DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Stanley "Tookie" Williams.. Thoughts?
Pages:  
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/15/2005 06:50:12 PM · #176
Well, when all is said and done there will be far more said than done. Ultimately, in the end, God will tell us the answers and judge us according to His teachings.
12/15/2005 07:23:09 PM · #177
Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, when all is said and done there will be far more said than done. Ultimately, in the end, God will tell us the answers and judge us according to His teachings.
Or not, and society will have been right to expend a bit of effort in divining the path most beneficial to it.
12/15/2005 07:38:30 PM · #178
A good case is hurt when selecting bad road models to argue the cause. Most agree that the State's laws have been observed. Those that take this bad opportunity to argue lofty ideals proves that they are not at all interested in any particular case except to advance a belief that makes them feel better. This way they can look down on the barbarians that oppose them. They breathe a better air and their logic is unassailable. Really. These topics have a better chance to survive without selecting criminals to advance the them. Notice how the victims go unnoticed. They are no longer here.

12/15/2005 07:59:07 PM · #179
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I don't think that there will ever be proof: the matter is subjective (ie open to individual interpretation).


Than if that is the case, I'll stand at the earliest "new DNA formation" in order to err on the side of caution.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

but if a doctor determines that the mother will suffer mental health issues if she must bear the child, that sounds as though it might be a reason to stretch the limits...(unless you are saying that late term abortions are rubber stamped by doctors under this reason: if so, you should say so).


Yes, that's what I was trying to convey. "Rubber-stamped" (if I understand from context that term - basically an umbrella approval, the always available justification when there is no real justification).

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


The difficulty is that you then suggest that these differences manifest themselves in such a way as to make one race superior to another.


No, not superior, but that individuals may exemplify superior aptitude in a limited facet. (ie: some people have higher IQ's while others excel at athletics. But not superior. Equal, but differently talented due to variances in genetic code.) That help to clarify.

Superiority in reference to an individual over another is a dangerous direction.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality.


Agreed, and no, I do not think race, religion or nationality are factors. But I think it's inarguable to deny that certain individuals have above average inclinations with apparent genetic influences. For instance, families where there seems to be a genetic inclination to a musical talent. And now the discovery of a gene that seems to indicate heightened intelligence in men. And at the same time there is no denying that there are jocks and nerds (sometimes there are individuals who qualify as both even). But I don't think we can deny there are some genetic tendencies that seem to manifest on a trait for trait level a more gifted or developed state.

However, not too imply that a jock or nerd are of superiority to each other as human beings but rather, both are superior in their talents but not in their inherent value.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Not sure exactly where you stand in this subject: the reason for political correctness is that massive injustices have been suffered in the past as a consequence of this type of reasoning


Much agreed, I've often used that fact to stress that it is not so much "religion" as "dogma" that is the problem. There are both religious & scientific individuals who function nobly together and in the world. And there have been atrocities committed by both religious and scientific individuals enforcing dogmatic beliefs. Racial slavery was one such sin. The fact that a pygmy african was put on exhibit in a zoo in order to show superiority and evolution was an atrocius act on the part of mankind. (Dogmatic belief in action.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


It is possible that humans have evolved to a state where they do not conform with the classic evolutionary requirements: we do not need to adapt to environmental changes, but can change our environment instead (and in any case, evolution is too slow to be recognisable in large, slow reproducing mammals).


IMHO, taking the evolutionary precepts, there is no denying that there is varying advancement. However, as you put it is such a slow advancement (and I believe the gene pool so intermingled so as to replicate such). That there is no significant difference. Only what can be called perhaps "talents".

Of course, there is the theory that evolution might occur in waves with drastic leaps. (Then we find ourselves in the realm of the X-men. And even in that regard I lean strongly toward the stance of Professor X. Just because us mutants have evolved further does not mean you non-mutants are not our equals and peers. We merely have developed a talent. The Saj begins to stretch and turn bright colors and get gooey....then in a deep "Tick" styled voice and with a single raised finger.... "Saltwater Taffy Man". Sorry just being humorous and referencing an old RPG character i had from a super-hero game.)

