< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5323 OF 5323 ·
|Dec-11-13|| ||johnlspouge: Remember Star Trek, the Next Generation episode, "The Measure of a Man"...|
[ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708807/ ]
"Under the law, are chimps people?"
"...If you're still skeptical, would you be more inclined to believe that a chimp should be considered a person if I told you that the law already recognizes as persons things that are not even living?
The Supreme Court's holding in Citizens United paved the way for corporate "personhood" and the idea that corporations are free to exercise the First Amendment rights historically held only by humans...
...Could this lead to habeas petitions for hedgehogs?"
[ http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/10/opini... ]
OK. Maybe the last comment was a cheap shot.
|Dec-11-13|| ||Petrosianic: I remember that episode, and remember not being able to take it seriously because this was the kind of thing they would have settled long ago. Surely when they let Data into Starfleet and made him a commissioned officer, they decided that yes, he was a person. Now suddenly they're approaching the question as though they've never thought of it before, and trying to crank out some kind of answer.|
A lot of Next Gen episodes made it look like Picard and his crew had no idea what they were doing, and this was one of them.
|Dec-11-13|| ||PinnedPiece: <FSR: I'm very tired of ignorant assclowns from Ohio and elsewhere telling me I'm deluded, immoral, and en route to frying in hell because I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky>|
This is your weakness, my intelligent friend and chess tutor. My mother, if she fully knew my beliefs, would tell me something similar about my unfortunate future. I am only sorry about that, and guard her sensibilities as best I can. I don't call her an assclown, nor "get tired" of her beliefs.
If a person is simply wrong to call you deluded for not believing in Christ's resurrection, and tells you that you will fry in hell when you die*--(so better eat those multi-vitamins to stave off that fearful day)--why get upset? Would you be upset with someone who insists you will fall off the edge of the earth if you sail West 1000 miles?
ALSO: Do I get upset when you pronounce with full assurance that taking legal, registered guns away from law-abiding citizens will make America a better place**?
---- --- ----- -- ---- ---
* <OCF> has never ever--as far as I know--said anything like this to you personally
** <YOU> have likewise never ever said anything exactly like this. But if you are free to interpret and assign extended meaning to kibitzers, methinks we all are. And so I assign this meaning to your kibitzes on guns.
|Dec-11-13|| ||FSR: <jls> My dog resembles a person much more than ExxonMobil does, and is smarter than the average teabagger.|
|Dec-11-13|| ||Jim Bartle: Yeah, but how much does your dog donate to political candidates?|
|Dec-11-13|| ||FSR: Another effing fraternity hazes a pledge to death. http://jezebel.com/college-student-... About time that these pieces of crap started getting charged with manslaughter if you ask me.|
|Dec-11-13|| ||FSR: <Jim Bartle> Good point. Not a dime, and he'd pee on their lawns if he had the chance.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||PinnedPiece: @ <Diceman>:
<<[quoting the board] It would be hideously unethical, wouldn't it?>
Just greedy, power hungry, liars, trying to get elected.
<[The Board: That's part of what I have against people like Brown.>
Compared to the trillion dollar liar, fraud, Browns a piker>
For your consideration, <Diceman [My capitals]>, this government is about as corrupt as any of the worst "free-market" corporations that have swindled the public in the last 50 years. We're talking Enron, Charles Ponzi, Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Worldcom, and Bear Stearns/Lehman Brothers worthless mortgage derivatives combined.
The free market throws these corporate bums on the streets or in jail. The corrupt government simply blames conservatives when their plans fail, and gets stronger. No one (least of all a democrat drone) will ever suggest throwing such amateur failures in jail while they are claiming to be blameless, and promising to take more from the producers for the benefit of the drone.
The dirty little secret: Failure for Democrats is a win-win situation: witness the hell we are sinking into, with Obamacare. Democrats (the cause of it all) plan to come out smelling like Uber-Christ Jesus Saviors of mankind.
If they can convince the public that socialist policies were not to blame for the financial meltdown of '08, they feel sure that eventually they can convince the gullible public of anything they desire.
Democrats (and the synco press): Cruz was ridiculous to try to stop Obamacare
Democrats (and synco press): Obama is not responsible for the Obamacare mess--his vision is unaffected
Democrats (and the synco press): Everyone else in medicine is to blame, and government is the only entity that can fix it
Democrats (and the synco press): Don't worry! The 4 in ten that would rather pay a fine than sign up for Obamacare will come round and everything will work out. http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/241940... (And we can pass yet more laws if they don't!)
