i really don't get your take on sibby's post, bf. how do you take away from a fairly straightforward post on the hate crimes bill that sibby thinks the right to life equals the right to hate?
Well what do you think he's saying, lr?
I guess I'm assuming Sibby is siding with the 3 pastors, lr. You think not?"An hour later, three pastors said the Senate bill would hinder their work and the testimony of those who try to live by the Bible."This bill infringes on a Christian's right to speak out on any type of sin. Christians should be able to speak in society and seek to change society," said pastor Matthew Haag of Grace Community Church."
i don't get it, bf. yes, sibby is siding with the pastors, as am i. so what?
So you're opposing a hate crime bill?Hang in there lr. It will come to you.
i think i know where you're going, bf, but i'd like you to explain it to me. but yes, i oppose any and all hate crime legislation.
besides, bf, your zeal to make a point is showing. you had to pull the "right to life" issue out of thin air. sibby never mentioned abortion. the pastors didn't. but you did. why is that, bf?not only did you twist words, you made some up. i always thought you were more honest than that.
in fact, bf, i really think you should take the post down. it's dishonest and incendiary.
My idea was to get you and Sibby — and by extension the 3 pastors to explain yourselves. The floor is yours lr. I'm just asking questions here. Why do you think its morally right to hate people?
who said we hate anybody? s
The 3 pastors. At least that's how it reads to me.
and what does abortion have to do with sibby's post or the hate crimes bill?
so the pastors said, "we hate homosexuals"? i missed that part.
Do you hate people who give abortions as much as you hate gays?
Just going off of prior conversations members of this group. I could be wrong of course. That's why I'm seeking clarification.
are you being funny, bf? or are you serious?
"Just going off of prior conversations members of this group. I could be wrong of course. That's why I'm seeking clarification."what prior conversations, what group, and what members of the group?i thought you were talking about the pastors. let's stick to their comments. would you reprint where they said they hate homosexuals?
Just asking questions. I would only be being funny if you were laughing, lr. Are you laughing yet?
My post was about Sibby, lr.
not laughing, bf. you said it was the pastors who said they hated homosexuals. i'm just asking you to point out where they said that. if you want to point out where sibby said it, too, knock yourself out.
Ok, maybe they were talking about hating the "sin." It sounds like they think being gay is a sin, lr. Is it? Is it that "hate the sin, not the sinner thing?" Same with abortion doctors. Are they sinners?
oh, i see, so you don't really stand behind your "sibby: right to life = right to hate" claim.to borrow a phrase from another post: that's weak stuff, bf. weak.
Here's what the argument is. Why do you oppose it, lr?"People should not be physically attacked simply because of their race, gender, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or disability," Do you think you and Sibby and the 3 the pastors should be able to beat sinners up?
bf, you are being ridiculous. your mental contortions are beneath you.
Like I said, lr, I'm just asking questions. So far, I don't think you're doing a very good job of answering them.Maybe you should calm down, take a few deep breaths, engage your brain and take another shot at it.I know you can do it lr. I've seen you do it before.
it's hard for me to dignify such a ridiculous premise: "right to life = right to hate."not sure i want to even bother.look, i caught you engaging in mind-bending, incendiary hyperbole. you backed away from it. that's all i wanted to achieve.if you want to debate this under a more reasonable heading, i'd be glad to engage.
"There are no stupid questions. Just stupid answers." Do you agree with that assertion, lr?How about "Ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer."?I'm ok with either of those.BTW, lr. Are you laughing yet?
nope, not laughing yet, bf. sorry. maybe you just need to tell better jokes.
(To self) ...now what was it I "backed away from" again? I tell ya, this blogging is tricky stuff.
