energy, and money on those who aren't habitual offenders.

While 1 sounds great, 2 sounds like a problem. In California, we had what was called the 3 strikes law. What it did was that if you were ever convicted 3 times for anything, you went to jail for life. The problem was that without further clarification, people would get life for 3 counts of shop lifting, or counts of not paying their parking tickets or other very petty things like that. So while I'm down for getting rid of the people that can't function in society and don't have the sense to leave it, I'm also not interested in executing teenagers that show up in court with one count of J-walking and 1 for truancy.

Reply by: Phoenix - click to view full reply 

217

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 17:22:46

Post by: Phoenix

Grignard wrote:One can also argue that you should have a right to do with your life what you will, and if you choose to end it, then a firearm is generally regarded as one of the better methods, and people should have access to that.

Again in my pro-death stance, I'm all for doctor assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian is now out of jail and still preaching for the cause. And while I'm certain that most doctors are not going to be interested in doing that sort of "procedure", there are obviously some that will, so I think it would be a good thing. They'll just need to standardize the procedure and put in appropriate paperwork.

Of course, I guess the negative side effect is that Hot Topic will go out of business once all their clientele are gone, but it’s a small price to pay.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 20:12:18

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Phoenix wrote:I think that we could learn a good lession from south east Asia. I'd like to see caining introduced as a form of punishment. Not only does a good horse whipping seem to straighten out people (particularly the ones guilty of soft crimes like embezelment)

Um, SEA isn't the only place where they do this.

Sharia-based places penalize with strokes of the lash. And they aren't afraid to give hundreds of strokes as penalty.
____

Now if you could order a few thousand strokes for a child molestation, that would be OK. I think a group of strong guys could easily whip and cane a man to death.

Reply by: Phoenix - click to view full reply 

217

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/13 22:46:00

Post by: Phoenix

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Phoenix wrote:I think that we could learn a good lession from south east Asia. I'd like to see caining introduced as a form of punishment. Not only does a good horse whipping seem to straighten out people (particularly the ones guilty of soft crimes like embezelment)

Um, SEA isn't the only place where they do this.

Sharia-based places penalize with strokes of the lash. And they aren't afraid to give hundreds of strokes as penalty.
____

Now if you could order a few thousand strokes for a child molestation, that would be OK. I think a group of strong guys could easily whip and cane a man to death.

The whole idea (or at least my version) is that it can be used as a way to get though lesser offences where fines are not enough but jail time is too expensive. Its sort of a middle ground. From the research I've done on the subject, the wet bamboo method is very effective. So much so that they limit the number of strokes a prisioner can be given to something like 10. More that that and you risk killing them. Using whips tends to be about as painful from what I understand, but the damage is shoter lasting and people can take more at once (hence people being given hundreds...or perhaps that's their death penalty). All in all, the plan wouldn't really apply to child molestation cases since most of those would end up being long term prison sentences anyway.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 00:52:46

Post by: JohnHwangDD

Phoenix wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sharia-based places penalize with strokes of the lash. And they aren't afraid to give hundreds of strokes as penalty.

Now if you could order a few thousand strokes for a child molestation, that would be OK. I think a group of strong guys could easily whip and cane a man to death.

The whole idea (or at least my version) is that it can be used as a way to get though lesser offences where fines are not enough but jail time is too expensive. Its sort of a middle ground. From the research I've done on the subject, the wet bamboo method is very effective. So much so that they limit the number of strokes a prisioner can be given to something like 10. More that that and you risk killing them. Using whips tends to be about as painful from what I understand, but the damage is shoter lasting and people can take more at once (hence people being given hundreds...or perhaps that's their death penalty). All in all, the plan wouldn't really apply to child molestation cases since most of those would end up being long term prison sentences anyway.

Just penalties can be fines and imprisonment, adding corporal punishment would allow for fines, lashes, strokes, and imprisonment.
____

If a child molester is subject to long term imprisonment, then 10 strokes and 100 lashes each day for the rest of his life isn't a bad thing to tack on.

Reply by: Grignard - click to view full reply 

5030

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 01:01:45

Post by: Grignard

Phoenix wrote:

Grignard wrote:One can also argue that you should have a right to do with your life what you will, and if you choose to end it, then a firearm is generally regarded as one of the better methods, and people should have access to that.

