Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(CNN)   Georgia prepares to execute the state's smartest man   (cnnradio.cnn.com) divider line 231
    More: PSA, U.S. Supreme Court, Peggy Williams, developmental disabilities  
•       •       •

23242 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2013 at 11:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 01:02:51 PM  
I am for eliminating the death penalty if they can actually have  real punishment. No TV, slop for meals, room with no windows, no visitors. Books only. otherwise I say fry the farkers.
 
2013-02-19 01:04:27 PM  
HAHAHAAHHA!!!! I love how books are a punishment. HAHAHAAHAAHA!!!
 
2013-02-19 01:08:04 PM  

urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

I agree it's a no win situation for him and society. I do not agree that society doesn't owe him something. Even if he does have the mental capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong on some level, that sort of childhood abuse could cause a person to engage in perverse/twisted activity. People with OCD know what they're doing is odd, they have no control over it, though.
I do agree that solitary confinement is little better than the death penalty.


If he has the capacity to know what he is doing is wrong, then he doesn't deserve any more consideration from society, or the judicial system, than any other person. That's what this entire debate is about, whether or not he grasps that concept. His tragic childhood does not entitle him to murder. A lot of people have tragic childhoods, but they don't all grow up to be murderers. What happens to you as a child can fark you up, it can absolutely impact the rest of your life, but it does not give you carte blanche to behave however you please and it absolutely does not justify murder. Full stop.
 
2013-02-19 01:09:29 PM  
Bravo, subby.
 
2013-02-19 01:11:08 PM  

farm machine: FarFarAway: Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

How would that not be a win for society?  Whether he understands his actions or not the fact remains that he freely took 2 human lives.  What guarantee does society have that he will not take a 3rd or 4th should the mood strike?  None.  His home environment was horrific at best and sadly we can't impugn his mother and grandfather for his actions.  That doesn't excuse his actions.  He's defective and more than likely cannot be fixed.  As it pertains to elements and minerals all human life has close to the same value.  Outside of that there are clearly instances of some human lives having no or negative value.  Culling the herd is not necessarily a bad thing.


It's a no-win in the sense that society will not be bettered, no matter what the outcome is. Either society has to support him, keep him locked up, and in solitary confinement, for the rest of his life, or society has to kill him. Enforcing the death penalty is not a win for society, even in cases where it is clearly deserved. Society doesn't benefit from executing a murderer, it is just protected from further harm by that person.
 
2013-02-19 01:12:22 PM  
Every now and again there's a genuinely interesting thread where individuals get the chance to show their humanity and their interesting points of view -

natas6.0: My question is
why is this murdering bastard still alive?
get to it, people!
chop chop


Then there's that.

On the whole though this is why I like Fark,
 
2013-02-19 01:19:15 PM  

Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.


No. You are wrong, and those are NOT the rules just because you assert that those are the rules. Too bad, so sad.
 
2013-02-19 01:20:26 PM  

Bontesla: FarFarAway: urnotallrightspider: FarFarAway:
If this guy was beaten repeatedly by his family, society owes him a cot and three meals a day. I'm pretty sure if we make one less fighter plane that will never be used we'll make up the cost.

Unless they can prove that this man actually does not understand that murder is wrong (and an IQ of 70 is not proof of that conclusively), then I disagree that society owes him anything more than the next person. It's a tragic thing that his childhood was so horrible, and his parents should have been held responsible for what they did to him. But what his family did to him does not justify what he did. Nowhere in any of this is anyone arguing that he didn't murder those people. He killed two people, for whatever reasons. Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

The argument and test shouldn't be whether he understood his actions to be wrong. The argument and test should be: does he have the capacity to understand history actions? Is he aware of what he did and how that directly resulted in death/injury.

And IIRC, that's also the legal standard (or a prong of the legal standard). There has to be an element of culpability which is related to the capacity to understand the crimes for which you're accused.


You're right, that is, or should be part of it.
 