But no, I am much agreed that there is not enough difference to denote any superiority in value. But wish such discoveries, I think we need to address a more open and honest viewpoint. That there are genetic inclinations. (Obese people have been trying to get this recognized for years that even when they eat just measly salads they gain 10x the weight those skinny guys with super metabolisms gain.) *lol*

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

how can one's plea change the outcome?

Agreed, hence I really want to do away with plea bargains. And have sentencing negotiations instead. *lol* What a nightmare I just created, didn't I?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


more interestingly, if someone were to accuse you of being the criminal in such a situation when you were innocent but the circumstances conspired against you, would you accept that you should be killed so as to prevent you from raping again, or would you rather that you were locked up indefinitely with the hope that new physical testing mechanisms might one day exonerate you?


Really depends on my status in life. If I was innoncent. I might do everything I could to fight being locked up. Dying if I had too. *shrug*

But that's just me...

However, it might also be better for me to be locked up or even to die. Than to have a 100 little girls raped because a 100 guilty men were allowed to go free so that I might also be free.

If I was told "look, a 100 little girls are going to be raped and/or killed if you go free, but if you are locked up or executed...they won't be harmed". My God....how can I not choose in their favor. *sigh*

:(

[An extremely hard scenario Legalbeagle...]

Message edited by author 2005-12-15 19:59:33.
12/15/2005 08:07:48 PM · #180
Originally posted by theSaj:


For instance, families where there seems to be a genetic inclination to a musical talent.


Caution Thin Ice !
Speaking Chinese runs in families, but its not genetic.
12/15/2005 09:13:49 PM · #181
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, when all is said and done there will be far more said than done. Ultimately, in the end, God will tell us the answers and judge us according to His teachings.
Or not, and society will have been right to expend a bit of effort in divining the path most beneficial to it.


Oh yes. Then could it be A. Hitler was right? Wasn't he "divining the path most beneficial" ?
12/15/2005 09:20:21 PM · #182
Puh-leeze! Don't make me lock this thread.
12/15/2005 10:17:01 PM · #183
'I don't think that there will ever be proof: the matter is subjective (ie open to individual interpretation).'
12/16/2005 12:05:36 AM · #184
Originally posted by David Ey:

Oh yes. Then could it be A. Hitler was right? Wasn't he "divining the path most beneficial" ?


Godwin's Law, my friend. Godwin's Law. Learn it, live it, love it.
12/16/2005 12:55:57 AM · #185
I was forwarded the actual crime scene photos of the Tookie Williams murders. I hesitated to put the link here..they are too graphic for general viewing and for respect of the victims.

Suffice it to say....Tookie had the easy way out compared to his victims. If we actually did an eye for an eye there should have been a lot less of Tookie to bury.
12/16/2005 01:04:44 AM · #186
Originally posted by Jammur:

Originally posted by theSaj:


For instance, families where there seems to be a genetic inclination to a musical talent.


Caution Thin Ice !
Speaking Chinese runs in families, but its not genetic.


Why is it liberals want to accuse conservatives of dismissing science, but then do so themselves for political correctness.

I'm sorry. But there are individuals and genetic lines that tend toward a talent.

Just as certain genetic traits mean certain individuals have more proclivity towards obesity. It's scientific fact. And more and more is pinpointed to genetics.

For instance, the ear's ability to process pitch, rythym, etc. are being shown to have genetic characteristics.

The ice is not thin...we're just afraid to walk on it because we are too inclined to dismiss our past historical mistakes. Thus we want to pretend the emperor is wearing clothes. When in truth, he is in fact butt naked.

Originally posted by "GeneralE":

Puh-leeze! Don't make me lock this thread.


I see no real need to lock the thread. Most of the debate, although heated, has been fairly civil.

Originally posted by milo655321:



Godwin's Law, my friend. Godwin's Law. Learn it, live it, love it.


Screw Godwin....Godwin's law is just a liberal statement to avoid dealing with the harsh realities of history and the human tendency toward slippery slopes.

Not every see's the slippery slope argument as a fallacy, especially when it commonly becomes reality.