Of course, I guess the negative side effect is that Hot Topic will go out of business once all their clientele are gone, but it’s a small price to pay.

Zing! Ouch.

Reply by: Grignard - click to view full reply 

5030

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 01:44:51

Post by: Grignard

Polonius wrote:

There are actually no legal grounds for the family of the victims to sue the state. There's a certain myth that families of victims of violent crime have legal rights. They actually don't, at least not in the criminal sphere. You can sue the guy in civil court for wrongful death (like happened to OJ), but a criminal trial is between the State and the Defendant. The reason for this is to eliminate revenge killings and honor duels and all that nonsense. Killing anybody, regardless of station, is a crime and the state will prosecute.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the death penalty. I think the state has the right to kill those that are dangerous, and I think modern courts are getting better (although still pretty bad) at convicting the right people. I'm not sure that it's necessary any more, what with modern prisons and the like, but I understand that the option belongs on the table. What bugs me is, as Hordini pointed out, is the casual or even eager way people seem to advocate it. Crime or no crime, I think a state sanctioned termination should be treated solemnly. I also think that far too much of the support for the death penalty comes from the desire to have vengeance. What do you hear after every execution? "Well, now the victims family can have closure." I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

You know Polonius, I bet you were on the debate team in high school, because I'm not sure I've seen a post on the internet or listened to a conversation that made me think more about the issue being discussed. I mean you've brought up both sides of the capital punishment issue, one which makes me want to be the executioner, the other the one that absolutely freaks me out about it. I tried to respond at work, actually, but something bugged with I.E. ( I'm trying to get the State of Tennessee to go to Firefox, good luck with that).

First off, I disagree with you on the concept of dueling. What is more barbaric, two gentlemen settling an argument privately, or a modern state that marches unwilling conscripts into the mouths of cannon and machineguns. Not all encounters of this sort are lethal, it all depends on the nature of the offense. I think you'd find that historically, many things like this were resolved by the seconds, and never came to an encounter, unlike what the movies say. Would the world not be a better place if nations at war elected champions to fight their battles? Perhaps the United States should have taken that Iraqi dude up on his offer, is what I think. Regardless, I'm not going to say what exactly would happen, but someone who does something like that to those I care about had best look for the lowest and hardest of cover.

That said, it spooks me the way people advocate the state ending lives. The way capital punishment is done in this country frankly spooks me, I dont know a better word for it. I find the concept of creating machines to facilitate the seperation of the killer from killing to be simply weird. I can't in good conscience advocate the use of a dehumanizing device, the real purpose of which is to separate the killer from the victim and has nothing to do with the welfare of the prisoner being executed. I believe that if you're going to kill someone, you need to use a weapon, and look them in the face while you do it. In the US we often criticize certain middle eastern governments for the "crude" punishments, particularly capital punishments, used on criminals. I honestly think a man willing to behead a criminal is more civilized than someone willing to push a button and end a life.

Polonius wrote:

Lormax wrote:For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

First off, I'm not sure very many people have spoken against the death penalty per se, only it's application. In fact, my argument was essentially that your hypo above should NOT be the factor used to determine who gets executed. Of course if somebody killed my fiance I'd want them to suffer. I'd want it to be cruel, I'd want it to be unusual, and I wouldn't give a crap about their rights. I would want revenge, and I'd want to take it out on somebody.

And then I'd stop, and I'd realize it wouldn't make me happier, or more content. She'd still be dead, and I'd have seen an ugly side to myself. God willing, I don't have to encounter that, but I would like to think that I wouldn't want to kill the murder. This isn't a legal or political argument that I'm going into, just a personal bit of, I dunno, philosophy. I'm a big believer in the concept of redemption (similar but distinct from salvation). I was raised Catholic, and while I don't practice much any more, I'm still a believer in the idea that belief in the divine must be combined with good works. It's not really a recognized part of it, but I'm firmly of the belief that no matter how awful you are, no matter what you've done, it is always possible to redeem yourself through actions. Because of this belief, on a personal level, I would have a hard time advocating for somebody to die. If they've confessed to the crime and have sought forgiveness, I believe I should accept it. If they refuse, I think they should be given the time to redeem themselves. Please understand, I'm not trying to sell anybody on my ideas here. I'm just trying to explain what it'd do in that situation.