2013-02-19 01:21:36 PM  
I thought the supreme court ruled that you can't execute the mentally retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia

I even remember that Jon Stewart did an awesome bit about it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2002/whaaaa-
 
2013-02-19 01:21:40 PM  

FarFarAway: It's a no-win in the sense that society will not be bettered, no matter what the outcome is. Either society has to support him, keep him locked up, and in solitary confinement, for the rest of his life, or society has to kill him. Enforcing the death penalty is not a win for society, even in cases where it is clearly deserved. Society doesn't benefit from executing a murderer, it is just protected from further harm by that person.


Society would need to support and house this individual for the rest of his natural life whether he was in prison or not.  He poses no threat to society when locked up and that is the win side for society.  Pitiful existence for him but there are humans that we simply need to write off and move on.  Accept the fact that not all can be salvaged.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:10 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Carn: DingleberryMoose: Weaver95: if you are pro-life, you must also be against the death penalty.  it's all inclusive - either all life is sacred or its not.  if you don't stand up and save the lives of murdering bastards then....you aren't pro-life anymore.  sorry folks but thems the rules.

if you're pro-choice, then you may proceed.  kill 'em dead and down a six pack for a job well done.

false dichotomy is false

Please explain how being pro life and pro death are not mutually exclusive.

First, the terms don't equate, but you know that.  Secondly, the more common pro-life belief is that everyone's life is his/her own and the end of that life can only be sanctioned by that person.  This sanctioning may come in many forms, one of which is committing a crime where the death penalty may be applied.

Being pro-life (generally) indicates that one thinks of a fetus as being a human person from some moment between conception and birth and believes that person should enjoy the same protection of the law that those of us who've already been born enjoy. That person's life should be protected until they do something that warrants lifting that protection, like violating the protection of another person.

In other words, you have the right to life until you forfeit that right through your own heinous actions.

Note that these are not necessarily what I believe, but I've lived around this mindset long enough to tell you it's not unreasoned by the people who hold it, and it's a deeply held set of beliefs.


I understand the rationale, but I disagree with their use of terms.  They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".

"Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:36 PM  
Let me get this straight:  the government is corrupt and incompetent, so let's give them the power over life and death.
 
2013-02-19 01:22:41 PM  

Virtuoso80: I'd be more compelled by a stay on execution for someone with an exceptionally high IQ. Death row inmate with a 200 IQ? Don't waste it. Give him some reading material, and offer him parole if he can make a major contribution to science.


so, like, curing cancer would be a get out of jail free card?  cold fusion, get out of jail, with a a house and annuity?    I think you're on to something, please proceed.
 
2013-02-19 01:28:17 PM  
May you soon rest in peace Lauryn Hill.
i.perezhilton.com
 
2013-02-19 01:31:11 PM  

FarFarAway: farm machine: FarFarAway: Even if they can prove that he doesn't know murder is wrong, the only acceptable alternative, to keep him locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of his life is at best marginally more humane than the death penalty. It's a no-win situation for him, and really for society too.

How would that not be a win for society?  Whether he understands his actions or not the fact remains that he freely took 2 human lives.  What guarantee does society have that he will not take a 3rd or 4th should the mood strike?  None.  His home environment was horrific at best and sadly we can't impugn his mother and grandfather for his actions.  That doesn't excuse his actions.  He's defective and more than likely cannot be fixed.  As it pertains to elements and minerals all human life has close to the same value.  Outside of that there are clearly instances of some human lives having no or negative value.  Culling the herd is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's a no-win in the sense that society will not be bettered, no matter what the outcome is. Either society has to support him, keep him locked up, and in solitary confinement, for the rest of his life, or society has to kill him. Enforcing the death penalty is not a win for society, even in cases where it is clearly deserved. Society doesn't benefit from executing a murderer, it is just protected from further harm by that person.


Protection from further harm with no additional costs incurred by everyone sounds a whole lot like a benefit to me.
 
2013-02-19 01:32:29 PM  

sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.


