If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Texas bases execution decisions on John Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men.' Jokes on them... everybody knows he was a socialist agitator   (motherjones.com) divider line 78
    More: Ironic, John Steinbeck, Texas, child custody, Eighth Amendment  
•       •       •

5207 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2012 at 2:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 01:44:01 PM
well, given that the average IQ in texas is probably pretty low, the standard for mental retardation would be pretty low too. you probably wouldn't be able to execute an armadillo in some parts
 
2012-08-07 02:25:01 PM
Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?
 
2012-08-07 02:54:15 PM
He was the Lindbergh kidnapper, just black and stupid and in Texas.

Kill him, shouted the crowd!
OK! shouted the cops and judges!
 
2012-08-07 02:55:12 PM
Because one Texas-bashing thread today just isn't enough. On the same subject, even.

Fark all y'all.
 
2012-08-07 02:56:34 PM
When did Texas stop using a Magic 8 Ball for important decisions?
 
2012-08-07 02:57:01 PM
Marvin Wilson sucked his thumb into his adulthood, reads at a second-grade level, has an IQ of 61, doesn't know the difference between left and right, and as a child couldn't wear a belt without cutting off his circulation. On Tuesday, barring a last-minute intervention from the US Supreme Court, he'll be executed in Texas.

What's his Fark handle?
 
2012-08-07 02:57:41 PM

Arkanaut: Marvin Wilson sucked his thumb into his adulthood, reads at a second-grade level, has an IQ of 61, doesn't know the difference between left and right, and as a child couldn't wear a belt without cutting off his circulation. On Tuesday, barring a last-minute intervention from the US Supreme Court, he'll be executed in Texas.

What's his Fark handle?


spentmiles?
 
2012-08-07 02:57:43 PM
Arkanaut: Marvin Wilson sucked his thumb into his adulthood, reads at a second-grade level, has an IQ of 61, doesn't know the difference between left and right, and as a child couldn't wear a belt without cutting off his circulation. On Tuesday, barring a last-minute intervention from the US Supreme Court, he'll be executed in Texas.

What's his Fark handle?


Look in the politics tab. Describes many of the posters there.
 
2012-08-07 02:58:02 PM
FTA: "In other words, you can be mildly disabled and still fall beneath the 'level and degree of [MR] at which a consensus of Texas citizens' would have a problem with your state-commissioned death."

A consensus of Texas citizens [as though Texas is a country in and of itself]?
That must be a painful thing to see.

/Also, consensus of what kind of Texas citizens? White? Black? Poor? Rich? Ranchers? Laborers? Suburban idiots?
 
2012-08-07 02:58:05 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Fark all y'all of you.


FTFY
 
2012-08-07 02:58:44 PM

timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?


That was my first thought, too. He can't put on a belt without cutting off circulation, but he can associate a sale with both a product and a buyer, calculate sums and count currency?
 
2012-08-07 02:59:19 PM

impaler: FTFY


You're not from around here (thank goodness). I can tell.
 
2012-08-07 02:59:57 PM
"Most Texas citizens," the argument ran, "might agree that Steinbeck's Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt" from execution. By implication anyone less impaired than Steinbeck's fictional migrant ranch worker should have no constitutional protection.

THIS IS NOT HOW LOGIC WORKS AT ALL.

I might as well say that Most Texas citizens agree that John Holmes has a huge penis. By implication anyone with less than 14 inches does not have a huge penis.
 
2012-08-07 02:59:59 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Because one Texas-bashing thread today just isn't enough. On the same subject, even.

Fark all y'all.


No problem, sunshine.
And you be sure to say "Thank you, sir! May I have more?!" when we comply.
 
2012-08-07 03:01:34 PM

Arkanaut: "Most Texas citizens," the argument ran, "might agree that Steinbeck's Lennie should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt" from execution. By implication anyone less impaired than Steinbeck's fictional migrant ranch worker should have no constitutional protection.

THIS IS NOT HOW LOGIC WORKS AT ALL.

I might as well say that Most Texas citizens agree that John Holmes has a huge penis. By implication anyone with less than 14 inches does not have a huge penis.


Well....they are used to see the size of a steer's equipment. Of course they'd think anything less than 14 is small.
 