Rather than "revisionist history" or "forgetfulness history", i'd rather admit our past failings and learn from them.

It is just as wrong to deny our differences and uniquenesses as it is to value ourselves over each other.

The issue, is not whether there may in fact be differences. (Because science is pointing more and more to this fact. And such will become indisputable.) But rather to understand the value and equality of us all. And to view ourselves more as a microcosm of a greater body called the human race.

To some there is the talent of music, to another math, and still to another words, and another art, to another strength, and to another frailty. These differences do not mean a different in inherent value. But rather a uniqueness.
12/16/2005 01:14:16 AM · #187
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by Jammur:

Originally posted by theSaj:


For instance, families where there seems to be a genetic inclination to a musical talent.


Caution Thin Ice !
Speaking Chinese runs in families, but its not genetic.


Why is it liberals want to accuse conservatives of dismissing science, but then do so themselves for political correctness.

I'm sorry. But there are individuals and genetic lines that tend toward a talent.

Just as certain genetic traits mean certain individuals have more proclivity towards obesity. It's scientific fact. And more and more is pinpointed to genetics.

For instance, the ear's ability to process pitch, rythym, etc. are being shown to have genetic characteristics.

The ice is not thin...we're just afraid to walk on it because we are too inclined to dismiss our past historical mistakes. Thus we want to pretend the emperor is wearing clothes. When in truth, he is in fact butt naked.


Wow! Something the Saj and I completely agree on! I think it is ridiculous that Political Correctness has gone so far that it's no longer "acceptable" to recognize genetic differences in human performance. To recognize that they exist is NOT the same thing as to support a program of eugenics designed to breed for certain characteristics. THAT's the slippery slope here.

Robt.
12/16/2005 01:20:10 AM · #188
..."One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's Law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is not universally true."...

I tend to agree that invoking an analogy to "Nazi's" or "Hitler" in an arguument today does often move the discussion toward stereotypical paths. However, ignoring or chastising the opponent when those analogies are made for the sake of fashion when the comparison is valid is also equally bad form.
12/16/2005 01:33:07 AM · #189
hokie -- I don't think the post I was responding to was of the same order as your first example, which I agree is a perfectly valid one.
12/16/2005 01:34:22 AM · #190
How is it people can discuss the mythical and controversial figure of God all they want, but if you bring up a famous world leader who lived 60 years ago, people freak out?

"GOD IS VERY GOOD" (fine)
"HITLER IS VERY BAD" (bad)

WTF?

Yes, Hitler was wrong - and bad. And a just comparison for saying "oh, you think a because b? Didn't Hitler think a because b too? Wasn't he wrong? Why aren't you wrong?" Nobody said "quit being a nazi."


12/16/2005 01:43:17 AM · #191
Originally posted by GeneralE:

hokie -- I don't think the post I was responding to was of the same order as your first example, which I agree is a perfectly valid one.


Actually, I was responding to the person who brought up the "Godwin's Law" ....Not really to your post :-)

Mainly, I think "Godwin's Law" is more akin to "Murphy's Law" than an intelligent way to diss somebody that invokes the "Hitler Gambit" in an argument.

The "Hitler's Gambit"..BTW..is just some crap I just made up..but I think it could catch on just like "Godwins Law" and we could make it into a thursday night sitcom called "Hitler's Gambit" about two guys named Fritz (both named Fritz) and their inability to meet women in modern day Germany. Sort of like 2-1/2 men...minus the half. :-D
12/16/2005 01:45:18 AM · #192
It happens when someone associates another members views with Hitler's, as in "yeah, well if you believe that then you must believe Hitler was right too."