You may not practice, but you definitely follow Judeo-Christian morality. I respect your beliefs, and honestly I think you have the right idea, but its not going to work for me. I'm not a believer, and if someone did something like that to my family or friends, well, I would make sure my smiling face is the last thing they would see, and the state would have nothing to do with it. That is why I can never understand why so many people who profess Christian faith in this country are pro-death penalty, while from what I understand ( while not a particularly religious person, I have a decent knowledge of scripture ) Jesus pretty much says that sort of thinking is wrong-headed. Somewhat related, I find it entertaining when I hear atheists who are against the death penalty on a moral basis.

Polonius wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Why not? if the State were thinking rationally most criminals would be neutered and "put down" due to high recidivism rates. If not put down the whole "penal regiment" rears its ugly head. if the State is corporate then these would be the cancer cells rampagig and harming noncancerous productive cells. Those cells are dealt with for the survival of the corporate body, not rehabilitated.

Why not? Well, simply because that's the opposite of how the US was founded, I guess. The power of the state over the individual should be tempered. All that stuff about 10 guilty men going free before 1 innocent is punished. Criminals aren't cancer cells, they're not rabid dogs, and they're not monsters. They're people that have made bad choices, and should be punished for those choices, but they are still humans.

I want to steer clear of Goodwin's law, but what you advocate is a central tenant of most totalitarian, and yes, fascist regimes. The elimination of those that offend the state sounds great as long as everybody agrees on what is offensive. Slippery slope arguments are weak, but governments almost always gain power, not lose it over time.

I see Jfraz's argument, and I'm absolutely shocked to hear that from him. I am also completely aware that various totalitarian systems on both the left and right political axis have expressed that. What can I do *shrug*?

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 04:04:34

Post by: sebster

Redbeard wrote:Yes. This hypothetical criminal obviously didn't learn from his time in jail. Within a year of release he's out terrorizing innocent people again. On what basis do you believe that this hypothetical person deserves to live in a civilized society? And, if we can't trust him to live among us, why should we pay $50k/year for the rest of his life to support his ass while he's in jail?


It's not psychotic, it's practical. There are some people who simply cannot function according to societies rules. What do you do with them? Keep them locked up forever? Ship them to Austrailia? Is it really any worse to condemn someone to a quick death than it is to lock them in a 4"x8" cell for 30 years?

You're declaring people are incapable of following society's rules after two offences. I personally know three people who would be dead under your plan, all of whom are currently productive members of society.

I don't know, maybe you're taking the piss here, maybe you haven't really thought it through, or maybe you haven't met a lot of the people who've been locked up a few times, or maybe you really want to kill more people. But what you're talking about is beyond Stalinism, maybe a small step behind Pol Pot.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 04:04:58

Post by: sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:Um, guns don't cause suicide. If anything, suicidal tendencies spur gun purchases that are realized later.

That's speculation stated as fact. There may be some truth in it, it may be one of the causes of the correlation, just as there being more guns in the country is. But it's completely wrongheaded to assume it's the definitive (and only) cause).

There's a high correlation between the two because guns are merely an efficient tool for killing people. Whether you point it at yourself (suicide) or someone else (homicide), makes little difference.

In the suicide case, when someone gets past the show-off / grab attention stage of cutting across their wrists, it's simply a question of finding a the "right" method. Whether they choose DBC, single-vehicle fatality, jumping, poisoning, or firearm makes little difference - these are all very effective approaches. Having no guns means that they just choose another method. Aside from the amount of pain they suffer and the amount of cleanup they impose on others.

IMO, if one wanted to break the correlation between the guns and suicide, it might be enough to show some documentaries on *failed* suicides.

I'm not sure there's much value in focusing on gun suicide and trying to stop that, compared to trying to stop suicide at large. But this is all getting a long way from the point, earlier you said there were around 1,000 gun fatalites in the US each year, when there's actually around 40,000.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 12:01:43

Post by: Frazzled

Grignard wrote:

I see Jfraz's argument, and I'm absolutely shocked to hear that from him. I am also completely aware that various totalitarian systems on both the left and right political axis have expressed that. What can I do *shrug*?