2012-08-07 03:02:36 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: A consensus of Texas citizens [as though Texas is a country in and of itself]?


Um, referring to permanent residents of a state who vote there as 'citizens' is neither illogical or new. People who live and vote in a city are called citizens of that city as well.

Are you some kind of space alien that you don't know this, or were you just abducted by time travelers visiting the dark ages and dumped in our century for laughs?
 
2012-08-07 03:02:38 PM
George Amberson is not amused.

//Anyone get it?
 
2012-08-07 03:02:59 PM
And Texans wonder why the drought is worse there.
 
2012-08-07 03:05:22 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: FTA: "In other words, you can be mildly disabled and still fall beneath the 'level and degree of [MR] at which a consensus of Texas citizens' would have a problem with your state-commissioned death."

A consensus of Texas citizens [as though Texas is a country in and of itself]?
That must be a painful thing to see.

/Also, consensus of what kind of Texas citizens? White? Black? Poor? Rich? Ranchers? Laborers? Suburban idiots?


he means the legislature. if a state has a death penalty, it's supposed to be up to the legislature to establish the appropriate considerations and due process for the court to consider in deciding whether execution is proper.

this judge decided to get high flown with his language by saying consensus of the people. In judge talk, that means the legislature

the legislature is theoretically the least democratically deficient body of government, therefore, theoretically, it best represents the will of the people. That's why it decides the nature of punishment, while the judge decides the application of the legislature's will to a specific case.
 
2012-08-07 03:05:23 PM

timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?



People with mental disabilities can function when given strict directives yet not make independent decisions. My son has autism, he will put his dishes away, do a chore etc. like clockwork, but function without a list or direct command is hard. Excuse the the term but he is like a trained dog.

My "normal" son cannot do the above yet will make independent decisions based on the situation presented. It's a mind fark.
 
2012-08-07 03:05:33 PM

Coelacanth: And Texans wonder why the drought is worse there.


And before that the fires.
 
2012-08-07 03:06:14 PM

timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?


I was thinking something similar as well as, how easy is it to fake an IQ test? Could actually play dumb enough and save yourself from the chair?
 
2012-08-07 03:07:11 PM

Arkanaut: Marvin Wilson sucked his thumb into his adulthood, reads at a second-grade level, has an IQ of 61, doesn't know the difference between left and right, and as a child couldn't wear a belt without cutting off his circulation. On Tuesday, barring a last-minute intervention from the US Supreme Court, he'll be executed in Texas.

What's his Fark handle?


cman?
 
2012-08-07 03:07:35 PM

timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?


They're retarded, not stupid.

Seriously, you need to spend time among the functionally retarded. A 60-70 IQ is more than adequate to understand basic math, basic personal care skills, handle money (in small amounts), and know the difference between getting paid $50 for a quarter-gram and getting paid with five $1-bills. And to be able to be mean, vindictive and administer beatdowns to your customers who cheat you. (They can also be kind, overgenerous, and amazingly trusting)

Where most people of this level fail is their inability to understand long-term consequences, and to appreciate WHY something is wrong. Like a dog or a toddler, they can appreciate that they've DONE something wrong (peeing on the carpet, killing someone), but not comprehend WHY it is wrong. They may also lack an ability to learn from mistakes, and hence repeat negative behaviors over and over again and still not get the connection. (You touched that hot stove before and got burned? Why did you do it again?--I needed to grab that pan.) They can be entirely invested in short-term thinking.

What separates the retarded from the psychopath is lack of malice. Their actions may be harmful, calculated, and even mean--but the intent to harm for the pleasure of it is lacking. I can easily imagine this guy saying "Yeah, I killed him, he owed me money. Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I won't do it again, I promise." and actually meaning everything he said. It's the inability to understand WHY something is wrong, and the lack of genuine evil, that makes executing the retarded an 8th Amd. violation. They just "don't get it."
 
2012-08-07 03:07:36 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: And before that the fires.


The drought came first, genius. It's why there were fires.
 
2012-08-07 03:08:45 PM
images.contactmusic.com


Also couldn't wear a belt without cutting off his circulation.
 
