|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2006 10:55:58 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by giega:
When does an egg become a chicken? Does anyone ever have scrambled chicken in the morning? |
Actually the stuff in the egg you ate for breakfasy is the food that the baby chicken would have eaten if it was in the egg. The eggs you buy to eat usually have not been fertilized, thus no chicken inside.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:58:18 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by giega:
When does an egg become a chicken? Does anyone ever have scrambled chicken in the morning? |
Not for the faint-hearted
Look here
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 10:58:49 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by crayon:
Why aren't the Buddhists and Hindus making headlines? |
Because they dont have oil :-/ |
You think it might be because they don't go around blowing people up? |
BINGO!
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:04:47 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by "jhonan":
But leaving that point to one side for a moment - Do you think that Saddam should be held accountable for the actions of soldiers under his command, soldiers who committed murder, rape and torture, even if he didn't directly order these acts? |
As he greatly encouraged it towards those who opposed him politically. Yes. And it was very evident in the behaviors that were done by his upper echelon and his own sons.
Neither, the U.S. government nor the President has condoned or encouraged rape or brutal torture. And there is a significant difference between being put under lights and interrogated in a cold room. And watching your 13 year old daughter be raped by soldiers, fed alive to dogs and having your hand put into a chipping machine.
Originally posted by "bigalpha":
Does it matter if the judge was related to some of the victims? |
You'd be hard pressed to find someone in Iraq who was NOT related to a victim of Saddam or a perpetrator bearing their own guilt in actions.
If we'd captured Hitler. What German or European for that matter wouldn't have either been related to a victim or have been an accomplice to some degree? Very few...
Now how many would be judges capable of handling such a trial...even less!
Originally posted by "jhonan":
Isn't the constitutional right to a fair trial a part of the values of democracy and freedom that the US is supposed to be spreading across the region?
Yes, it's right there; the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you not believe in the values of your own country's constitution? |
We've had tons of cases that could be considered questionable on fairness. However, the evidence was rather unsurmountable. It was really a matter of sentence. That said, it had also been the case that judges and lawyers and other participants involved in said trial were having constant assasination attacks.
This judge likely has signed his and his families own death warrant. He will never be safe. The potential of revenge against him will continue until he dies.
What was unfair about the trial. That it didn't have a jury. Not all systems of the world use juries and not in all cases. In fact, I believe you can even wave your right for a trial by jury in the U.S.
And as pointed out, this is NOT the U.S.
Originally posted by "coronamy":
Ok I can see the arguement for or against the death penalty, but one thing always leaves me baffled. Why does it matter how someone is put to death. The end result is the same. Why swab the arm of a person your going to execute prior to injecting the needle. Why worry about what might happen THEY ARE GOING TO DIE! Just wonder why people don't just look at it that way instead of saying its inhuman.
|
Simple...we want to consider ourselves more civilized, less brutal, better than they were. We want to feel that we've advanced and become something better.
Most forms of execution are considered brutal in today's standard. Now the most commonly supported is lethal injection. Why? Because it's clean and surgical. And because we haven't invented molecular dispersion rays that instantaneously break apart all the molecules executing the individual in the most clean, quick and painless way. That way we can feel good about each ourselves.
Or we side with no death at all, cause we don't want blood on our hands. It's better to not kill criminals. And when they are released or escape and they rape little 7 yr old girls. We can write it off to their evil. Not our lack of taking responsibility and doing what needed to be done to keep the 7 yr old girl safe. We love dogs. So we won't shoot the rabid dog to save the little girl on our playground. We don't want the guilt of killing the dog. And the girl that is harm, well, we can dismiss that and put the blame on the evil dog. And still feel good about ourselves.
Some on the other hand argue that such criminals should be utilized for advanced medical experiments. That way, what they have opportunity to restore that which they have taken away from society (life). I find it interesting, that this is strongly objected too. Yet, people can make the point about the potential lives saved by fetal stem cell research with the same argument.
It all comes down to what you define as human. Some define a fetus and human and others do not. I personally define murderers and rapists as inhuman.
I guess the one thing we can rejoice in is the uniqueness of humanity. We all think differently. And it does create an interesting world to live in....for good or bad.
Originally posted by "jutilda":
I am in agreement that death is not punishment. |
I find it interesting how many, even liberals, view this all about "punishment" or revenge. Rather, I view this more about keeping society safe. If there were a means to ensure that Saddam would never hurt again, to be a perfectly functional member of society. If there was a way to eradicate the psychopath from his character then by all means, let him live...
