Billy Graham. And know you know THE REST OF THE STORY.
Now that is how you use the Paul Harvey gag.
My issue wasn’t with a joke, so I’m confused. My issue was with someone derailing the thread into a discussion on capital punishment by high-handedly pointing out what they perceived to be another poster’s moral inconsistency on the subject. I have no problem with taking the piss out of a serious subject thread when it’s, er, indicated. (Walter Windchill, I laughed so hard I nearly choked on my coffee. Thanks. 
)
Well, I wrote out a reply, but I lost it, so you’ll have to bear with a much shorter answer.
I didn’t think that scr4’s comment was an attempt to hijack the thread in any way. I think he was just pointing out the inconsistency (as you say) of what he saw as a serious comment from OneCentStamp. Meanwhile, other covnersations have launched on such topics as child-child molestation and, as I mentioned earlier, jokes, which have equally little to do with the OP. You haven’t attacked them, though, and I’m curious as to why you singled out scr4’s post over the other off-topic ones.
Well, there’s a few macho retards in every crowd.
So does that make him insane and not responsible? When does the fact that no rational person would do such a thing become a mitigating factor, or proof that the person is not responsible?
Damfino. I’m just saying that it appeared some people were trying to make sense of the crime, and that there’s no sense to make of it. Even a natural disaster like an earthquake or tornado, as random as it is, makes more sense to people than this does. That is the essence of evil – it is beyond the experience and imagination of most people.
No, I’ve always been a little suspicious of state of mind as a mitigating factor. Suffocating a baby while raping him is not mitigated in any way by molestation the killer suffered as a child. Regardless of how you were treated as a child, when you become an adult you assume responsibility for your actions. A reasonably cognitive person understands that copulating with a baby is wrong – and if a person doesn’t understand that, the person should not be free to move about in society. If they do recognize it and do it anyway … well, they should not be free to move about in society.
Well, at least I recognize and respect the concepts of morality, responsibility and juctice. If that makes me a mocaho retard in your book…I’ll consider the source and thank you for the compliment.
Actually, if you’re in favor of vigilante action to punish criminals, you clearly don’t recognize or even understand the principles of “morality, responsibility and justice”. In advocating the idea that the basic rules of our civilization be overturned in order pursue vengeance on this guy, you clearly don’t understand the term “justice” outside the context of old Westerns at all. Justice is founded on the fact that we are a society of laws; you wish those laws to be suspended when you’re really mad at someone. That shows a lack of commitment to justice and a total inability to comprehend the consequences of living within a society not bound by law. If you put your macho cowboy fantasies ahead of living in a civilized society, then you believe that, fundamentally, might and not right is the guiding principle of the society you wish to live in. Sorry, Weirddave, but you have shown all on your own that the concepts of “morality, responsibility and justice” play no role in your world.
Well, it was the first one that I noticed, and the first one with that certain self-righteous tone I’ve grown to know and detest. I did make my original comments to scr4 in the beginning of the thread, it didn’t seem to be shared given the subsequent posts, so I didn’t see fit to voice it over and over and demand the thread go back on topic. In retrospect, I can see that topics like this are going to inevitably bring up the capital punishment thing and thus, my post was useless anyway. Carry on.
That makes complete sense. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up.
Actually Excalibre, I think it’s you who is showing an unwuillingness to actually face the stark truth here, weaseling around behind phrases like “overturning the basic rules of our society” and “a total inability to comprehend the consequences of living within a society not bound by law”. Once again, you attempt to change the question by widening it’s scope into something I wasn’t talking about.
My statement was that I would be perfectly happy to surrender this guy to what you’re calling “vigilante justice” (by which I mean that he be immediately executed) after he freely admitted (no coertion) that he had sodomized and murdered a toddler. Sodomizing and murdering a toddler is an immoral act, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, by any human or religious standard I can think of. I recognize that society has the responsibility to remove from itself any member that commits such an act, the same way that one would remove a cancer from one’s own body, no matter how loudly some members of society try to claim that we don’t. Execution is the only justice possible for such a henious crime.
Now, you can try and muddy the waters by playing “what if” and “how about in this case”, but all those would be is destractions to keep from facing the truth. I am talking about THIS man, who FUCKED A 17 MONTH OLD BABY UP THE ASS and then KILLED HIM TO CONCEAL WHAT HE HAD DONE and CONFESSED TO THE CRIME. Nothing else. I am not making general policy statements. I am not advocating an abandonment of the principle of justice by lay. I am not proposing vigilantees roam the streets string up jaywalkers. In this case, I said I would be perfectly happy to simply execute him and be done with it, and I would. I doubt it would signal the imminent collapse of Western civilization, no matter how hysterical you get about it.