2012-08-07 03:09:26 PM
Listen, you have to set an example for people who don't have the cognitive ability to understand the example you are setting.
 
2012-08-07 03:09:58 PM

pute kisses like a man: HotIgneous Intruder: FTA: "In other words, you can be mildly disabled and still fall beneath the 'level and degree of [MR] at which a consensus of Texas citizens' would have a problem with your state-commissioned death."

A consensus of Texas citizens [as though Texas is a country in and of itself]?
That must be a painful thing to see.

/Also, consensus of what kind of Texas citizens? White? Black? Poor? Rich? Ranchers? Laborers? Suburban idiots?

he means the legislature. if a state has a death penalty, it's supposed to be up to the legislature to establish the appropriate considerations and due process for the court to consider in deciding whether execution is proper.

this judge decided to get high flown with his language by saying consensus of the people. In judge talk, that means the legislature

the legislature is theoretically the least democratically deficient body of government, therefore, theoretically, it best represents the will of the people. That's why it decides the nature of punishment, while the judge decides the application of the legislature's will to a specific case.


That's a borderline-Texas explanation. But I'm not buying it.
Texas needs to step into the 20th century and realize it's actually the 21st century, then get rid of biblical punishments. Then all these mentally-challenging legal situations will stop confounding that state's best minds.
 
2012-08-07 03:10:33 PM

Lone Stranger: Also couldn't wear a belt without cutting off his circulation.


TOO SOON

/loved that show
//and death race 2000
 
2012-08-07 03:11:11 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: HotIgneous Intruder: And before that the fires.

The drought came first, genius. It's why there were fires.


Chicken or egg.
I know that confuses you. Sorry.
 
2012-08-07 03:14:25 PM

Altman: George Amberson is not amused.

//Anyone get it?


Yes, I'm currently reading it for the 2nd time. Funny, I just finished reading that part.

/hooray for texas asshole legislators.
//lives in ca so i can't really point fingers
 
2012-08-07 03:14:54 PM

Gyrfalcon: Where most people of this level fail is their inability to understand long-term consequences, and to appreciate WHY something is wrong. Like a dog or a toddler, they can appreciate that they've DONE something wrong (peeing on the carpet, killing someone), but not comprehend WHY it is wrong. They may also lack an ability to learn from mistakes, and hence repeat negative behaviors over and over again and still not get the connection. (You touched that hot stove before and got burned? Why did you do it again?--I needed to grab that pan.) They can be entirely invested in short-term thinking.


Which illustrates why this is all so backwards to me. A toddler can be expected to mature enough at some point to gain that understanding. The dog can't. But if the dog kills someone, you can be sure as fark that the dog will be put down.

So why is it that a person who can't be expected to ever understand why it was wrong to kill someone (just like the dog) gets the exact opposite treatment?
 
2012-08-07 03:15:22 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Texas needs to step into the 20th century and realize it's actually the 21st century,


Maybe when we're done curing cancer at MD Anderson, fixing hearts at UT Heath Center, creating spray-on batteries and nano technologies at Rice University, producing about 40% (or more) of your gasoline, and running the space station, we'll get around to worrying about what year it is.

then get rid of biblical punishments.

Tell me how, in a nation that directly permits capital punishment in its federal constitution, Texas is so out of line in having the death penalty? You're an American too, right? Your constitution permits it, so you must be sooooooooooo backward and uneducated.

You want to talk about substantive due process related to how many innocent people may be in Texas jails, then you've go d a debate--and one we'd likely be on the same side about. But until you know your ass from a hole in the ground, feel free to STFU.
 
2012-08-07 03:16:21 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: arethereanybeernamesleft: HotIgneous Intruder: And before that the fires.

The drought came first, genius. It's why there were fires.

Chicken or egg.
I know that confuses you. Sorry.


The dumbest saying ever. There were eggs long before there were chickens. Hell, there were eggs long before there were birds.
 
2012-08-07 03:16:54 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Chicken or egg.


You think fire conditions come before wide-spread drought?

You really are not that smart.
 
2012-08-07 03:17:24 PM

timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?


Purely guessing I would say he acted as an agent for a third party that used him to shield themselves in case of arrest. This hypothetical third party would do the "thinking" while IQ61 handled getting arrested and helped out with hitting people.
 