But if you cannot ensure society's safety from such an individual. Then he must be removed in such a way to ensure society's safety. For some, imprisonment will suffice. But for certain cases it will not. Those being where the individual is likely to escape, be released, continue to cause harm from within, or could endanger the lives of others by his mere existence. In such cases, the choice by a civilized society must be to remove the cancerous member from society.
Originally posted by "yanko":
Also the cost to put someone on death row exceeds the cost to house that same person in a jail for life. |
I actually do not accept the validity of this statement, as such costs are extremely exasperated more so by the debate of whether capital punishment is right or wrong which leads it repeatedly into the courts on decades long appeals. The numerous lawsuits by those in prison for life are often not taken into account.
The elimination of such lack of resolve would make capital punishment immensely cheaper. However, I do believe that capital punishment should be resolved for cases where the deeds are not in question. Where even unreasonable doubt is lacking. Caught on film and by eye-witnesses, including police. Or, look, 10 million people watched you do it on CNN.
In which case, if the sentence is made the debate of whether it is right for society to pronounce such sentence removed. The cost is approx $10,000 for the anethestesiologist's time. Much less than even one year of imprisonment.
Originally posted by "hokie":
Are we gonna wag nuclear weapons at a 1/3rd of the Worlds population or over 2 billion people? |
First off, I think you are miss-interpreting David Ey's comment about the muslims not having to worry about the big red button if the muslims weren't making threats to annihilate the world.
The point was made that the muslims are doing such out of fear of christians having nuclear weapons. That's not really the case, even as stated by the muslim extremists. Nor as evidenced by prior actions throughout the centuries. There is an extremist vein of Islam that seeks to have by the sword, the entire world submitted to Allah according to how they view submission.
If we were to remove all the atom bombs controlled by the West. It would not in the least alter the philosophy of extremists. In fact, if the entire west layed down all it's arms, nuclear and conventional. This would do little to placate the muslim extremists. Rather, it would only accelerate their attempt to subdue the world.
Now to answer your statement...
If that 1/3 became determined to kill the other 2/3. Then yes, absolutely. Thankfully, I do not think that is an issue. And I'd say that we're only dealing with a small minority overall that are extremists and seek utter submission of all other peoples. Now, in some regions the level of extremism exceeds 50%. But in much of the world it is less than 5% and in quite a few nations less than 1%
Originally posted by "bassoon_boi":
Killing Saddam is not a solution. It will solve nothing. |
I disagree! It will prevent a group of his supporters from taking innoncents as hostages and demanding Saddam be released. Placing us in a position to release a brutal and murderous tyrant or sacrifice the innoncent lives of men, women and children.
That alone is enough justification for the death penalty over life imprisonment for me. I am not willing to condemn an innoncent child to death just to allow Saddam to live a miserable long life in prison.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The "hypocrisy" that you identify only exists if you consider an unborn foetus to have the same right to life as a living person. I do not think that a foetus has a complete right to life from the point of conception, and so have no qualms about supporting the competing rights of the mother (or community at large in the case of stem cell research) until the foetus has developed sufficiently to benefit from those rights. |
Then there is no hypocrisy in those who support capital punishment. As, I do not believe that murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals have the same rights as an innoncent living person.
I believe that once you murder, rape, etc. you have made a decision to give up your rights to be a part of civilization and to be considered a living human being, rather having become a violent beast and monster.
Few have issue with putting down a dog infected with rabies or that attacks children.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The hypocrisy (IMO) is that Saddam is being executed for his actions in leadership in killing a few hundred, whereas the illegal invasion of Iraq appears to have resulted in the deaths of several hundreds of thousands of people without consequence for the leaders who ordered it. |
Most reports I've seen numbered Saddam's travesties in the thousands.
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
I guess it's a matter of how you define fundamental. I suppose that I should have said extremist Christian.
I would say that killing doctors with sniper rifles in the name of God or forcing your followers to drink cyanide laced Kool-Aid en mass after shooting a congressman qualify as acts of violence. There is not really any might about it.
My point is that extremism in any religion that leads to violence is unacceptable. The muslims do not have a monopoly on this. |
Nor does religion. Yes, the atheist often likes to think himself better than the religious. See how many have been killed in the name of religion.