False dychotomy. The choices are not down to either killing him or releasing him back into general society.  And not one person here stated that being developmentally-challenged is a valid excuse for murder.
 
2013-02-19 01:32:41 PM  

chrylis: (And I hadn't realized this was in politics; it had hit the front page before I saw it.  Carry on with the cattiness!)


And I didn't realize it was on the main... besides, that was mostly just code for "Yeah, I was kind of being an ass."

chrylis: I normally don't out myself on topics like this, but I'm in the odd position of supporting the death penalty philosophically but opposing it in practice, largely due to the notorious unreliability of eyewitness identification of strangers and similar evidentiary problems.


This is pretty much where I fall on the issue as well, IRL. The advances in DNA testing have made it painfully apparent just how shiatty of a track record we have of executing the wrong people.
 
m00
2013-02-19 01:33:05 PM  
Personally, I think a government that's big and powerful enough to execute prisoners is also big and powerful enough to prevent children from being hit on the head to the point of unconsciousness. Repeated brain damage canwarp your perception of right-and-wrong. Up to the 1950s, if people people knew this was going on in a neighborhood, citizens would intervene. But society has collectively abrogated its responsibility to neighbors coincidentally at the same time government has declared it as an exclusive power.

Instead of focusing on the aftermath (what to do with a killer), maybe we should spend time on the root of the problem. With some notable exceptions, I think most people aren't born murders. Our society creates them in one way or another. It's almost as if this is being deliberately done in order to satisfy an ongoing need so that there can be vengeance. Obvious example is that our penal system creates more "real" criminals than it takes in. Guy comes in for smoking weed or some non-violent crime, leaves a hardened criminal. Why? Because you don't improve people by treating them like animals. Inhumane treatment does not engender feelings of humanity.

So kid suffers multiple brain injuries deliberately inflicted by his parents, and then he goes to prison where he has to contend with violent gangs, rape, extortion and extreme cruelty all while being stripped of dignity and humanity? Of course he murdered his cell mate. So now we get our vengeance by killing him. Bravo.
 
2013-02-19 01:34:07 PM  

capt.hollister: And not one person here stated that being developmentally-challenged is a valid excuse for murder.


Depending on the circumstances, it can be something of an impediment to a murder actually having occurred, as opposed to some other sort of killing.
 
2013-02-19 01:35:54 PM  
This man killed two people. One was a cell mate. He needs to be put to death, before he murders again.
 
2013-02-19 01:37:11 PM  

Weaver95: Khellendros: But they're the side you're arguing against.  They're the ones that hold that belief you think is inconsistent with their teachings.  It's not.  Your argument will not be accepted by The Other Side, because it misrepresents their position.  Your assertion falls on deaf ears because it's pretty meaningless to the bulk of the people you're leveling the accusation toward.

no, i'm telling you that pro-life means all life is sacred.  ALL life.  even murderers.  the evangelicals who try to say they're pro-life and pro-death penalty are liars, fools and heretics.  f*ck 'em because they're leading you down a false path.


And there's practically zero difference between any of the modern supernatural faiths practiced in the US today, but that's neither here nor there.

You're screaming at the wind, attacking an argument no one in your sights is making.  You're being an idiot at best, and disingenuous at worst.  Pro-life doesn't mean what you say it means, just because you say it.  The bulk of people who label themselves pro-life who also support the death penalty don't use your holy definition.  They use their holy definition.  If you're going to use one delusional arguments to fight another, at least fight one that's being made by the group you want to prove wrong.
 
2013-02-19 01:38:09 PM  
Marcintosh
I figured I would push past any semantics and go for the gusto
The guy decided to share his faith in the death penalty with two others
so why not share it with him

Or, we could entertain that idiotic
pro life v abortion v murderer bit
that's getting so much trolltastic attention
 
2013-02-19 01:38:37 PM  

Carn: They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".


Not so much.  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate, as a fetus is just a very young child who hasn't been born yet.

Carn: "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.


