Texas GOP Has Lost Its Damn Mind. - Platform Calls To Re-Criminalize Sodomy

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're doing it again - sidestepping any question of morality in order to justify things that are abhorrent to civilised values and which are more at home with the most brutal regimes.

I might just as well say that if every crime were punishable by death that there would be no crime. Of course such a statement would be foolish, even without trying to qualify it by dehumanising those who would be the victims of such a policy.

I'm not sidestepping anything. I'm saying something different from your own morality that you do not like. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

I have no problem with punishing more crimes with death that are full proven crimes.

Murder = instant death conviction

Rape = 2nd offense instant death conviction

Assault/Robbery, etc = 3 strikes your out.

Keep the prisons clean.

[Tanya and Barry 59]

This is anti-gay agenda, make no mistake about it.

And it sucks.

Not if the GOP has their way!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why the USA treats foreign visitors with the same regard for human rights that are afforded to citizens. Granted things went wonky after 9/11 but even Bush's boneheaded administration had the good sense to not conduct it's tortures within the USA.

It isn't "my morality" it's the morality of the country at large (defined in large part by the push for universal human rights post 1945) says It isn't acceptable to summarily execute people for trivial transgressions.

You not only want to do that, but you want to justify it by dehumanising the people ("filth" to quote you) who would be impacted by it.

The US is not North Korea, Burma or the USSR. Nor should it attempt to resemble them.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why the USA treats foreign visitors with the same regard for human rights that are afforded to citizens. Granted things went wonky after 9/11 but even Bush's boneheaded administration had the good sense to not conduct it's tortures within the USA.

It isn't "my morality" it's the morality of the country at large (defined in large part by the push for universal human rights post 1945) says It isn't acceptable to summarily execute people for trivial transgressions.

You not only want to do that, but you want to justify it by dehumanising the people ("filth" to quote you) who would be impacted by it.

The US is not North Korea, Burma or the USSR. Nor should it attempt to resemble them.

It'll be ok. Really.

I'm always amused by those of you who want rule or law, expect people to be punished (who cannot be rehabilitated mind you) then you want them to go free to only committ the same crimes on society once again.

It's simple. If you get rid of the dirt early on, then you don't have to worry about them again.

Think of it as a small impact of population control.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Indeed - look at it as a matter of "population control" of "dirt" because by doing that you don't have to think about "real people".

Textbook moral relativism. I'm not amused by it BTW, I find it disgusting and contemptible.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Indeed - look at it as a matter of "population control" of "dirt" because by doing that you don't have to think about "real people".

Textbook moral relativism. I'm not amused by it BTW, I find it disgusting and contemptible.

That's your choice to do so.

Granted, I took innnocence out of human beings a long time ago, so I really don't care that much. One less criminal taking up space, the better off we'll be.

From a realistic point of view it's all simple really:

Person A Murders another person

Person A can either go to jail for 20 years with a chance of doing it again in 20 years all at the same time sucking up thousands of taxpayer dollars and live a better life than some in poverty, OR Person A can be executed for such crimes and do no more harm to society/suck money from the taxpayers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More of the same

It's simple because you trivialise the issues.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

More of the same

It's simple because you trivialise the issues.

No. I weigh impact of the individual being called into question against society.

I see it as a lot better to extinguish a problem, rather than to let it continue burning.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How does this "weighing" process work then?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How does this "weighing" process work then?

someone kills another, do you want to give them the opportunity to do it again? - Do you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives? - Either one is a pretty big impact on society.

look at repeat rapists, child molesters, etc.... Those who continuously feel the need to continuously break into people's homes, rob stores, banks, etc. - At which point do you say "enough is enough?"

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to just execute these people because they are "found" to be guilty by a jury. I'm saying it in cases of overwhelming DNA and/or video evidence of these crimes taking place.... After all, we don't want to mistake someone who is indeed really innocent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

someone kills another, do you want to give them the opportunity to do it again? - Do you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives? - Either one is a pretty big impact on society.

look at repeat rapists, child molesters, etc.... Those who continuously feel the need to continuously break into people's homes, rob stores, banks, etc. - At which point do you say "enough is enough?"

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to just execute these people because they are "found" to be guilty by a jury. I'm saying it in cases of overwhelming DNA and/or video evidence of these crimes taking place.... After all, we don't want to mistake someone who is indeed really innocent.

But you are sidestepping what you said; namely executing illegal aliens for entering the country illegally - to talk about something completely different (executing repeat murderers, rapists and sex offenders).

In other words you are trying to justify the position that border immigration violations merit a death sentence by comparing illegal aliens to repeat sex offenders. I'm sure there are a fair few illegal aliens who do commit capital crimes, but what purpose is served by making such a comparison en-masse if not to dehumanise that entire group of people?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

But you are sidestepping what you said; namely executing illegal aliens for entering the country illegally - to talk about something completely different (executing repeat murderers, rapists and sex offenders).

In other words you are trying to justify the position that border immigration violations merit a death sentence by comparing illegal aliens to repeat sex offenders. I'm sure there are a fair few illegal aliens who do commit capital crimes, but what purpose is served by making such a comparison en-masse if not to dehumanise that entire group of people?

The overall point is impact.

They take jobs from Americans.

They steal identities from Americans.

Some are criminals.

Some are terrorists.

The key here is simple. They know it's illegal what they are doing. They know we are a sovereign nations looking out for our best interests. They know that we have a process to do things legally, yet they take the risk for whatever reason they so choose to do so.

It's not a matter of dehumanising them. It's a matter of looking out for our citizens before them.

If these people's lives suck so bad, perhaps they should gather together and overthrow their government and build a better life for themselves. Instead, they come here and steal lives away from Americans instead.

While that's expanding, the simple part of it is, if you're willing to break our sovereignty, you're probably not going to care much about our other laws either.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The overall point is impact.

They take jobs from Americans.

They steal identities from Americans.

Some are criminals.

Some are terrorists.

The key here is simple. They know it's illegal what they are doing. They know we are a sovereign nations looking out for our best interests. They know that we have a process to do things legally, yet they take the risk for whatever reason they so choose to do so.

It's not a matter of dehumanising them. It's a matter of looking out for our citizens before them.

If these people's lives suck so bad, perhaps they should gather together and overthrow their government and build a better life for themselves. Instead, they come here and steal lives away from Americans instead.

While that's expanding, the simple part of it is, if you're willing to break our sovereignty, you're probably not going to care much about our other laws either.

But... Comparing illegal immigrants to sex offenders and referring to them as "dirt", "trash", "filth" etc does indeed dehumanise them and trivialises the issues surrounding illegal immigration. If you have a legitimate argument to make - you don't need to do any of that.

Anyone who uses charged rhetoric like that clearly isn't thinking with the rational part of their brain.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Peikko 1,575]

Moral and ethical standards are a matter of opinion.

We have a simple rule of law when it comes to property in this state. You take once step onto private property without our permission, we can and will shoot you.

I believe in the same rule for crossing onto a bigger piece of private property.

If moral and ethical standards are simply a matter of opinion, why should any individual respect any law at all? Surely without some standardised method of determining what is and is not moral and ethical, ownership among other things ceases to have any meaning. If you have it, it is yours, if you want it, and can get it, it becomes yours, how would you determine that someone has more right to own something than someone else, exactly? If that were the case, fine you could take pot shots at whoever you wanted to but they could equally take pot shots back at you and there would be nothing you could do about it, there would be no law to be on your side.

[SuperDuper! 230]

breaking the law, breaking the law.....

Gee, I guess the butt seks owls wouldn't go with this thread...