Sibby's article didn't suggest or imply that the right to life = the right to hate.Opposing a hate crimes bill is not the same as supporting hate crimes.It's wrong to punch someone in the face. It should be no more wrong to punch someone in the face if the punch was delivered because the victim was gay or an abortion provider.Johnson said "People should not be physically attacked simply because of their race, gender, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or disability," That's absurd as it implies people should be physically attacked for other reasons. The better public policy would be: "People should not be physically attacked."
see, bf, even you can't follow your own arguments. why would you expect anyone else to be able to do so?
Are you sure about that Carl? I can think of some reasons why people might have to be physically attacked.
So far, I haven't argued anything, lexrex. Why don't you do like Carl is doing and try to explain things to me? Or do you just like jerking my chain?
Carl I think you're confused on the nature of what constitutes a hate crime.When a person is mugged and raped, and then it turns out they are gay, that is not a hate crime.When a person is mugged and raped for the sole reason that they are gay, it is a hate crime. Hate crimes demonstrate hate towards an entire group of people.If someone assaults me, it's not a hate crime against whites.If someone assualts me BECAUSE I'm white, it is a hate crime. You see the difference?
Yep. I'm sure.This is about attack, not about self-defense."People should not be physically attacked." is far better public policy than what Johnson et al recommend. It protects all victims of attack regardless their race, creed, sexual orientation, occupation, or whatever.
i won't debate you, bf, because you can't even get to first base with your own premise. you claimed the pastors, sibby, and i think it's morally right to hate people.i asked you to point out where any of us said such a thing. you couldn't. 'nuff said.
Braden,No, there's no difference to the victim. A broken nose is a broken nose.Creating false distinctions in law as you suggest gives some victims greater rights than others. That just creates more discrimination.
I claimed no such thing, lr. I simply asked some questions. And you have yet to answer them. That's ok with me. You don't have to if you don't want to.
Ok, there we go. Good job Carl and Braden. That's the conversation I was looking for. (Well, one of them anyway.)
Carry on folks. I have to go do some other things now. Later.
Okay. I'll chime in. I have to agree with lexrex that the premise of the post is a bit convoluted.I read Sibby's post. And, it's a stretch to couple his opposition to hate crimes legislation to his opposition to abortion rights.Philosophically on what is right and what is wrong, Bill and I probably agree abortion rights and disagree on hate crimes legislation.I have in the past seen hateful things spew forth from Sibby's site. But not so much on this post.I have a fundamental problem with making the punishment for violent crime born of hatred being more severe than punishment for violent crime born of, say, jealousy.The crime is the crime. What we're talking about here is making punishment for crimes against certain classes of people more severe than punishment for similar crimes against different classes of people. If a white fellow catches his white wife in bed with a black fellow and he greases the black guy, is it a hate crime because the killer was white and the victim black? Or is it a crime of passion?My question is why should it matter? The crime is the crime. Assigning more severity to crimes associated with being a bigot of any kind doesn't fly.Enter the three pastors who are concerned about their First Amendment rights (speech and religion) to publicly fight sin.Here's the unpopular speech part again.I believe Sibby and the pastors and everyone else has a right to hate. They also have a right to oppose abortion, gay marriage and everything else they oppose. They have a right to speak of it, sermonize about it. They do not have the right to commit violence upon those with whom they disagree.Carl is correct. Johnson's quote is pretty stupid, and demonstrates his lack of ability to be articulate on the issues.Question for you Bill: Does the hate crimes bill come into play if a gay guy becomes frustrated by the religious nut reciting the 23rd Psalm on his driveway and in his frustration clubs him with a shovel?Would the hate crimes bill cover an abortion doctor who opens fire on the picketers who've labeled him a murderer?Any legislation that makes crimes against one class of person different from similar crimes against another class of person, create a slippery slope I don't think this country should go sliding down.
as much as i would love to chime in on the debate between carl and braden, i can't bring myself to do it. bf, you throw things out, and then reel 'em back in, as if you never said them. too frustrating, too annoying to debate that way. peace out.
i will say, though, that it's precisely because of the thinking of people like bf, on this issue, that pastors are leary and even afraid of hate crimes legislation.if what those pastors said in the article, or what sibby said in his post, are considered "hateful," then they are just one passage of hate crimes legislation away from becoming "criminals" in the eyes of the feds.