I don't think anyone would have any objection to a historico-political discussion on the causes and effects of Nazism, just don't go carelessly comparing people's other ideas to it.
12/16/2005 01:46:45 AM · #193
Originally posted by hokie:

The "Hitler's Gambit"..BTW..is just some crap I just made up..but I think it could catch on just like "Godwins Law" and we could make it into a thursday night sitcom called "Hitler's Gambit" about two guys named Fritz (both named Fritz) and their inability to meet women in modern day Germany. Sort of like 2-1/2 men...minus the half. :-D

It worked for Mel Brooks ...
12/16/2005 01:50:14 AM · #194
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by hokie:

The "Hitler's Gambit"..BTW..is just some crap I just made up..but I think it could catch on just like "Godwins Law" and we could make it into a thursday night sitcom called "Hitler's Gambit" about two guys named Fritz (both named Fritz) and their inability to meet women in modern day Germany. Sort of like 2-1/2 men...minus the half. :-D

It worked for Mel Brooks ...


If only I was as clever as Mel Brooks...I am more like Curtis Brooks...my best friend in 5th grade who couldn't tie his shoes. :-/
12/16/2005 01:55:02 AM · #195
Anyone heard anything more regarding the Spaceballs Prequel?
12/16/2005 02:02:13 AM · #196
Don't get mad, but I think I've contributed to leading this thread astray. Perhaps we should re-focus, or carry on elsewhere ...
12/16/2005 02:22:21 AM · #197
Originally posted by theSaj:

Anyone heard anything more regarding the Spaceballs Prequel?


I thought Spaceballs was the announced sequel to History of the World, "Jews in Space"

BTW, I consider myself neither liberal or conservative. I was educated as a scientist and therefore I am familar with the nature/nurture debate. I am willing to concede that certain anotomical characteristics might be advantageous in the development of a talent, the desire to develope that talent and the actual training are purely environmental.
12/16/2005 06:00:07 AM · #198
Originally posted by bear_music:

Wow! Something the Saj and I completely agree on! I think it is ridiculous that Political Correctness has gone so far that it's no longer "acceptable" to recognize genetic differences in human performance. To recognize that they exist is NOT the same thing as to support a program of eugenics designed to breed for certain characteristics. THAT's the slippery slope here.

Robt.


Hmmm - I think that this point has to be expressed carefully, and I do not think that theSaj is doing so. I have reconstituted the conversation (apologies for the post length, but hey - if you are still reading this you are used to itů)

Problematic areas are
1. the idea that to a degree, promoters of genocide's philosophy of advancement is correct.
2. that this somehow is related to a purported objective assessment of racial rights.
3. the idea that there may be evolving a "smarter branch of the race"
4. that all members of the species are evolving and that each is doing so differently
5. that we are evolving in respect of "talents".
6. that people speaking to the contrary are just being politically correct.
(highlighted in bold in the conversation)

Evolution is essentially continuous adaptation to an environment over many thousands of generations. Genetic diversity is not a result of evolution, but a prerequisite. Of course, genetic variety cannot be denied. It is not fully understood and the thin ice is where people assume a genetic link where there is none (eg I read about studies into genetic preferences that statistically showed that a preference for coffee appears to be genetically influenced, but the same does not hold true for tea - perhaps not what one would predict if one had only seen the study relating to coffee).

As a rule, evolution relates to a species, not to individuals. The suggestion that there is a smarter branch of the race amongst us is therefore not quite on point: some people will be better genetically disposed towards survival, and their genes will propagate further and improve the race as a whole. For the race to "split" there would have to be a barrier that results in the better genes not being available to people on one or other side of the barrier. That is the start of a difficult path, because the obvious splits that we might recognise are with social and geographically distinct groups. This could easily be abused by claiming, for example, mental superiority of one race over another, whereas studies show that not to be true. Combined with what has to be a limited understanding of how genes work (because mankind knows very little), all kinds of statements could quickly be justified (aka Chinese people have a genetic predisposition towards speaking Chinese - but problematically in relation to propensities towards intelligence, violence and crime).

If and when the genetic structure is understood better, it may be that we can identify classes within society that are genetically superior than others, though genetic propensities will only ever explain part of how we work: the environmental factors are already understood to be hugely significant.

I think that this argument came up in the context of discussion as between male and female biological characteristics. Women's liberation is largely based on reducing the impact of differing male/female biologies, on the premise that women should as far as possible have the same societal rights as men. While the biological distinction cannot (and should not) be ignored, the burden on society of overcoming obstacles to enable a full role for women is vastly overwhelmed by the corresponding contribution to society (IMO).