More like "Life begins at conception and ends when your actions make it reasonable for society to end it according to our set rules."
 
m00
2013-02-19 01:39:04 PM  
Yeah, and also... I'm pro-life for non-religious reasons.
 
2013-02-19 01:40:08 PM  
m00:
Instead of focusing on the aftermath (what to do with a killer), maybe we should spend time on the root of the problem. With some notable exceptions, I think most people aren't born murders. Our society creates them in one way or another. It's almost as if this is being deliberately done in order to satisfy an ongoing need so that there can be vengeance. Obvious example is that our penal system creates more "real" criminals than it takes in. Guy comes in for smoking weed or some non-violent crime, leaves a hardened criminal. Why? Because you don't improve people by treating them like animals. Inhumane treatment does not engender feelings of humanity.

Are you actually saying you believe that society is deliberately creating murderers? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but that seems so bizarre that I'm having a hard time believing it.

Inhumane treatment also does not justify murder, unless it qualifies as self-defense. As long as you are sane and conscious of the consequences of your actions, how you have been treated as a child or as an adult does not have any bearing on your actions once you choose to harm another person. Again, unless that harm is done in self-defense. How you were treated might explain how you wound up in that situation, or why you chose to do it, but it does not remove the blame from you for making that choice. It is an explanation, not an excuse.
 
2013-02-19 01:42:20 PM  

BostonEMT: The Onion is prophetic: ...I'm pro-choice, but sort of anti-death penalty.  Mostly because of the costs and the possibility of executing an innocent person....

So... an innocent baby/fetus/etc... ISN'T an innocent life?? WTF?

 - Look i don't care one way or the other as people have different circumstances and will ultimately be held responsible for their actions (be it Karma, or whatever), but DAMN. At least OWN your decision. This wishy-washy shiat doesn't make any sense no matter how you parse it.


Life begins at birth, not at conception.  Therefore, an abortion is not the taking of an innocent life.  It's not that difficult.
 
2013-02-19 01:44:49 PM  

natas6.0: Marcintosh
I figured I would push past any semantics and go for the gusto
The guy decided to share his faith in the death penalty with two others
so why not share it with him

Or, we could entertain that idiotic
pro life v abortion v murderer bit
that's getting so much trolltastic attention


Marcintosh has a point, but this is more fun.


I'll actually out my position on the death penalty here: As a member of this society, you are bound by its rules whether you like it or not.  (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)  One of its rules is that if you murder someone else you are subject to execution.  By committing murder, you have in effect volunteered for your execution.
 
2013-02-19 01:47:00 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: Life begins at birth, not at conception. Therefore, an abortion is not the taking of an innocent life.


There are many people who would seriously disagree with you here, some from a religious standpoint, some from a scientific one, some from an emotional one.  This one isn't as cut and dried as "water is wet" or "the sun is shiny on clear days."
 
2013-02-19 01:49:52 PM  

Farce-Side: I'm ok with all of you Farkers having abortions.  I'm also ok with the state killing this reta....*ahem* mentally challenged individual.  I won't do either.  I have morals, but I don't advocate legislating morality.


Do you have a name for club?  When are the meetings?
 
2013-02-19 01:53:53 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.


THIS. The guy's got an IQ of 70 and  farking brain damage, what the hell? That, that is what mental incompetence looks like under ANY law.
 
m00
2013-02-19 01:56:46 PM  

FarFarAway: Are you actually saying you believe that society is deliberately creating murderers? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but that seems so bizarre that I'm having a hard time believing it.


Well, I look at it like this. If the goal of prison was to actually correct behavior (aka "fix" a person), the prison system would look like the Scandinavian ones, or Dutch, or Austrian. Our prison system takes people-who-made-dumb-mistakes and breaks them further, turning them into truly violent creatures. Because, we would rather release sociopaths onto the streets when their court-mandated time is served than treat prisoners like human beings. So we've chosen vengeance over effectiveness. Talking to people and reading message boards, one gets the feeling this is a conscious choice.