2012-08-07 03:18:09 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Where most people of this level fail is their inability to understand long-term consequences, and to appreciate WHY something is wrong. Like a dog or a toddler, they can appreciate that they've DONE something wrong (peeing on the carpet, killing someone), but not comprehend WHY it is wrong. They may also lack an ability to learn from mistakes, and hence repeat negative behaviors over and over again and still not get the connection. (You touched that hot stove before and got burned? Why did you do it again?--I needed to grab that pan.) They can be entirely invested in short-term thinking.

Which illustrates why this is all so backwards to me. A toddler can be expected to mature enough at some point to gain that understanding. The dog can't. But if the dog kills someone, you can be sure as fark that the dog will be put down.

So why is it that a person who can't be expected to ever understand why it was wrong to kill someone (just like the dog) gets the exact opposite treatment?


Because a dog is a dog and not a human? You shouldn't kill someone that doesn't understand what they've done. But, you keep them away from society.
 
2012-08-07 03:18:50 PM

AnEvilGuest: timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?

Purely guessing I would say he acted as an agent for a third party that used him to shield themselves in case of arrest. This hypothetical third party would do the "thinking" while IQ61 handled getting arrested and helped out with hitting people.


He should've called Saul.
 
2012-08-07 03:19:20 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Where most people of this level fail is their inability to understand long-term consequences, and to appreciate WHY something is wrong. Like a dog or a toddler, they can appreciate that they've DONE something wrong (peeing on the carpet, killing someone), but not comprehend WHY it is wrong. They may also lack an ability to learn from mistakes, and hence repeat negative behaviors over and over again and still not get the connection. (You touched that hot stove before and got burned? Why did you do it again?--I needed to grab that pan.) They can be entirely invested in short-term thinking.

Which illustrates why this is all so backwards to me. A toddler can be expected to mature enough at some point to gain that understanding. The dog can't. But if the dog kills someone, you can be sure as fark that the dog will be put down.

So why is it that a person who can't be expected to ever understand why it was wrong to kill someone (just like the dog) gets the exact opposite treatment?




Because we protect our own and have the power and intelligence to differentiate. That is what makes us humans and not dogs.
 
2012-08-07 03:20:01 PM

Dr Dreidel: timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?

That was my first thought, too. He can't put on a belt without cutting off circulation, but he can associate a sale with both a product and a buyer, calculate sums and count currency?


He was the brawn of the operation?
 
2012-08-07 03:20:54 PM

Gyrfalcon: They're retarded, not stupid.

Seriously, you need to spend time among the functionally retarded. A 60-70 IQ is more than adequate to understand basic math, basic personal care skills, handle money (in small amounts), and know the difference between getting paid $50 for a quarter-gram and getting paid with five $1-bills. And to be able to be mean, vindictive and administer beatdowns to your customers who cheat you. (They can also be kind, overgenerous, and amazingly trusting)


I have, and while I don't know what anyone's actual IQ was, I do know that simple obfuscation and misdirection would confuse the hell out of them.

sleeps in trees: People with mental disabilities can function when given strict directives yet not make independent decisions. My son has autism, he will put his dishes away, do a chore etc. like clockwork, but function without a list or direct command is hard. Excuse the the term but he is like a trained dog.


Sure, but drug dealing, I would assume, isn't based on strict directives or rote repetition, you have to be able to modify your behavior based on the situation.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that it seems likely he wouldn't have been very good at it. Though that's probably why he got caught.
 
2012-08-07 03:22:03 PM
Not to rain on the Texas hate parade, but they use a slightly longer determination of retardation for purposes of criminal proceedings than, "Is he like Lennie?"


Defining "mental retardation" for purposes of Atkins.