---- -- ---- -- ----
<Diceman [capitals added]> you and I know that the free market corrects its errors. But this--according to our AmLib associates, is not good enough.
Socialist Government corrects your understanding of the errors. Therefore Your faith and trust (at least) may live on after you die....a wonderful future.
Just listen to the propaganda and relax, my friend.
|Dec-12-13|| ||NakoSonorense: As insane as some of <PiPi>'s views are, I don't entirely disagree with his take on not disclosing one's "contrarian" beliefs to loved ones.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||FSR: <PinnedPiece> I'm well aware that Christian doctrine teaches that non-Christians will burn in hell for eternity. I find that notion to be wholly incompatible with the oft-made claims that God is loving and just. But I have no particular problem with Christians pointing out this doctrinal point. But I am offended by them - and yes, I'm particularly thinking of <OCF>:|
• seemingly relishing the thought of non-believers going to hell;*
• attempting to impose their religiously motivated moral views on society;
• expressing fear that 20 years from now Christian preachers will be persecuted in this country for preaching the gospel, while seemingly not caring one whit about <actual> currently occurring discrimination against non-believers;
• claiming to be morally superior to non-believers;**
• taking ridiculous positions (e.g. that the Earth is ~10,000 years old, Man coexisted with dinosaurs);
• refusing to proffer any evidence for said ridiculous positions;***
• refusing to acknowledge any weaknesses in their positions;****
• treating one's opponent's furnishing of evidence as being somehow contemptible ("hiding behind links");
• making up debating rules, known only to him and applying only to his opponents, as he goes along;
• showing no compassion for others;*****
• and generally being as pompous and intellectually dishonest as possible.******
*I'm thinking of this exchange:
<OhioChessFan: <FSR: *Unless one is stupid and/or deluded enough to believe that life continues after one is dead.>
I guess one day you'll have to face up to that claim. Sweet dreams.>
**You may recall when <OCF> claimed that people who do not acknowledge God's existence do so because they don't want to have a moral component to their lives. I observed that "morality" in Christian-speak seems to mean (1) no gay sex, (2) no abortions and (3) no sex outside of marriage. I observed that I hadn't been involved in 1 or 2, and challenged <OCF> to compare the number of non-marital sexual partners he'd had, and the number of acts of non-marital intercourse he'd had, with my numbers. He didn't respond, beyond stating that my having been married for 24 years was some evidence of morality.
***To my amazement, <OCF> recently asserted that Man and dinosaurs had coexisted. I asked him what his evidence for that was. He didn't respond. Others, including <Col. Mort> and <hedgeh0g>, also asked him for evidence. I believe that <hedge> even offered a $100 donation if <OCF> could cite radiometric evidence that Man and dinosaurs had coexisted. <OCF> told Mort something to the effect that since he was the king of links he could go find one himself.
****<OCF> and I debated at some length the plausibility of the Noah's Ark story. I and others pointed out a number of respects in which the Biblical account is implausible at best. <OCF> refused to acknowledge any difficulties with the story, and later informed me that I had lost the debate. <OCF> often claims to have won a debate, and seems to think that he always does so.
By contrast, I do acknowledge when my opponent(s) has/have a point. For example, when Mort said that it wasn't mathematically possible for the human population to have reached its present size in just 6,000 years, I offered my calculations indicating that it was indeed possible. When I discussed the study on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer - which embarrassingly found that intercessory prayer <increased> mortality and morbidity in the prayed-for persons - I explained that the religious folk who claimed that the study was methodologically flawed had a point, and explained why. Just today I retracted my claims that there is no evidence for life after death and that all persons who hold that opinion are stupid and/or deluded.
*****I'm thinking of his responses when I related (a) my mother dying at age 37, when I was 16, on Christmas Day - his response was basically, "So what? Everyone dies. And your mother wasn't a believer, so Christmas meant nothing to her." and (b) being thrown out of the Boy Scouts for being (at that time) an agnostic.