FarFarAway: Inhumane treatment also does not justify murder, unless it qualifies as self-defense. As long as you are sane and conscious of the consequences of your actions, how you have been treated as a child or as an adult does not have any bearing on your actions once you choose to harm another person. Again, unless that harm is done in self-defense. How you were treated might explain how you wound up in that situation, or why you chose to do it, but it does not remove the blame from you for making that choice. It is an explanation, not an excuse.


I don't think we completely disagree here. I'm just looking at solving the problem at a macro level -- the problem is our society breeds violence (and no, it's not video games) and then reinforces it, and our punishment for violence is even more violence. I'm not using this to excuse behavior, but I think accepting it as an explanation at least allows us to explore solutions. Nothing excuses violence, but that shouldn't stop us from determining the cause and trying to remedy that.

>>how you have been treated as a child or as an adult does not have any bearing on your actions once you choose to harm another person.

This part, however, I think all modern psychology completely contests. How you are treated as a child absolutely has bearing on your actions. It doesn't negate free-will (unless you are literally brain damaged -- which in this case, the guy is), but it certainly has bearing.
 
2013-02-19 01:56:49 PM  

DingleberryMoose: (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)


[citation needed]

This is one of the primary difficulties with the social-contract theory of government: If you believe that being bound by a contract requires consent, then it's hard to square limitations on immigration and the abrogation of agreed boundaries (e.g., constitutionally-protected rights) with the idea that states in their current form have any legitimacy.
 
2013-02-19 02:00:03 PM  

DingleberryMoose: The Onion is prophetic: Life begins at birth, not at conception. Therefore, an abortion is not the taking of an innocent life.

There are many people who would seriously disagree with you here, some from a religious standpoint, some from a scientific one, some from an emotional one.  This one isn't as cut and dried as "water is wet" or "the sun is shiny on clear days."


I'm aware of that; however, he claimed my position was 'wishy-washy' and I didn't own up to it.  That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
 
2013-02-19 02:05:08 PM  
His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle. [2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."

This is one of the saddest things I've ever read. Goddamn.
 
m00
2013-02-19 02:06:25 PM  

DingleberryMoose: I'll actually out my position on the death penalty

insulting the Dear Leader here: As a member of this society, you are bound by its rules whether you like it or not.  (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)  One of its rules is that if you murder someone else insult the Dear Leader you are subject to execution.  By committing murder insulting the Dear Leader, you have in effect volunteered for your execution.
 
2013-02-19 02:07:09 PM  

Whiskey Pete: TheShavingofOccam123: Whiskey Pete: "..The U.S. Supreme Court has banned executions of mildly mentally retarded people."

WOO HOO! I can't be executed!

If you're mentally capable of realizing you're incapable of being executed, you're mentally capable of being executed.

/goddam windmills

* Stares blankly at Occam *


funniest comment of the day
 
2013-02-19 02:07:17 PM  

PsiChick: Lee Jackson Beauregard: FTFA: His sister Peggy...said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow.

Yeah, that'll help.

THIS. The guy's got an IQ of 70 and  farking brain damage, what the hell? That, that is what mental incompetence looks like under ANY law.


Maybe we can smarten him up before we kill him.
 
2013-02-19 02:08:41 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Warren Hill grew up in rural Georgia with an IQ of 70.

This explains why Jimmy Carter is going to bat for him. He obviously is one of the few who voted fro JC to be re-elected.


Rural Georgia with an IQ of 70? Is that the sum?
 
2013-02-19 02:14:50 PM  
m00:
Well, I look at it like this. If the goal of prison was to actually correct behavior (aka "fix" a person), the prison system would look like the Scandinavian ones, or Dutch, or Austrian. Our prison system takes people-who-made-dumb-mistakes and breaks them further, turning them into truly violent creatures. Because, we would rather release sociopaths onto the streets when their court-mandated time is served than treat prisoners like human beings. So we've chosen vengeance over effectiveness. Talking to people and reading message boards, one gets the feeling this is a conscious choice.