"I believe Sibby and the pastors and everyone else has a right to hate. They also have a right to oppose abortion, gay marriage and everything else they oppose. They have a right to speak of it, sermonize about it. They do not have the right to commit violence upon those with whom they disagree."That was pretty much my point in the headline, Mike. I just reduced it to an equation. And, lr, you'll have to own your own frustration with your lack of communications skills and your propensity to overreact emotionally. Blaming them on me won't help you with your problem.Finally, we all remember that Ben Franklin and his son had bitter differences over the American revolution, that brother hated and fought with brother in the Civil War and that jury nullification was so rampant in the South at one time that murderers had to be charged with Federal Civil Rights violation crimes. I've seen Latino farmworkers with their teeth knocked out by white Teamster dockworker goons over labor disputes, and had the shit kicked out of me by cops because I had long hair and opposed an unjust war. And we've all seen the videos of the various police people beating the crap out of someone they racially profiled. And we all know the story of the gay kid in Wyoming who was left to die dangling over a barbed wire fence. And how some people rejoiced when an abortionist's plane crashed, and another one was blown away by a fervent true believer.That's why I support the legislation.And if nobody wants to talk about it on those terms, fine. But I submit that by running away from the argument, one might well be just kidding themselves.Oh, we'll save discussion on how many Indians I've seen physically and psychologically abused for another topic. OK?
Anyone who commits the vicious acts Fleming describes deserves a severe punishment - regardless their motive for committing such vile acts.But, nothing in the litany of horror Fleming describes justifies hate crimes laws. Getting your teeth knocked out by white Teamster dockworker goons over labor disputes is no worse than getting your teeth knocked out by thugs or muggers of any race for any reason.
Why not, Carl, they have special laws for assaulting cops. And politicians. Don't they?
Carl, just checking.Current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin. Are you saying we should get rid of those laws?
Bias motivated hate crime - right up there with terrorism. It targets a specific person/group for their thoughts/ideas/way of life.A Teamster beating doesn't fit the above. What about wanting to do some damage to people named Carl, and only Carl? (I am not checking your ISP, no threat intended here.)
Taunia,I don't know how else to say it - an attack is an attack. All those who attack others should receive the same punishment regardless if they chose their victim based on their hatred for their victim's race, religion, occupation, union affiliation, or other attribute. Or whether they chose their victim on a purely random basis.One guy walks out of a gay bar. He is attacked by a man solely because his attacker hates gays and presumes his victim to be gay. The victim is punched six times in the face. He suffers a broken nose, a chipped tooth, and a cut over his right eye requiring six stitches to close.Another guy walks out of a bar. He is attacked by a man who's looking to raise some hell on a Saturday night. The victim is punched six times in the face. He suffers a broken nose, a chipped tooth, and a cut over his right eye requiring six stitches to close.A third guy walks out of a bar. He is attacked by a man who is robbing him. The victim is punched six times in the face. He suffers a broken nose, a chipped tooth, and a cut over his right eye requiring six stitches to close. His attacker also takes his wallet and watch.The hate crime victim suffered no more nor less than the victim of random violence. The man who attacked the hate crime victim committed no more violence against his victim than the man who committed the random attack. The crimes were identical in their execution and effect. On the other hand, the robber injured his victim more than the other two assailants and the robbery victim suffered more than the other two victims. Based on the acts committed, regardless their motive, and the injuries suffered, the first two assailants should receive identical punishments and the robber should receive a more severe punishment than the first two assailants.There's no reason to discriminate in law against the hate attacker for committing a crime identical to the crime committed by the random attacker. There is every reason in law to discriminate against the robber for committing a more heinous crime as measured by the robber's actions and the robber's victim's greater loss.