As the Supreme Court had previously noted, the mentally retarded are not "all cut from the same pattern ... they range from those whose disability is not immediately evident to those who must be constantly cared for." (10) In Atkins, the Supreme Court noted that any "serious disagreement about the execution of mentally retarded offenders ... is in determining which offenders are in fact retarded." (11) Reasoning that "[n]ot all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus," (12) the Court left "to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences." (13)

The term "mental retardation" encompasses a large and diverse population suffering from some form of mental disability. The DSM-IV (14) categorizes the mentally retarded into four subcategories: mildly mentally retarded, moderately mentally retarded, severely mentally retarded, and profoundly mentally retarded. (15) Some 85% of those officially categorized as mentally retarded fall into the highest group, those mildly mentally retarded, (16) but "mental retardation is not necessarily a lifelong disorder." (17) The functioning level of those who are mildly mentally retarded is likely to improve with supplemental social services and assistance. (18) It is thus understandable that those in the mental health profession should define mental retardation broadly to provide an adequate safety net for those who are at the margin and might well become mentally-unimpaired citizens if given additional social services support.

We, however, must define that level and degree of mental retardation at which a consensus of Texas citizens would agree that a person should be exempted from the death penalty. Most Texas citizens might agree that Steinbeck's Lennie (19) should, by virtue of his lack of reasoning ability and adaptive skills, be exempt. But, does a consensus of Texas citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for assistance under the social services definition of mental retardation be exempt from an otherwise constitutional penalty? Put another way, is there a national or Texas consensus that all of those persons whom the mental health profession might diagnose as meeting the criteria for mental retardation are automatically less morally culpable than those who just barely miss meeting those criteria? Is there, and should there be, a "mental retardation" bright-line exemption from our state's maximum statutory punishment? As a court dealing with individual cases and litigants, we decline to answer that normative question without significantly greater assistance from the citizenry acting through its Legislature.

Although Texas does not yet have any statutory provisions to implement the Atkins decision, the 77th Legislature passed House Bill 236 in 2001, even before the Atkins decision was announced, which would have prohibited the execution of mentally retarded defendants convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. (20) That bill adopted the definition of mental retardation found in Tex. Health & Safety Code § 591.003(13): "'mental retardation' means significant subaverage general intellectual functioning that is concurrent with deficits in adaptive behavior and originates during the developmental period." (21) This bill, however, was vetoed by the Governor. The 78th Texas Legislature did not pass a statute implementing Atkins, although several bills were introduced and considered. (22)

This Court has previously employed the definitions of "mental retardation" set out by the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), and that contained in section 591.003(13) of the Texas Health and Safety Code. (23) Under the AAMR definition, mental retardation is a disability characterized by: (1) "significantly subaverage" general intellectual functioning; (24) (2) accompanied by "related" limitations in adaptive functioning; (25) (3) the onset of which occurs prior to the age of 18. (26) As noted above, the definition under the Texas Health and Safety Code is similar: "'mental retardation' means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning that is concurrent with deficits in adaptive behavior and originates during the developmental period." (27)

Some might question whether the same definition of mental retardation that is used for providing psychological assistance, social services, and financial aid is appropriate for use in criminal trials to decide whether execution of a particular person would be constitutionally excessive punishment. (28) However, that definitional question (29) is not before us in this case because applicant, the State, and the trial court all used the AAMR definition. Until the Texas Legislature provides an alternate statutory definition of "mental retardation" for use in capital sentencing, we will follow the AAMR or section 591.003(13) criteria in addressing Atkins mental retardation claims.

The adaptive behavior criteria are exceedingly subjective, and undoubtedly experts will be found to offer opinions on both sides of the issue in most cases. There are, however, some other evidentiary factors which factfinders in the criminal trial context might also focus upon in weighing evidence as indicative of mental retardation or of a personality disorder:

Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage-his family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities-think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, act in accordance with that determination?
Has the person formulated plans and carried them through or is his conduct impulsive?
Does his conduct show leadership or does it show that he is led around by others?
Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable?
Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions or do his responses wander from subject to subject?
Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others' interests?
Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose?

Although experts may offer insightful opinions on the question of whether a particular person meets the psychological diagnostic criteria for mental retardation, the ultimate issue of whether this person is, in fact, mentally retarded for purposes of the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive punishment is one for the finder of fact, based upon all of the evidence and determinations of credibility. (30)


Facts... no place on Fark.
 
