Main > Everything Else
I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...
<< < (39/51) > >>
Dartful Dodger:

--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 15, 2005, 03:12:09 pm ---
No, I wouldn't.


--- End quote ---

Yes you would.
fredster:
There's other "exceptions".

The Carol Carr case in Atlanta.  Both her sons were dying from Huntinton's Disease. She took care of her husband that also had the disease.

Both of the boys (ages 38-45) were in a nursing home.  They had bedsores, non-communicative, etc.   She couldn't take it anymore. She watched her husband slowly die and then her children too.

She went to visit,  took out a pistol and shot them both in the head.  Point Blank.

The Georgia court gave her two years + probation.

What are you gonna do?
Dartful Dodger:

--- Quote from: fredster on September 15, 2005, 05:09:03 pm ---She went to visit,
--- End quote ---
shmokes:

--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 14, 2005, 08:42:06 pm ---
So you are now admitting that there is a difference between stated intent, and actual motive?


--- End quote ---


Okay...so I finally am winding down from a busy day at work and thought I would undertake the enormous task of reading and responding to your long-ass post.  This is tough NBA.  I feel like I'm shooting ducks, and no matter how many I shoot down more just keep popping up.

Look at the first line of your post.  I am now admitting?  Of course there can be a difference between stated intent and actual motive.  It's called lying.  I have never EVER stated anything that would even suggest that I believe otherwise.  I find myself compelled to cut up your posts line by line when responding, in spite of the fact that I hate with a passion when people argue that way, because you consistently fill your posts with this stuff.

Don't construct a generic argument and then try to jerry-rig it into a response to me.  If I didn't say that motive and stated intent are always the same, don't say, "So now you admit that there is a difference between..."

If I say that hate crimes should be punished more severely than otherwise identical crimes sans the "hate" component, don't say that my position is that perpetrators of crimes without a "hate" component should be EXCUSED.  I'd like to argue the issues without having to hack up your posts line-by-line to address your embelishments.

You may think that my philosophies are misguided.  You may think that my ideology clouds my ability to see realities.  But one thing you can count on is that I'm honest about the things I believe.  I make no attempts to hide data that doesn't go my way.  I try to be charitable when reading someone's post and interpret it how I believe they meant it to be interpreted, even if the grammer allows for multiple meanings.  I don't post links to places like moveon.org and treat them like they should be thought of as journalism.  I've told Mr. C that he's full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, in spite of the fact that his views so often parallel mine.  If you find the Michael Moore thread you'll see that I'm right there with the conservatives saying that he is a fat unethical buffoon.  But the reason I think that about him is because he constructs his arguments in ways that are deliberately misleading.

Please stop doing it.  I want to read what you have to say, but it's the longest post in the history of mankind and look how it begins.  Just respond to what I am saying.  When discussing my position just refer to it in the same language I use when I refer to it.  If it helps, I promise that I won't start talking about how you want the government to have the power to murder its citizens.  It's a lame way to argue.
NoOne=NBA=:
Grasshopper,

There are too many ugly questions that are brought up in my mind by an objective evaluation of your position on this for me to even think about adopting it.

You hold that societal protection is the goal of punishment from what I am reading, correct?
Why do we need to punish the man who kills his wife in a jealous rage, if he's no longer a threat to society then?


--- Quote ---You could of course give all murderers the maximum punishment. I think this is unjust because I don't regard all acts of murder as being equal
--- End quote ---
If all acts of murder aren't equal, then all victims of murder must be worth differing amounts of punishment, correct?
Who decides this, and how do we ensure that the people deciding this don't decide that the very people you are trying to please with the hate crime laws aren't determined to be worth LESS than I am?


--- Quote ---But over-punishing people creates other problems. Society incurs a cost in punishing people. It costs a lot of money to send someone to jail for life and you also prevent that person from earning a living, paying taxes, supporting his family etc.
--- End quote ---
Based on the above, you believe that the killer's career, tax dollars, and family are more important than the victim's life was?
What about the Victim's career, the Victim's tax dollars, and the Victim's family?
Why are they worth less than the killer's?

Those are all questions I don't have to answer, holding the position that I do.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version