Yet, I've seldom met the atheist of true mind and reason who is willing to disassociate himself from his beliefs and review just the facts in a logical manner.
Is atheism any better than religion? Is it religion that kills people and leads to violence? Or more simply whenever man takes hold of a dogmatic belief and endeavors to force it upon others. If the latter, is atheism excluded from such crimes...is it immune from such horrendous actions.
It is not, in fact, it has a history equally as brutal. Let us look at two regimes founded on atheism. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Both have a horrendous history of thousands and even millions dead. And in both, merely believing in religion can get you imprisoned or killed.
No, for those who think Atheism has no blood on it's hands, I think not. The evidence is this...
It is NOT religion that is the cause but rather....
WHENEVER MAN TAKES A DOGMATIC BELIEF AND FORCES IT UPON HIS BROTHER |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:05:52 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by crayon:
Why aren't the Buddhists and Hindus making headlines? |
Because they dont have oil :-/ |
You think it might be because they don't go around blowing people up? |
BINGO! |
Don't the Hindus encourage widows to self-immolate?
Not to mention the whole Indian/Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and their own little nuclear arms race. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:26:36 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
the man is a member of a society with rules that define it (and from which rights (IMO) are derived). |
Then let him hang in the society whose rules he in large part developed into what they are. Unless you believe we are puppet masters with the Iraqis dangling from our strings, I think you can not drop your view of social mores on their country and expect them to play it your way. He's a thug, he really f**ked up a lot of people there, and they want their revenge.
Or is this one of those times when we aren't supposed to be tolerant of their cultures...? I can never keep it straight. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 11:53:38 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Flash:
Why would you support the death of an innocent unborn and oppose the death of a convicted murderer? If you support capitol punishment then it seems to me that you should accept other forms of "choice" death including the right to self defense and even euthenasia.
To me, either you oppose all forms of death (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, capitol punishment, euthenasia, right to self defense, war, etc) or you support them. Choosing some and not others is akin to hypocracy in my opinion. |
The "hypocrisy" that you identify only exists if you consider an unborn foetus to have the same right to life as a living person. I do not think that a foetus has a complete right to life from the point of conception, and so have no qualms about supporting the competing rights of the mother (or community at large in the case of stem cell research) until the foetus has developed sufficiently to benefit from those rights.
When (IMO) the right to life has been established, then I support it with equal vigour, whether that of a newborn child or a convicted mass murderer or military dictator.
The position is not hypocritical, but you can (as you do) make it sound as if it is hypocritical by simplifying the position so as to eliminate the justification. |
Given your stated position, what is your reaction to the call by BRITAIN'S Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology for doctors to consider euthanasing "the sickest of newborns", which it says can disable healthy families.
The Sunday Times newspaper reported the proposal was in reaction to the number of such children who were surviving because of medical advances.
The college argued "active euthanasia" should be considered for the good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
So, if doctors DO consider it, and conclude that it should be OK to euthanize these infants, and undertake efforts to get it legalized in Great Britain, would you oppose that effort?
What if they succeed in making it "legal". Would you still oppose it? It would be, after all, just a logical extension of "pro-choice" options, wouldn't it?. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 12:08:06 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
My personal belief is that he never gave his victims a "fair trial" so why should he get one? |
Because otherwise we are no better than he is -- we'd be adopting his values. Is that the direction you think society overall should take? If someone cheats you at cards, do you then cheat too, or continue to play honestly? |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 12:35:40 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Flash:
Why would you support the death of an innocent unborn and oppose the death of a convicted murderer? If you support capitol punishment then it seems to me that you should accept other forms of "choice" death including the right to self defense and even euthenasia.
To me, either you oppose all forms of death (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, capitol punishment, euthenasia, right to self defense, war, etc) or you support them. Choosing some and not others is akin to hypocracy in my opinion. |
The "hypocrisy" that you identify only exists if you consider an unborn foetus to have the same right to life as a living person. I do not think that a foetus has a complete right to life from the point of conception, and so have no qualms about supporting the competing rights of the mother (or community at large in the case of stem cell research) until the foetus has developed sufficiently to benefit from those rights.
When (IMO) the right to life has been established, then I support it with equal vigour, whether that of a newborn child or a convicted mass murderer or military dictator.