I don’t see where I’ve done that.
I have not remotely tried to “justify” what he’s done. You are a liar to suggest that I have. That’s sad, Weirddave. Because I disagree with you, you’ve decided to make up revolting lies like suggesting that I’m trying to somehow justify what this person did.
Believe it or not, some of us are capable of believing that justice applies even to bad people, even when they’ve done horrible things. That’s the fundamental difference between your attitude and mine, Weirddave. I understand what the concept of justice is, and that a key part of it is that the absolute worst people in society still have to be treated fairly. You don’t, because you favor, instead, that a mob of people dispense punishment as it sees fit.
And in proposing vigilante “justice” for him, you demonstrate that you have no concept of actual justice. That’s what it is to live in a civil society; the rule of law extends to the worst people in society. It’s not about being nice, it’s about being just and fair. If you wish to campaign for a change in the law so that guys like this face the death penalty, you can do that. But when you try to justify mob rule, you don’t get to claim to be enforcing justice anymore. Mob rule and justice are simply not compatible.
Again you lie. I haven’t made up any hypotheticals here at all.
That is vigilanteism. Seeking vengeance outside the confines of the law defines vigilanteism. I’m talking about some abstract concepts here, but the idea that mob rule and justice are two different things is not a hard one.
It wouldn’t mean the collapse of western civilization right up until the mob decided to extend their purview from this man to other people they thought should be executed. Why do you think laws were invented in the first place? Because mobs of people that appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner are notoriously unreliable.
White is likely to be indicted for aggravated murder which makes him eligible for the death penalty.
Ahh.
I don’t support the death penalty, but I can’t say that this is the sort of case that gets me all upset about it.
I find it surprising that the authorities didn’t have White in isolation from moment of his arrest. It was only a matter of time, given that he’s accused of such a heinous crime, that another prisoner would target him for violence.
Of course, I’m cynical enough to wonder whether White’s suicide attempt was only brought about by the attack, although granted, it could be from realizing that he’s facing the death penalty now.
I wonder if I was a better person if I would feel something other than disappointed that they saved him.
Just watch, you’re about to do it again.
Fine. You haven’t done those things. (I was using the royal “you”, more or less, but rereading I can see how it might have looked personal. Apologies. Change “you” to “one” for a clearer meaning) I’m glad you agree that this is an immoral act. That’s step one, we agree on morality.
Well, we’re close here, except that you are not quite understanding what I said. You’re talking about the process of determining guilt, the judicial process. He’s already confessed, which renders that entire process moot. Assume that he’s already been through the entire legal process, appeals and everything, and guilty as sin. That’s the point I am at for the purpose of this discussion. I am maintaining that the only just punsihment-which is also called “justice” in the imprecise english language-is execution.
And there you go. THIS is where you’re changing the question by inventing an imaginary mob of people dispensing punishment. I never said any such thing. I said I could do it, and that I*I could live with it after having done it.
See my last 2 replies, they cover the same ground.
Oh?
I never said any of that.
Again with the mob rule. Do you get paid a stipend every time you use that term? And again, this goes back to what I’ve been saying. I’m talking about just punishment, and you insist on talking about judicial process. The two are most emphatically NOT one and the same.
sigh See above.
No, it’s not. As I explained in my last post, the old idea of “everybody knows what happens to molesters in prison” is not true. The other inmates just don’t care. The main reason why you’ll get beat up in prison is if someone feels you wronged them. They have no interest in being society’s avenging angels.
:dubious:
I’m having a hard time seeing how you get “execution after a full legal process” from:
It seems to me that the phrase “throw away our civilized system of justice in favor of vigilante rule” is pretty unambiguous. Maybe you meant something different, but you’d have to be pretty much insane to not see how Excalibre drew the conclusion that you’re in favor of vigilante justice over a civilized legal system from what you posted.
Seems that you’re not reading closely enough what was actually said. Ex said that he doubted anyone really wants to throw away our civilized system of justice in favor of vigilante rule. “Vigilante rule” is his strawman in this argument, but I said sure I would in the case where the perp confessed, and later clarified that what I was talking about was executing the guy. He then weet on and on as “justice” as the process of determining guilt, and I then took the time to clarify that I was talking about “justice” as apropriate punishment. I said as much I the part you quoted:
If Ex wants to question something I said, he’s right to do so. What I take issue with is continuing to mischaracterize exactly what I was talking about after I’d clarified it. That’s par for the course for Elv1sLies, but I expect better of that from Ex.