As I said I was taking someone else's argument to its logical extreme. Its not what I'm advocating.

Reply by: reds8n - click to view full reply 

5394

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 12:14:32

Post by: reds8n

Grignard wrote:You may not practice, but you definitely follow Judeo-Christian morality. I respect your beliefs, and honestly I think you have the right idea, but its not going to work for me. I'm not a believer, and if someone did something like that to my family or friends, well, I would make sure my smiling face is the last thing they would see, and the state would have nothing to do with it. That is why I can never understand why so many people who profess Christian faith in this country are pro-death penalty, while from what I understand ( while not a particularly religious person, I have a decent knowledge of scripture ) Jesus pretty much says that sort of thinking is wrong-headed. Somewhat related, I find it entertaining when I hear atheists who are against the death penalty on a moral basis.

The frequent crossover between hard right Christians and pro-death penalty is a frequent source of wonderment this side of the pond. I guess as a society we're much less religious than the majority of the states-- if pushed most people profess some vague form of faith that they seem to half remember from school and have combined with various bits of new age and "alternative" thinking it seems-- if you go to a church regularly you are, being honest here, generally either A: elderly or B: viewed as a bit of a weirdo. NO sledging attempt there I assure you. I live in a cathedral city, one could argue the most important cathedral for the CoE, and I don't know anyone who goes to church on anything like a regular basis. Amongst my peer group none of us are baptised or christened.

I know it might seem weird with our House of Lords etc, but frankly the amount of power, even it is based on $s alone the church seems to wield stateside seems most peculiar and outright alien to me/us.

Oh... just to clarify : You're not claiming that atheists can't make or claim decisions on a moral basis are you ? Surely you're not saying that morality is pointless/needless without god/gods ?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 12:27:11

Post by: Frazzled

The argument is that life is sacred. Therefore capital punishment is our ultimate statement that life is sacred, and the only appropriate punishment possible.


Red8N: Can atheists be moral? This is whole other and interesting thread (again posting opportunity). I'm not saying they can't - its a philosophy and real life question.
The only avowed atheists I've met personally have been clinical level narcissists that didn't care a wit for anyone except themselves, including their own children (I mean clinical as in determined by psychiatrists). The only big ones I've seen were Hitler (who can be argued might have been an occultist) and the great communist killers who were highly adapt at being amoral (Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Lenin).

Reply by: reds8n - click to view full reply 

5394

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 12:44:11

Post by: reds8n

jfrazell wrote:The argument is that life is sacred. Therefore capital punishment is our ultimate statement that life is sacred, and the only appropriate punishment possible.

Indeed, but surely then one should leave such a monumental decision to God and.. well... turn the other cheek etc etc yes ? I guess it's really no different than the way that anyone "cherry picks" parts of their own morality to try and interpret the world in which we live. Guess it makes more sense than the Catholic church's stance on contrcaeption anyway.

*takes hint about second point* Sorry, my bad.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 13:27:15

Post by: Frazzled

I don't think its cherry picking. The new testament doesn't say don't judge, it says (basically) you have to be without sin yourself if you are going to do so. It also says, do not murder. Capital punishment is not murder and is thus kosher I can understand the more "peacenicky" view you're espousing that Christians should have as well as it also has strong roots and interpretations.

Actually the C church's stance is pretty straightforward in the theory. All human life is sacred. human life begins at conception (but does not exist in exigent parts akak organs or fingers). Therefore all babies/zygotes/fetuses are human life and therefore sacred. You can agree or disagree but its pretty straightforward.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

How 'bout a bullet? Too fat for that? @ 2008/08/14 14:10:16

Post by: Polonius

Grignard wrote:

You know Polonius, I bet you were on the debate team in high school, because I'm not sure I've seen a post on the internet or listened to a conversation that made me think more about the issue being discussed. I mean you've brought up both sides of the capital punishment issue, one which makes me want to be the executioner, the other the one that absolutely freaks me out about it. I tried to respond at work, actually, but something bugged with I.E. ( I'm trying to get the State of Tennessee to go to Firefox, good luck with that).