The position is not hypocritical, but you can (as you do) make it sound as if it is hypocritical by simplifying the position so as to eliminate the justification. |
Given your stated position, what is your reaction to the call by BRITAIN'S Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology for doctors to consider euthanasing "the sickest of newborns", which it says can disable healthy families.
The Sunday Times newspaper reported the proposal was in reaction to the number of such children who were surviving because of medical advances.
The college argued "active euthanasia" should be considered for the good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
So, if doctors DO consider it, and conclude that it should be OK to euthanize these infants, and undertake efforts to get it legalized in Great Britain, would you oppose that effort?
What if they succeed in making it "legal". Would you still oppose it? It would be, after all, just a logical extension of "pro-choice" options, wouldn't it?. |
Interesting - I had not heard this (I have been on hols in China for a couple of weeks). I don't know the details, but would vehemently oppose the proposal as you describe it. My personal belief is that late term abortion (which is still much earlier in the UK than available in the US) is due for review and restriction.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:07:04 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
My personal belief is that he never gave his victims a "fair trial" so why should he get one? |
Because otherwise we are no better than he is -- we'd be adopting his values. Is that the direction you think society overall should take? If someone cheats you at cards, do you then cheat too, or continue to play honestly? |
Again, this statement of mine corresponds to my idea of eye for an eye. If you decide, as leader, to gas, torture and kill thousands of people just because you can, then you deserve no better. My personal belief is that they should have done to him what he did to others.
GeneralE: If you were playing cards with someone who was cheating you, but in the process he was taking all of your money (say, in excess of $3-4k) would you cheat or play honest and let him wring you dry? [I doubt you'd let him cheat you for all your money]
There are a lot of variables to every situation, so you really have to see what's going on, then make a decision based on that.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 04:51:26 PM · #111 |
Well, if it were me and I caught someone cheating in a poker game I would call them on it and discontinue play and maybe kick their butt and retrieve my money......But I think I could do it without pushing the big red button....And they might not have cheated if they thought I might push that button.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 16:55:09. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:49:57 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I understand the culture in Iraq is very different from the culture in other parts of the world.... but death by hanging? How barbaric! |
I agree. We should withdraw from Iraq and put him back in charge. With a stern warning to better obey our directions next time, or else!
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:51:20 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Oh and lets not overlook -- the verdict was released the day before US elections...... that doesn't look contrived, nooooooooo, I'm sure it was a coincidence! NOT! |
Especially since informed sources indicated the verdict would not be reached until after the election.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:56:42 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Tell me, though, what is"basic human logic"? What defines something being logical?
Here's some logic:
Humans exist because God made us.
Humans exist because we have evolved from the tiniest one celled organism over hundreds of millions of years.
|
I have no problem with the co-existence of both of these
premises. Why should they be mutially exclusive?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 08:57:45 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If they get the rope too long, his head will pop completely off. |
If they get the rope too long he'll bust his ass on the ground. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:58:10 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Neither, the U.S. government nor the President has condoned or encouraged rape or brutal torture. |
Arguable.
Originally posted by theSaj:
If we'd captured Hitler. ... Now how many would be judges capable of handling such a trial... |
Hence the use of an international court.
Originally posted by theSaj:
What was unfair about the trial. That it didn't have a jury. |
A jury does not make a trial fair - due process does. A jury is peculiar to certain commonwealth countries as one of many methods of determining fact.
Originally posted by theSaj:
It all comes down to what you define as human. Some define a fetus and human and others do not. I personally define murderers and rapists as inhuman. |
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." Fyodor Dostoevsky
Originally posted by "theSaj":
I find it interesting how many, even liberals, view this all about "punishment" or revenge. Rather, I view this more about keeping society safe. |
Imprisonment serves a dual purpose.
Originally posted by theSaj:
If there was a way to eradicate the psychopath from his character then by all means, let him live... |
Have you uncovered new evidence to suggest that he is a psychopath?
Originally posted by theSaj:
However, I do believe that capital punishment should be resolved for cases where the deeds are not in question. Where even unreasonable doubt is lacking. Caught on film and by eye-witnesses, including police. Or, look, 10 million people watched you do it on CNN. |
Of course guilt requires more than just evidence of the deed itself - it must be determined that the relevant state of mind existed and the level of guilt can vary enormously depending on all the surrounding circumstances.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I believe that once you murder, rape, etc. you have made a decision to give up your rights to be a part of civilization and to be considered a living human being, rather having become a violent beast and monster. |
So - your support for the sanctity of life only extends to the pure at heart?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Most reports I've seen numbered Saddam's travesties in the thousands. |
Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 Shias in Tigris river city of Dujail in 1982. Not for anything else.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yet, I've seldom met the atheist of true mind and reason who is willing to disassociate himself from his beliefs and review just the facts in a logical manner. |
I suppose that the point is that atheists don't have an imaginary friend telling them what to do.