Giving more legal protection to special intersts than what is available to all Americans is a violation of America's constitutional principle of equal protection. So:Fleming: Hate crime legislation = Hate America
Carl, remind me not to go to your town on a Saturday night. All kinds of a@@ whoopin going on. In reference to your scenarios, who's more likely to commit the same crime again? The guy hating the gay man (there are a lot more where that came from), the guy drunk on a Saturday night (he may graduate college someday, or get expelled, thus ending his "fun") or the robber (memory doesn't serve me if there are "serial" Saturday night bar patron robbers)?My question for hate crimes punishment is this: as with all classes/types of convictions, are the persons convicted of a hate crime going to change their behavior with this punishment? I can't imagine why it would.
BF, are you going to rise to Sib's bait?Sibson, did Hitler commit hate crimes, among many other things?
Tunia,There's no way to predict future crimes. I don't want to go to your town if one is punished there for crimes one hasn't committed but might commit.
Carl, didn't make myself clear enough. Beg your pardon.You have your thoughts and ideas, and the likelihood of them changing are pretty remote. Same with most of us.Take your thoughts, preconceptions, etc to another hate-filled level where it makes you want to hurt other people. What's the chance of you changing your ideas once you're charged/convicted/sentenced? If you're an angry person, doesn't that punishment further your hatred towards that person?Human nature says you're not going to stand up and say, "Boy, was I wrong! I'm glad I was shown the error of my ways!"
Bill touched on it, but really didn't elaborate. Committing a hate crime is a federal offense. The feds are allowed to get involved and bring justice when it is unlikely the local law enforcement will do anything.Take for example the recent case in Ft. Worth Texas where local law enforcement raided a gay bar and began beating its patrons. How likely is it that the local law enforcement will discipline its own effectively. Allowing the feds to get involved will (IMO) bring a greater chance of justice to those involved. Just my 2 cents.
Taunia,The punishment should fit the crime committed. There's no way to predict future crimes.Creating different classes of victims among people who suffer the same assaults is discrimination and shouldn't be tolerated.
One last comment for the night and I'm gone.The number of homosexual adults who reported to the police having been physically attacked because of their sexual orientation outnumber heterosexuals by a factor of over ***22*** times(emphasize mine), even though homosexuals form a small minority of adults. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htmI like you Carl. You're charmingly resilient.
I'm with Carl. The concept of hate crimes seems to be punishing the thought, because without the according action, there would be no crime. You're free to hate who and whatever you want in this country. Or you're supposed to be. Didn't Orwell write about thought-crime?
Taunia,Hitler committed crimes, but I don't know if they were of hate. I am not a mind reader. My read is that Hitler thought he was creating an Utopian society. The same kind of Utopian society that the pro-abortion Progressives are trying to create today.So the ball is back in your court.
Fleming and others can call be a troll for saying this, because it does not relate to this particular thread.I did read other posts while on this web site tonight, and I am not surprised to read about Pat Powers. Still, it is sad. His children are in big need of a "good" role model. They should be in our prayers. And Pat too.
Taunia,I assume there are more hate crimes committed against homosexuals than against heterosexuals. I also assume there are more hate crimes committed against minorities than against whites. Doesn't change a thing.Creating different classes of victims among people who suffer the same assaults is discrimination and shouldn't be tolerated.
gkniffen,The Feds violating the constitution is tyranny.
I have read that some 88% of the convictions for racially-motivated hate crimes have been obtained against black people. I doubt that was the outcome expected by those who advocated the laws. But it was an outcome that should have been foreseen, given the track record of the justice system.I think it is plainly stupid to enhance penalties for a crime because someone says the motivation for the crime was less honorable than some other motivation might have been.The harm done should be the only criterion for the penalty exacted.
carl and bob got it right. i'll only add that motivation can already be taken into account in deciding punishments. a criminal's motivation comes into play when deciding whether to charge him with the different degrees of murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, etc. a criminal's mindset is even taken into account in sentencing. bias and motivation are already considerations, in law.the only reason for hate crime laws is to create special classes of people, who get special treatment under the law. besides, why have any classifications -- whether they be sexual orientation, age, race, whatever? i would have a much less problem with hate crime laws if it didn't leave certain people out. why not just say that penalties will be enhanced for crimes commited out of any bias against anything, for any reason at all? that way fat people, skinny people, poor, rich, stinky, atooed, tall, short will all be covered. don't nerds need protection, too?i'll tell you why. because then special interest groups will have less to do, less money to raise, and more problems justifying their endless existence.