In respect of eugenics, it is not so much breeding for certain characteristics (biological attraction is just that) but killing people or sterilising them so as to eliminate undesirable characteristics. How far we go with genetic enhancement in the future is a massively debateable subject in itself.

"Gattaca" is an interesting film that explores some of these themes.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Science does not provide answers to moral dilemmas, unfortunately. The value of a human foetus' rights as against its mother's cannot be valued objectively.


Originally posted by theSaj:

Than neither can the value of a Jew's rights be valued objectively to the rights of a German. Or do you not realize that is the fundamental thought behind every mass genocide and massacre the world has seen. The muslim's rights cannot be valued objectively to the rights of the christian (or vice versa).


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I think that all of those are subjective assessments: I do not think that anyone before committing genocide would be taking a valid scientific exercise. It would always be a subjective assessment, as relative rights cannot be assessed objectively.


Originally posted by theSaj:

Really, they thought it was quite based on science and evolution. And frankly, to a degree, there philosophy of advancement is correct.

Recently a gene was discovered that when in males contributes to a higher intellect. So what does this mean? What is the consequences of this discovery. People want to talk equality equality equality. But if there is a genetic advancement that leads to greater intellect. Is there evolving a "smarter branch of the race"? Now, I believe there should be equality in rights, opportunity, respect, and status. And I do not believe that a 200 I.Q.'d genius is any more of a citizen than a 85 I.Q.'d man personally. Though I do believe each individual may excel at different things.


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Eugenics is widely discredited as a science.


Originally posted by theSaj:

I always wondered how science can express that species are evolving and then at the same time express "nope, there are no differences". Anyone who sits and takes a second to really weigh those two statements realizes, one of them is wrong. In truth, I believe it's more of a "PC" issue than anything else. However, that is not to say that an ethnic group is more advanced. But that, if you are going accept the concept of evolution, you must realize that all members of the species are evolving and that each is doing so differently. And will acquire feats or facets necessary to their survival. Or, we've reached a pinnacle and have ceased evolving.

You cannot say "we are evolving" and "we are not evolving" and claim both to be true.


Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I am not quite sure how to approach your suggestion here.

There is an obvious physiological difference between races. This may be caused by evolutionary means. The difficulty is that you then suggest that these differences manifest themselves in such a way as to make one race superior to another. Maybe there is some evidence of this in some cases: you may be able to point to olympic disciplines and a detailed statistical anlysis, discounting other societal factors, to asecertain a physical profile that tends to suit a particular discipline. What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality. Not sure exactly where you stand in this subject: the reason for political correctness is that massive injustices have been suffered in the past as a consequence of this type of reasoning, and we ought to take positive steps to try to reduce the impact of this style of thinking in modern society.

It is possible that humans have evolved to a state where they do not conform with the classic evolutionary requirements: we do not need to adapt to environmental changes, but can change our environment instead (and in any case, evolution is too slow to be recognisable in large, slow reproducing mammals).


Originally posted by theSaj:

[To:The difficulty is that you then suggest that these differences manifest themselves in such a way as to make one race superior to another]No, not superior, but that individuals may exemplify superior aptitude in a limited facet. (ie: some people have higher IQ's while others excel at athletics. But not superior. Equal, but differently talented due to variances in genetic code.) That help to clarify.

Superiority in reference to an individual over another is a dangerous direction.

[To:What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality.]Agreed, and no, I do not think race, religion or nationality are factors. But I think it's inarguable to deny that certain individuals have above average inclinations with apparent genetic influences. For instance, families where there seems to be a genetic inclination to a musical talent. And now the discovery of a gene that seems to indicate heightened intelligence in men. And at the same time there is no denying that there are jocks and nerds (sometimes there are individuals who qualify as both even). But I don't think we can deny there are some genetic tendencies that seem to manifest on a trait for trait level a more gifted or developed state.

[To:What is more difficult is if you ascribe some mental distinction, or a distinction between race, or worse religion or nationality.]However, not too imply that a jock or nerd are of superiority to each other as human beings but rather, both are superior in their talents but not in their inherent value.