Originally posted by theSaj:
It is not, in fact, it has a history equally as brutal. Let us look at two regimes founded on atheism. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Both have a horrendous history of thousands and even millions dead. And in both, merely believing in religion can get you imprisoned or killed. |
I am not sure that atheism was the cause of the deaths in either case - both were established through civil war and the leadership of brutal dictators. Both countries implemented a new form of statehood based upon a philosophy that was introduced aggressively and was ultimately corrupted. Religion was prohibited because it represented a political threat and destabilising force, rather than for strong philosophical reasons.
The list of countries without a state religion would be a better indicator of how a-religiosity can benefit international relations.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 03:59:32.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:33:15 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Tell me, though, what is"basic human logic"? What defines something being logical?
Here's some logic:
Humans exist because God made us.
Humans exist because we have evolved from the tiniest one celled organism over hundreds of millions of years.
|
I have no problem with the co-existence of both of these
premises. Why should they be mutially exclusive? |
They cannot both exist. If God made humans, then how did we evolve from a single-celled organism? That is vey contradictory. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 04:42:04 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by idnic:
I understand the culture in Iraq is very different from the culture in other parts of the world.... but death by hanging? How barbaric! |
I agree. We should withdraw from Iraq and put him back in charge. With a stern warning to better obey our directions next time, or else! |
Haven't we already done that before? People like Saddam don't listen to threats, it just makes thier hate stronger.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 11:42:01 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Tell me, though, what is"basic human logic"? What defines something being logical?
Here's some logic:
Humans exist because God made us.
Humans exist because we have evolved from the tiniest one celled organism over hundreds of millions of years.
|
I have no problem with the co-existence of both of these
premises. Why should they be mutially exclusive? |
that is an easy question... one of those premises can be validated w/ science and is widely accepted as scientific fact, the other is not.
As for Saddam, death is the only outcome that will completely remove any and all power from him. Throughout his trial he was able to have his people kill members of the court and their family. With him dead, there may be supporters that act out, but there cannot be any more violence ordered from him. To me he is too dangerous to be kept alive. Its no different than crime bosses who just do their work from jail because they are so widely connected that all jail does is provide them safety from people out to do them harm. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 12:52:07 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Neither, the U.S. government nor the President has condoned or encouraged rape or brutal torture. |
Arguable.
|
I haven't seen anything to suggest rape is encouraged by the U.S. government or president. And as for brutal. We probably have very differing definitions. Considering what many liberals consider brutal torture is not much more than I experienced as a cadet. That said, there have been actions, such as Abu Ghraib which were horrendous. But those were not condoned and were even prosectured.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
If we'd captured Hitler. ... Now how many would be judges capable of handling such a trial... |
Hence the use of an international court.
|
Yes, I just don't have confidence in such a court as proposed and organized by the U.N. Perhaps that's cause I have very little faith in the U.N. and think it to be one of the worst organizations in existence.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
What was unfair about the trial. That it didn't have a jury. |
A jury does not make a trial fair - due process does. A jury is peculiar to certain commonwealth countries as one of many methods of determining fact.
|
Exactly my point. Saying that he didn't have a trial by jury is not an argument of unfairness to me. However, if someone wanted to make the case of no due-process. I might be more open to it. But it would have to be pretty substantial.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
It all comes down to what you define as human. Some define a fetus and human and others do not. I personally define murderers and rapists as inhuman. |
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." Fyodor Dostoevsky
|
Then we in America must be exceeding civilized. I mean, you can get Pell grants for college education (heck, I couldn't get those) + many prisons include cable and Xboxes.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by "theSaj":
I find it interesting how many, even liberals, view this all about "punishment" or revenge. Rather, I view this more about keeping society safe. |
Imprisonment serves a dual purpose.
|
Should it be about "revenge" or "safety"? I believe safety.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
If there was a way to eradicate the psychopath from his character then by all means, let him live... |
Have you uncovered new evidence to suggest that he is a psychopath?