First off, I disagree with you on the concept of dueling. What is more barbaric, two gentlemen settling an argument privately, or a modern state that marches unwilling conscripts into the mouths of cannon and machineguns. Not all encounters of this sort are lethal, it all depends on the nature of the offense. I think you'd find that historically, many things like this were resolved by the seconds, and never came to an encounter, unlike what the movies say. Would the world not be a better place if nations at war elected champions to fight their battles? Perhaps the United States should have taken that Iraqi dude up on his offer, is what I think. Regardless, I'm not going to say what exactly would happen, but someone who does something like that to those I care about had best look for the lowest and hardest of cover.

That said, it spooks me the way people advocate the state ending lives. The way capital punishment is done in this country frankly spooks me, I dont know a better word for it. I find the concept of creating machines to facilitate the seperation of the killer from killing to be simply weird. I can't in good conscience advocate the use of a dehumanizing device, the real purpose of which is to separate the killer from the victim and has nothing to do with the welfare of the prisoner being executed. I believe that if you're going to kill someone, you need to use a weapon, and look them in the face while you do it. In the US we often criticize certain middle eastern governments for the "crude" punishments, particularly capital punishments, used on criminals. I honestly think a man willing to behead a criminal is more civilized than someone willing to push a button and end a life.

I actually wasn't on the debating team, although I earned my BA in philosophy and I'm in my third year of law school, so I've had some training in analyzing an issue and stating an assertion. I had a professor who once taught us, "The more certain you are in your stand on a complex issue, the less you know about it." It's very true, the more you think about the Death Penalty, Abortion, Affirmative Action, etc. the more the issues become exceedingly murky. In a bit of a tangent, I'd read somewhere that explained that this phenomenon is the reason for the weakening of the American Liberal/Progressive movement in the late 70s. The war in Vietnam was bad, racism was bad, basic environmentalism was good. These were simple ideas. Gun Control, Global Warming, Free Trade: these are incredibly complicated. Just a note.

I'm really not sure where you got dueling from, but it's an interesting point. I'm libertarian enough to say that Dueling laws might be unnecessary. I know that historically, a duel had to be canceled if the offending party apologized or made suitable restitution, and actual duels to the death were very rare in this country. I'd disagree with the assertion that duels were ever a proxy for war. Possibly in ancient Greece, but it's hard to imagine any country under economic and internal pressure conceding because of a duel, but YMMV.

I guess I'd also point out that duels are not honor killings. Duels were a means for resolving points of honor between gentlemen, a category to which very few murders and rapists would belong. I realize that people want personal vengeance, and I see why the want the state to get it for them (if the state stops you from killing them, they should do it themselves, right?). It's a transference that the state doesn't want: its' job is to exact justice on the perp, up to and including protecting him from you. The rule of law can be a bitch at times, but it prevents every suburb from turning into Tikrit.

Polonius wrote:

Lormax wrote:For those of you against it, would you all be singing the same tune if that was your daughter, or wife, that was raped and murdered by this guy?

First off, I'm not sure very many people have spoken against the death penalty per se, only it's application. In fact, my argument was essentially that your hypo above should NOT be the factor used to determine who gets executed. Of course if somebody killed my fiance I'd want them to suffer. I'd want it to be cruel, I'd want it to be unusual, and I wouldn't give a crap about their rights. I would want revenge, and I'd want to take it out on somebody.

And then I'd stop, and I'd realize it wouldn't make me happier, or more content. She'd still be dead, and I'd have seen an ugly side to myself. God willing, I don't have to encounter that, but I would like to think that I wouldn't want to kill the murder. This isn't a legal or political argument that I'm going into, just a personal bit of, I dunno, philosophy. I'm a big believer in the concept of redemption (similar but distinct from salvation). I was raised Catholic, and while I don't practice much any more, I'm still a believer in the idea that belief in the divine must be combined with good works. It's not really a recognized part of it, but I'm firmly of the belief that no matter how awful you are, no matter what you've done, it is always possible to redeem yourself through actions. Because of this belief, on a personal level, I would have a hard time advocating for somebody to die. If they've confessed to the crime and have sought forgiveness, I believe I should accept it. If they refuse, I think they should be given the time to redeem themselves. Please understand, I'm not trying to sell anybody on my ideas here. I'm just trying to explain what it'd do in that situation.