[To:Not sure exactly where you stand in this subject: the reason for political correctness is that massive injustices have been suffered in the past as a consequence of this type of reasoning]Much agreed, I've often used that fact to stress that it is not so much "religion" as "dogma" that is the problem. There are both religious & scientific individuals who function nobly together and in the world. And there have been atrocities committed by both religious and scientific individuals enforcing dogmatic beliefs. Racial slavery was one such sin. The fact that a pygmy african was put on exhibit in a zoo in order to show superiority and evolution was an atrocius act on the part of mankind. (Dogmatic belief in action.)

[To:It is possible that humans have evolved to a state where they do not conform with the classic evolutionary requirements: we do not need to adapt to environmental changes, but can change our environment instead (and in any case, evolution is too slow to be recognisable in large, slow reproducing mammals).]IMHO, taking the evolutionary precepts, there is no denying that there is varying advancement. However, as you put it is such a slow advancement (and I believe the gene pool so intermingled so as to replicate such). That there is no significant difference. Only what can be called perhaps "talents".

Of course, there is the theory that evolution might occur in waves with drastic leaps. (Then we find ourselves in the realm of the X-men. And even in that regard I lean strongly toward the stance of Professor X. Just because us mutants have evolved further does not mean you non-mutants are not our equals and peers. We merely have developed a talent. The Saj begins to stretch and turn bright colors and get gooey....then in a deep "Tick" styled voice and with a single raised finger.... "Saltwater Taffy Man". Sorry just being humorous and referencing an old RPG character i had from a super-hero game.)

But no, I am much agreed that there is not enough difference to denote any superiority in value. But wish such discoveries, I think we need to address a more open and honest viewpoint. That there are genetic inclinations. (Obese people have been trying to get this recognized for years that even when they eat just measly salads they gain 10x the weight those skinny guys with super metabolisms gain.) *lol*


Message edited by author 2005-12-16 06:40:02.
12/16/2005 06:22:59 AM · #199
Originally posted by theSaj:

Than if that is the case, I'll stand at the earliest "new DNA formation" in order to err on the side of caution.
That is the point of conception, then. Unless you are talking about unique mitochondrial DNA, in which case it is the production of each gamete.

Originally posted by theSaj:

an umbrella approval, the always available justification when there is no real justification).
this does once again rather rely on your anecdotal experience being more valid than the opinion of a qualified doctor...

Originally posted by theSaj:


I really want to do away with plea bargains. And have sentencing negotiations instead. *lol* What a nightmare I just created, didn't I?
I think unworkable to have sentence negotiations after guilt is established: the system works because a guilty plea will save time and money, in exchange for which the judge will reduce the sentence a bit. Without that incentive, everyone would go to full trial every time (why not - there is always a chance that you will get off!). The difficulty arises when the bargaining is two way (ie the suspect can not only make a decision on how to plead, but also negotiate the strength of the allegation and sentence). But that difficulty probably promotes even more settled trials saving even more money. The political message "pay more tax and get a more reliable justice system" is a hard sell to an electorate that does not expect to be subject to it (they are either not criminals, or they do not expect to be caught...!).

Originally posted by theSaj:

If I was innoncent. I might do everything I could to fight being locked up. Dying if I had too. *shrug*
you miss my point - if you are convicted and finally sentenced to death, you *will* die. Would you, the innocent man on death row, still support the death penalty, when its only effect is to prevent justice later being served? If you would waver in your support in that situation, can you suffer to live in a society where that occasionally happens?

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 06:23:34.
12/16/2005 07:34:59 AM · #200
Gee, for once I feel morally consistent - I am in favor of killing everyone :)

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Jammur:

Lets get this going full tilt...
Why do so many conservatives adopt the fisherman mentality on issues like abortion and the death penality?

They're too small throw them back, we'll get them when they're full grown.


Just to retort..Why do so many liberals think it is ok to kill innocent babies but not kill people who made a choice to kill (Tookie).

and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/09/2020 10:36:56 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/09/2020 10:36:56 PM EDT.