2012-08-07 03:23:11 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Where most people of this level fail is their inability to understand long-term consequences, and to appreciate WHY something is wrong. Like a dog or a toddler, they can appreciate that they've DONE something wrong (peeing on the carpet, killing someone), but not comprehend WHY it is wrong. They may also lack an ability to learn from mistakes, and hence repeat negative behaviors over and over again and still not get the connection. (You touched that hot stove before and got burned? Why did you do it again?--I needed to grab that pan.) They can be entirely invested in short-term thinking.

Which illustrates why this is all so backwards to me. A toddler can be expected to mature enough at some point to gain that understanding. The dog can't. But if the dog kills someone, you can be sure as fark that the dog will be put down.

So why is it that a person who can't be expected to ever understand why it was wrong to kill someone (just like the dog) gets the exact opposite treatment?


Because we give people more rights/protections than other animals. Was that supposed to be a hard question?
 
2012-08-07 03:26:15 PM

Evil Canadian: Dr Dreidel: timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?

That was my first thought, too. He can't put on a belt without cutting off circulation, but he can associate a sale with both a product and a buyer, calculate sums and count currency?

He was the brawn of the operation?


Making this one of those "he was looking at the suspected 'ringleader' at the time of the arrests, so he must be involved" arrests (otherwise, he'd have been booked for assault rather than selling drugs). I feel safer already.

// a buddy's coworker is gonna spend 6 months' worth of weekends in jail for doing carpentry work on a drug dealer's house
// he had the unfortunate luck to have been there when the raid happened, PLUS he'd been popped for possession a few years ago (so I think he was on probation)
// and all of that is second-hand, so he may in fact be guilty as fark
 
2012-08-07 03:27:18 PM
Dat Wee-Bay, he off the hook but he also stoopid, ya feel me?
 
2012-08-07 03:28:38 PM

timujin: Just curious, but how does someone with an IQ of 61 function well enough to deal drugs? I'm not saying that drug dealing requires the highest of cognitive abilities, but at that level don't you think the guy would get ripped off more often than not?


Probably working for someone else.
 
2012-08-07 03:29:35 PM
It's perfectly fitting to base this on socialist writers.. If the state wants to kill without remorse it should take lessons from the best remorseless killers of history - Socialists.
 
2012-08-07 03:32:26 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: HotIgneous Intruder: arethereanybeernamesleft: HotIgneous Intruder: And before that the fires.

The drought came first, genius. It's why there were fires.

Chicken or egg.
I know that confuses you. Sorry.

The dumbest saying ever. There were eggs long before there were chickens. Hell, there were eggs long before there were birds.


BIngo! You win one internet!

/Bonus: T-Rex or chicken?
 
2012-08-07 03:37:06 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: The dumbest saying ever. There were eggs long before there were chickens. Hell, there were eggs long before there were birds.


Remember, in Texas, God created the Earth in 7 days, 5000 years ago. The chicken and the egg were created at the same time!
 
2012-08-07 03:43:44 PM

maxximillian: JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Where most people of this level fail is their inability to understand long-term consequences, and to appreciate WHY something is wrong. Like a dog or a toddler, they can appreciate that they've DONE something wrong (peeing on the carpet, killing someone), but not comprehend WHY it is wrong. They may also lack an ability to learn from mistakes, and hence repeat negative behaviors over and over again and still not get the connection. (You touched that hot stove before and got burned? Why did you do it again?--I needed to grab that pan.) They can be entirely invested in short-term thinking.

Which illustrates why this is all so backwards to me. A toddler can be expected to mature enough at some point to gain that understanding. The dog can't. But if the dog kills someone, you can be sure as fark that the dog will be put down.

So why is it that a person who can't be expected to ever understand why it was wrong to kill someone (just like the dog) gets the exact opposite treatment?

Because we give people more rights/protections than other animals. Was that supposed to be a hard question?


It could be a valid question. One reason we put down vicious dogs isn't that they can't learn or would ever do it again; but that a dog is merely an extension of its owner. If the owner can't be trusted to keep his dog confined, then the only other option is to remove the dog from the owner. It's hard enough to find homes for dogs anyway, never mind a proven killer dog. So the only alternative is to destroy the dog. There's also a somewhat outmoded style of thinking that a human-killing animal (of whatever species) has somehow gotten "a taste for human blood" and will now kill humans all the time because humans taste better or something.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report