That isn't the same thing as society being responsible for the fact that people murder other people though. The prison system is terrible in this country, and just as bad are the lack of resources and opportunities available to someone who has served their time. I completely agree on those points. I have a member of my immediate family who was incarcerated for a very long time, and is now facing the entirely uphill battle to re-enter society. So don't think I don't care about that part of it. But even he would be the first to tell you that prison is not responsible for what he chose to do. He completely acknowledges that his actions were his choice, and that he could have done things very differently. Which is true of any sane, competent person in society. I also agree that as things stand, the easiest option for someone fresh out of prison is to return to crime. Pretty much anything else they want to do is a nearly impossible uphill slog. But that said, it doesn't justify their decision if that's what they chose to do. I feel like we agree on a lot of points, but I also feel like you are removing personal responsibility from the picture on the part of the people committing the crime, and placing it on society instead, and I cannot agree with that.

I don't think we completely disagree here. I'm just looking at solving the problem at a macro level -- the problem is our society breeds violence (and no, it's not video games) and then reinforces it, and our punishment for violence is even more violence. I'm not using this to excuse behavior, but I think accepting it as an explanation at least allows us to explore solutions. Nothing excuses violence, but that shouldn't stop us from determining the cause and trying to remedy that.

Better, more available mental health care, preferably with the stigma removed, would be the most productive first step toward actually changing anything. But though violence is prevalent in our society, I don't think it's fair to say that it's the fault of society as a whole that some members of it choose to take that violence to extremes.

This part, however, I think all modern psychology completely contests. How you are treated as a child absolutely has bearing on your actions. It doesn't negate free-will (unless you are literally brain damaged -- which in this case, the guy is), but it certainly has bearing.

It depends on your definition of bearing. Does it inform our decisions and choices? Yes. Is it a fall back excuse to be used to remove blame if we are held accountable for those actions? Absolutely not. Unless, again, you are found to be insane or otherwise incompetent.
 
2013-02-19 02:27:56 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.


Works for me.

m00: DingleberryMoose: I'll actually out my position on the death penaltyinsulting the Dear Leader here: As a member of this society, you are bound by its rules whether you like it or not.  (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)  One of its rules is that if you murder someone else insult the Dear Leader you are subject to execution.  By committing murder insulting the Dear Leader, you have in effect volunteered for your execution.


Close, but no cigar.  We don't have such a rule in our society.  If we ever evolve one, it'll likely be after I'm no longer a member of said society.

chrylis: DingleberryMoose: (You can always find another society or live as a hermit if you so choose, so don't complain about the rules without working to change them, but that's beside the point.)

[citation needed]

This is one of the primary difficulties with the social-contract theory of government: If you believe that being bound by a contract requires consent, then it's hard to square limitations on immigration and the abrogation of agreed boundaries (e.g., constitutionally-protected rights) with the idea that states in their current form have any legitimacy.


It's a bit of a catch-22, due to arguments that become circular, but not impossible.  I'll not try, it's a different subject than TFT.  My opinion on the subject as it relates to criminal code and individual actions is based on the observation that the truth is we are in fact bound by society's rules whether we like them or not.  That's not something we can do much about, it's a fact of life necessitated by man's inhumanity toward man.  (see violent crime statistics or the politics tab for reference)  On a practical level, it's the cost of living in a society where people aren't frequently murdered or subject to imprisonment on the whim of a government official without some amount of due process in the same way that paying for some sort of welfare system is also required.
 
2013-02-19 02:29:16 PM  

DingleberryMoose: Carn: They should really call themselves "Pro-Fetus".

Not so much.  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate, as a fetus is just a very young child who hasn't been born yet.

Carn: "Life begins at conception and ends at birth" is truly accurate for these people.

More like "Life begins at conception and ends when your actions make it reasonable for society to end it according to our set rules."


So these people would see no problem with a society which forces all pregnancies to be carried to term, and then ignores the plight of the children born into extreme poverty, abuse, neglect, and so on?  It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to describe this as a pro-life philosophy.  You are correct, they are anti-abortion.  I think that the reason they use the term pro-life is to make it seem as if that is what they stand for, which is clearly not the case (for many who claim to be).