Mr. Sibson,One of the reasons you don't see a lot of posts about abortion laws on this blog is that I have no intention of allowing it to become just another venue for post after post from the religious right or the far left.The string was going along fine. And I realize that you were the topic and understand your desire to offer your two cents on here. You did so respectfully and the post will remain.Continue on a course where you are comparing Hitler's mass slaughter of living, breathing people to a doctor performing a legal medical procedure, and I'll moderate every post from here out.I understand that this is your issue. You need to understand this: I recognize abortion as an important issue. On this blog, civil discussions are acceptable on any topic, and if the topic strays from the original post, that's fine too. But I will consider any mention of murder in relationship to abortion, an act of libel against abortion providers and pro-choice advocates. And those posts will be removed.Play by the rules and you're welcome here. If you can't do that, go back to sibbyonline.
Michael,Kill this comment if you will. But, me and many other people understand the unborn to be people and understand the abortion of such people to be killing.Legal hardly equals right or just. One need look no further than our slavery laws to understand that.
So there you have it. The headline is accurate. I rest my case your honors.
The headline was misleading.Looks like the Decorum Forum is about to become another War College - a censored forum.Too bad, it seemed to have promise.
Carl sez:"I assume there are more hate crimes committed against homosexuals than against heterosexuals. I also assume there are more hate crimes committed against minorities than against whites. Doesn't change a thing.Creating different classes of victims among people who suffer the same assaults is discrimination and shouldn't be tolerated."———————————————————Ergo, we have a constitutionally protected right to hate. And if we act on that hatred by committing a crime, our punishment should be no greater or less than the punishment for any other crime. Motivation is not the issue... or so says Carl.Furthermore, if any state decides certain crimes are not crimes due to local predjudices, federal law should have no jurisdiction in the matter... or so says Carl.Am I misrepresenting your position, Carl?If not, then the headline is accurate. And it makes no difference whether one hates the sinner or the sin, ones rights to that hate are sacrosanct, or so seem to say many on this board.And you Carl, seem to fervently disagree with any one here who disputes it. You can't have it both ways, man.
Mr. Sanborn,It is your blog and you can do what you want. But let me point out that it was not I who brought Hitler into this dicussion.And to your point. What Hilter did was legal in his country at the time. So the comparison is apples to apples.And Mr. Fleming, the only thing that has been proved about hate on this thread is that it iminates from the left, not the right. You must have missed the "Hate America" point.
And Mr. Sanborn,I did not say on this thread that abortion was "murder". So the libel charge is now back into your court. It is the mass "killing" of innocent human beings. And a medical procedure is to save lifes. Abortion is not a medical procedure because it does the exact opposite.
I didn't miss it Sibby. It's just more of your usual boilerplate cut and paste baloney. But I'm glad you came out into the sunlight. It must get lonely up there in your ivory tower. Good to see you, man. Rock on.
Yes. Fleming misrepresents my position here:"Furthermore, if any state decides certain crimes are not crimes due to local predjudices, federal law should have no jurisdiction in the matter... or so says Carl."That's nuts. I neither wrote nor implied anything of the sort. To the contrary, throughout my comments I have pressed for consistency in the law. Not the inconsistency of which Fleming accusses me.Nowhere in Sibby's piece does Sibby promote the notion the the Roght to life = Right to hate. The headline was inaccurate.