******I roll my eyes at a large proportion of what you write. But at least you have the virtues of not being pompous about your opinions, stating that some of them are at least partially tongue in cheek, acknowledging when your opponents make good points, and having a sense of humor.
|Dec-12-13|| ||FSR: <PiPi> I earlier cited this story, which I believe occurred in your neck of the woods. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/... What's your reaction to the sentence?|
|Dec-12-13|| ||FSR: Kate Winslet has just given birth to a boy. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity... Her husband in named <Ned Rocknroll>. I am not making this up. I wonder if, inspired by <North West>, the couple will name the child <I Love>. And I'm sure that Joan Jett would be delighted to be the godmother.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||Colonel Mortimer: Good post <FSR>|
|Dec-12-13|| ||Jim Bartle: Or it could be "Itsonly," and his friends could say "I know Itsonly Rocknroll."|
|Dec-12-13|| ||FSR: Kate and her hubby can buy the kid a jukebox and tell him, <Put another dime in the jukebox, baby>.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||al wazir: <FSR: What's your reaction to the sentence?> According to the link within that article, <State District Judge Jean Boyd sentenced Couch to a decade of probation.>|
So *my* take, FWIW, is that either (a) the kid will straighten up and fly right, and the world will be a better place for it, or (b) he will screw up and break the law again within the next ten years. I leave it to you to place your bet on which you think is more likely.
My understanding is that anyone who breaks the law while on probation goes to jail -- no ifs, ands, buts, or special therapy. I don't know the exact terms of the probation in this case; for example, the link doesn't say he was given a sentence of x number of years, suspended while he is on probation. But whatever the terms are, they don't leave any discretion to the judge the next time.
|Dec-12-13|| ||Check It Out: But was justice served? I don't think so. He drunkenly mowed down four people, ending their lives and destroying their families. So he straightens up or breaks the law again. Those families are still wrecked and he's living large with a mandatory meeting every once in awhile.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||optimal play: <FSR> <I'm well aware that Christian doctrine teaches that non-Christians will burn in hell for eternity.> ???|
You've been misinformed.
Although there is a question mark about lawyers, so you could still be in trouble :O
The full debate between Richard Dawkins & Cardinal Pell referred to by Geoffrey Robertson can be viewed online.
Why is Dawkins always so humourless?
|Dec-12-13|| ||al wazir: <Check It Out: But was justice served?> It depends on what you mean by justice. |
Obviously this kid is a monster. But would sending him to prison for 20 years make him less of a monster? Would it restore any of his victims to health? Would it deter anyone with the same background and the same sociopathic tendencies (there can't be many like him)? I think the answer to all three questions is "No."
Yes, a stiff sentence would have made the victims' families feel better, but don't confuse justice with revenge. I agree that Couch is a plaintiff who doesn't invites a lot of sympathy, but locking him up won't help anyone. For the record, I think that locking up criminals rarely does anyone much good.
|Dec-12-13|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <al wazir> <Obviously this kid is a monster. But would sending him to prison for 20 years make him less of a monster? Would it restore any of his victims to health? Would it deter anyone with the same background and the same sociopathic tendencies (there can't be many like him)? I think the answer to all three questions is "No.">|
Although I agree - you're missing the point - if this was a poor black kid with court appointed lawyers - the outcome would most likely have been very different.
|Dec-12-13|| ||hedgeh0g: <FSR: Kate Winslet has just given birth to a boy. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity... Her husband in named <Ned Rocknroll>. I am not making this up. I wonder if, inspired by <North West>, the couple will name the child <I Love>>|
|Dec-12-13|| ||Shams: <Colonel Mortimer><Although I agree - you're missing the point - if this was a poor black kid with court appointed lawyers - the outcome would most likely have been very different.>|
Exactly. If "but his parents didn't raise him to be responsible" is a defense to criminal charges, then let it be so for every defendant. It's just outrageous.
|Dec-12-13|| ||Petrosianic: Funny, the judge didn't teach him to be responsible either. Since the kid is a mere drone, maybe the families should sue the parents and the judge.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||HeMateMe: third husband for kate Winslet? She must be difficult to have around.|
|Dec-12-13|| ||Marmot PFL: <My understanding is that anyone who breaks the law while on probation goes to jail -- no ifs, ands, buts, or special therapy. I don't know the exact terms of the probation in this case; for example, the link doesn't say he was given a sentence of x number of years, suspended while he is on probation. But whatever the terms are, they don't leave any discretion to the judge the next time.>|
Obviously you don't work within the legal system <g>.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5323 OF 5323 ·