|
Hmm...mass murderer, him and his sons spectating to gruesome deaths and rapes and abuse. Maybe it's sociopath not psychopath...I'm not sure what the exact psychological term would be. But without a doubt...yes, something was wrong with the man. That much is clear.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
However, I do believe that capital punishment should be reserved for cases where the deeds are not in question. Where even unreasonable doubt is lacking. Caught on film and by eye-witnesses, including police. Or, look, 10 million people watched you do it on CNN. |
Of course guilt requires more than just evidence of the deed itself - it must be determined that the relevant state of mind existed and the level of guilt can vary enormously depending on all the surrounding circumstances.
|
Agreed. I think you were might have been mis-interpreting the meaning of my words. Partly due to a typoe. My point was that it should be difficult to pronounce a death sentence and I was limiting the situations where it could be applied. If there was not a guilty plea or absolute proof of action (and yes the motivation is always a factor).
I also think we need to stop with the way plea bargains are done. "If you plead innoncent we will nail you to the wall as hard as we can. But if you just admit you're guilty then we'll just give you 20 yrs with option for parole."
That to me is blackmail and should be illegal on all levels. Same thing with my court experience. "We'll give you a plea bargain of $35...otherwise you will need to come back to court at least two more times." (yeah, so either I use all my vacation time or if I don't have any, which I did not, I lose my job.)
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I believe that once you murder, rape, etc. you have made a decision to give up your rights to be a part of civilization and to be considered a living human being, rather having become a violent beast and monster. |
So - your support for the sanctity of life only extends to the pure at heart?
|
That's a pretty good way to put it. But I tolerate a certain level of impurity. But when it reaches a certain point. Then yes, I view as a forfieture.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Most reports I've seen numbered Saddam's travesties in the thousands. |
Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 Shias in Tigris river city of Dujail in 1982. Not for anything else.
|
As I understand it, this is not the only case on the table. Who knows, maybe the kurds just made up the story of being dead.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yet, I've seldom met the atheist of true mind and reason who is willing to disassociate himself from his beliefs and review just the facts in a logical manner. |
I suppose that the point is that atheists don't have an imaginary friend telling them what to do.
|
Perhaps...but just cause the dogmatic beliefs came completely from their own hearts and minds doesn't absolve them of their crimes.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
It is not, in fact, it has a history equally as brutal. Let us look at two regimes founded on atheism. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Both have a horrendous history of thousands and even millions dead. And in both, merely believing in religion can get you imprisoned or killed. |
I am not sure that atheism was the cause of the deaths in either case - both were established through civil war and the leadership of brutal dictators. Both countries implemented a new form of statehood based upon a philosophy that was introduced aggressively and was ultimately corrupted. Religion was prohibited because it represented a political threat and destabilising force, rather than for strong philosophical reasons.
|
[/quote]
If such be the case, than I absolve religion for the exact same reason. Most such deaths were occurred during political wars, at the hands of brutal dictators. Often at the hands of a religious belief ultimately corrupted.
So, to quote Alex Trebeck "Uh, Suh-ry". Don't accept that argument as valid for distancing the regimes. No more valid than attaching the blame of deaths to religion. Most of which were due to political actions and powers, etc. So if we accept that as a reason to pardon "atheism" then it's an equally valid excuse for "religion". As it's not commonly accepted as an excuse for religion. I do not accept it for such atheistic regimes.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The list of countries without a state religion would be a better indicator of how a-religiosity can benefit international relations. |
Not sure I view that as a identifying mark. Many countries have no official religion but restrict the rights and well-being of people, even in the name of religion. Or populace groups do so to against other populaces. And there are nations that have an official religion, some of which still have monarchs who are regarded as the heads of the state churches, but offer total religious freedom.
Originally posted by "bigalpha":
They cannot both exist. If God made humans, then how did we evolve from a single-celled organism? That is vey contradictory. |
Okay, not saying that I believe such to be the case. But it's quite easy. Being a programmer and computer user I utilize such all the time. They're called install packages. So some believe God wrote the installation program...we've just been watching the deployment process.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 01:50:09 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I haven't seen anything to suggest rape is encouraged by the U.S. government or president. And as for brutal. We probably have very differing definitions. |
//www.airtorture.com
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yes, I just don't have confidence in such a court as proposed and organized by the U.N. Perhaps that's cause I have very little faith in the U.N. and think it to be one of the worst organizations in existence. |
The ICC has been pretty successful. It certainly maintains higher standards than were possible within Iraq.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Then we in America must be exceeding civilized. I mean, you can get Pell grants for college education (heck, I couldn't get those) + many prisons include cable and Xboxes. |
Yep - the prisons that demonstrate a reasonable degree of humanity demonstrate exactly that. I understand that there are some states where chain gangs are still de rigeur, however.