You may not practice, but you definitely follow Judeo-Christian morality. I respect your beliefs, and honestly I think you have the right idea, but its not going to work for me. I'm not a believer, and if someone did something like that to my family or friends, well, I would make sure my smiling face is the last thing they would see, and the state would have nothing to do with it. That is why I can never understand why so many people who profess Christian faith in this country are pro-death penalty, while from what I understand ( while not a particularly religious person, I have a decent knowledge of scripture ) Jesus pretty much says that sort of thinking is wrong-headed. Somewhat related, I find it entertaining when I hear atheists who are against the death penalty on a moral basis.

jfrazell wrote:I don't think its cherry picking. The new testament doesn't say don't judge, it says (basically) you have to be without sin yourself if you are going to do so. It also says, do not murder. Capital punishment is not murder and is thus kosher I can understand the more "peacenicky" view you're espousing that Christians should have as well as it also has strong roots and interpretations.

Actually the C church's stance is pretty straightforward in the theory. All human life is sacred. human life begins at conception (but does not exist in exigent parts akak organs or fingers). Therefore all babies/zygotes/fetuses are human life and therefore sacred. You can agree or disagree but its pretty straightforward.

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

jfrazell wrote:The argument is that life is sacred. Therefore capital punishment is our ultimate statement that life is sacred, and the only appropriate punishment possible.


Red8N: Can atheists be moral? This is whole other and interesting thread (again posting opportunity). I'm not saying they can't - its a philosophy and real life question.
The only avowed atheists I've met personally have been clinical level narcissists that didn't care a wit for anyone except themselves, including their own children (I mean clinical as in determined by psychiatrists). The only big ones I've seen were Hitler (who can be argued might have been an occultist) and the great communist killers who were highly adapt at being amoral (Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Lenin).

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, but we tend not to broadcast it. We aren't so insecure that we need to wear our religion (or lack thereof) on our shirtsleeves. Or around our necks. So it makes it difficult for a lot of people.

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

Greebynog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:jfrazz - the reason the argument is difficult is because non-expert religious people are trying to impose religion upon science.

This nearly always fails in the same way as decreeing the Earth to be flat, or at the center of the universe.

Zing! John, I know we've disagreed before (probably unnecessarily on my part), but that's bang on. The single biggest wrong the catholic church does is telling people in AIDs ridden countries not to use condoms.

jfrazell wrote:To the other topic-ayah I'm only describing the self avowed atheists I've met. On the flip side I don't go around wearing "Jesus freak" on my arm either.

Ahtman wrote:NotW?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I definitely like the Darwin animals though. They warm my heart.

JohnHwangDD wrote:When a religion consistently goes "full slow", they deserve what they get.

That is, if religion doesn't prevent their followers from acting like 'tards, then they should be treated like the 'tards they demonstrate themselves to be.

Feth
The Tree god of tanith in the warhammer 40k universe made famous by the Tanith first and only.

JohnHwangDD wrote:When a religion consistently goes "full slow", they deserve what they get.

That is, if religion doesn't prevent their followers from acting like 'tards, then they should be treated like the 'tards they demonstrate themselves to be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

@dogma: At least you know that isn't what I meant.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Transliterating to race, I'm making the Cosby argument: "if the black community chooses to support, enable, and/or celebrate black men who shoot people, take drugs, and father children out of wedlock, then they lower themselves in respectability." I'll let you transliterate the Cosby argument back to religion, and see if my original statement still makes any sense.

But in the case of your example, I guess you wanted me to respond with the OJ card, as a living example?

So really, who's baiting whom?

Hordini wrote:Oh, congratulations for pointing that out! It's true that many religious symbols are borrowed from older religions and traditions. However, this isn't some groundbreaking discovery that Christians and other religious people have been kept in the dark about for the past 2,000 years.

My point was that the Darwin animals were ripped off for the sole purpose of ridiculing a Christian symbol. It doesn't really matter whether or not the symbol was used as a pagan symbol in the past, or even if it still is. It's clearly identifiable in the mainstream as a Christian symbol, and that's what the Darwin animals are referencing and trying to ridicule.

Or are you just claiming that the Darwin fish animals aren't a rip off of the Jesus fish?