I feel better.  We have solved nothing :)
 
2013-02-19 02:31:15 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: His sister Peggy calls him Junior . She wrote an affidavit on her brother's behalf - and said their mother and grandfather loved to beat Warren Hill on the head for being slow. Their mother used a cast iron lamp. The grandfather usually used a metal belt buckle. [2:33] "He would shout 'You stupid retard!' Or 'You dumb-ass!' Junior wouldn't cry, though; he would just stand there and endure it. Junior was often beaten like this, by either Momma or Granddaddy, until he would lose consciousness. He would sleep for hours afterwards."

This is one of the saddest things I've ever read. Goddamn.


It's also, sadly, more common than most people think.  When I was five, I could stand silently through a whipping with an extension cord because it was over quicker.  During my time with CPS, I heard stories from siblings of how the scapegoat child would eventually give up with crying and begging and just stand there and take it. It was quite depressing.  Then you'd start the interview with the parents by having them describe their children.  All angels except for the one who's the devil incarnate.  Guess who's abused?
 
2013-02-19 02:37:06 PM  

Carn: So these people would see no problem with a society which forces all pregnancies to be carried to term, and then ignores the plight of the children born into extreme poverty, abuse, neglect, and so on?


Most of the ones with the strongest opinions haven't thought that far ahead yet.  To be fair, when I was a Child Protective Services investigator churches were a real resource in times of need.  I also noticed that most of the abusing caregivers weren't regular attendees at any civic or religious organization.  I don't know if that has more to do with religion teaching not to damage children or religious children not damaging children or abuse being a crime of isolation.  We went to church every Sunday all during the years I was being abused.  The abuser, my mother, taught Sunday School.  The codependent, my father, was RA leader.
 
2013-02-19 02:45:08 PM  

capt.hollister: sethen320: Why is being developmentally-challenged a valid excuse for murder? Whether you know what you are doing or not, I don't want you in general society if you have tendencies toward killing those around you. You are a danger to others, period.

False dychotomy. The choices are not down to either killing him or releasing him back into general society.  And not one person here stated that being developmentally-challenged is a valid excuse for murder.


We have no use for someone who is incompatible with society.  Expending resources to maintain them is a waste.  I don't care what their mental state is or what happened earlier in life.  If you are so concerned please feel free to sit with the guy and give him hugs.  I'm sure that will change everything.  Just make sure you're out before 7PM, as some people will be coming to take care of the problem once and for all.

"Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day?  I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread.  I understand the applicability, just making a comment.
 
2013-02-19 02:47:37 PM  

ManRay: I'm from Georgia and I am smart enough to not murder anyone.

Subby is a douche.


I'm from Georgia and I haven't killed anyone either. Can't figure out how.
 
2013-02-19 03:02:39 PM  

ManRay: I'm from Georgia and I am smart enough to not murder anyone.

Subby is a douche.


This.

I guess this may be Subby's way of feeling smarter than he actually is.
 
2013-02-19 03:12:12 PM  

sethen320: "Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day? I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread. I understand the applicability, just making a comment.


People tend to use correct terminology when calling someone out for a specious argument of some sort.  "Strawman," "begging the question," and "circular argument" are popular as well.
 
2013-02-19 03:25:42 PM  

DingleberryMoose: sethen320: "Dychotomy (actually it's dichotomy)"...is this the word of the day? I never hear it used and now I see it several times in this thread. I understand the applicability, just making a comment.

People tend to use correct terminology when calling someone out for a specious argument of some sort.  "Strawman," "begging the question," and "circular argument" are popular as well.


No shiat?
 
2013-02-19 03:27:09 PM  
executions are like a box a chocolates.........
 
2013-02-19 03:32:16 PM  

sethen320: No shiat?


No shiat.

/off to do something useful
//have a better day than the subject of our attentions
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report