Originally posted by "theSaj":
Should it be about "revenge" or "safety"? I believe safety. |
Surely penalty plus safety both, and a degree of redress for the victim?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Hmm...mass murderer, him and his sons spectating to gruesome deaths and rapes and abuse. Maybe it's sociopath not psychopath...I'm not sure what the exact psychological term would be. But without a doubt...yes, something was wrong with the man. That much is clear. |
If it is so clear, why were these things not the subject of the prosecution? Maybe because you are inferring a lot from sensationalist media reports?
The man was a tyrant, and from all accounts his sons were twisted. However, remember that the propaganda machines have been working overtime to demonise him.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Agreed. I think you were might have been mis-interpreting the meaning of my words. Partly due to a typoe. My point was that it should be difficult to pronounce a death sentence and I was limiting the situations where it could be applied. If there was not a guilty plea or absolute proof of action (and yes the motivation is always a factor). |
I think I understood - I was pointing out that there is rarely or never such a thing as a case where every aspect is transparent to the degree you suggest. The state of mind is one example of something that you will never know for sure. So your suggestion is impractical.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I tolerate a certain level of impurity. But when it reaches a certain point. Then yes, I view as a forfieture. |
Therein lies the rub: your gut feeling is not necessarily the greatest philospohical basis upon which to determine juridical policy.
Originally posted by theSaj:
As I understand it, this is not the only case on the table. Who knows, maybe the kurds just made up the story of being dead. |
This is a good example of a case where the deaths occurred in an obvious fashion (fitting in with your CNN example), but guilt is not transparent (or surely it would have formed part of the trial).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Perhaps...but just cause the dogmatic beliefs came completely from their own hearts and minds doesn't absolve them of their crimes. |
No - but your point was that people should not blame religion for causing people to act irrationally, because atheists can act irrationally.
This is a logical leap. The fact that people act irrationally outside the scope of religion does not mean that religion is not a cause of irrational behaviour.
Dogmatic belief systems might be a factor in both. However, religious beliefs are based on one or other arbitrary set of predefined principles. An atheist's beliefs are not.
Originally posted by theSaj:
If such be the case, than I absolve religion for the exact same reason. Most such deaths were occurred during political wars, at the hands of brutal dictators. Often at the hands of a religious belief ultimately corrupted. |
I believe that I have argued this very point on several occasions, in response to which you have argued that the a majority of wars are a consequence of Islamic belief. Religion is an often used excuse or convenient delineator in otherwise political wars.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 08:45:53 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I understand the culture in Iraq is very different from the culture in other parts of the world.... but death by hanging? How barbaric! |
Hmm...I read this whole thread and it seems some people either are uninformed, don't remember or just are unaware. January 5, 1993 in Clark County, Washington, USA Wesley Dodd (convicted of raping and killing three boys who also said openly that if he ever got the chance he would continue to rape and kill young boys and also volunteered for the death penalty) was executed BY HANGING! Washington provides that lethal injection be administered unless the inmate requests hanging.
In Delaware hanging was an alternative for those whose offense occurred prior to 6/13/86, but as of July 2003 no inmates on death row were eligible to choose this alternative and Delaware dismantled its gallows.
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 09:49:37. |
|
|
|
11/10/2006 05:56:49 PM · #123 |
Wait, what did you post this link for? Is this supposed to be an example of how our government condones rape and torture?
HAHAHAHA...... you, sir, are misinformed.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 06:34:49 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
Wait, what did you post this link for? Is this supposed to be an example of how our government condones rape and torture?
HAHAHAHA...... you, sir, are misinformed. |
Just do a search on the term "extraordinary rendition" and see what you find.
Here's one article about it.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2006 06:54:25 PM · #125 |
I guess someone missed the little graphic at the bottom of the page that says "This parody sponsored by..."
Message edited by author 2006-11-10 18:55:20. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 05:28:26 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 05:28:26 AM EDT.
|