Carl, I asked you if you wanted all existing federal hate crimes law cancelled and you said, "Yep."I take that as your advocating (as others have here) a constitutional right to hate. If I'm wrong, please clarify.Otherwise, my position stands.
carl, bf is known to misrepresent, starting with his headline. he has done all through this thread. get used to it. to be fair to him, though, he did ask you if he had misreprented you. ms, there are plenty of us who believe abortion is murder. go ahead and charge us with libel. email me privately, and i'll give you my address, so you can come over to serve me papers to appear in court.besides, it was your girl, taunia, who asked sibby about hitler. if it hadn't been for bf's misleading headline, i'd have thought sibby's hitler-abortion response was off topic. if you didn't want a bunch of posts about abortion, you should've told bf to change his headline.that's all to say, cut sibby some slack. that's also to say that i'd rather stick to the topic of hate crimes, sibby and bf.
so bf, anything that is legal is a constitutional right? that's a wierd conclusion for you to make.
Fleming,You are wrong. I haven't touched on the idea of a "constitutional right to hate" in any of my many comments. The notion of a constitutional right to hate is goofy. What would be the point of such a right?Your headline is false because opposition to federal hate crimes laws is no indicator of one's desire to hate, hatred, or desire for a "constitutional right to hate.Further, my comments are no excuse for your headline as you wrote it before I ever commented.My comments are best read as written. No more, no less.
I don't think I made that conclusion, lexrex. In fact, I don't think I've made any conclusions on this entire thread actually (although I'm getting close). On the contrary — as is my usual Socratic method in philosophical discussion —I've asked provocative questions and in turn fielded some very interesting dialogue. This is a device not unlike many I've seen you use in debate from time to time, and I've learned a lot from you in the process. It's a little sad to see you now advocating against such an effective discussion format. I hope you reconsider.At any rate — if I'm understanding Mike Sanborn correctly — that's what he wants his blog to be all about.So thanks a bunch for your continuing participation in the dialogue here, lr. For for a while there I was afraid we had lost you.
Got it Carl. 10/4. Thanks.
maybe i'm defensive, bf, because of your incendiary headline. from the very start of this thread, you've put words in sibby's mouth, in the pastors' mouths, and my mouth.you have to admit that there's the socratic method and then there's the method you've been employing, here.for instance, to ask me "why [i] think it's morally right to hate people" hardly follows the socratic method but is surely antagonizing.
Then I apologize, lexrex. Inflaming you was not my intent. Although we've never met in person, I consider you, after all these exchanges to be my friend. And I want to keep it that way.
Carl and Sibby,I haven't censored anything on this blog other than those posts which I deem to be libelous.Sibby: Hitler's and the Nazi's actions were later to be determined to be war crimes and murder.Carl: You presented your case EXACTLY as it should be. I'm not removing any posts on this thread.You said you believed the act of abortion is an act of killing. It's a matter of definition. Not all killings are murder. Murder is a crime. Accuse someone of a crime here, when the act is not a crime, and I'll consider it libel. Present it as you have here, and a healthy discussion continues.Sibby: As the Nazis were convicted of war crimes at the conclusion of WWII, are you then suggesting that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that all women who have obtained and abortion and all physicians who have performed one, should be tried and hung as the Nazis were? It's your analogy, so it seems a fair question. And don't start off with "the situations are different" because it was you who said they were the same.
Bill:In fairness to Carl, I posted that people have a Constitutional right to hate. It sucks, but I think in a perverted way, some people pursue happiness through hate.
I was the one who suggested that there is a right to hate. I don't think that's a very controversial proposition. There most definitely is a constitutional right (and natural right) to free expression, free thought, and free speech. Those rights are meaningless if they don't extend to ALL thought, including hate. There's some famous quote about how freedom of speech must protect even the ugliest, most abhorrent speech, if it is to mean anything. I can't recall the quote, but the same concept applies here to thought.Of course, I'm not suggesting that hate is a good thing or should be encouraged. But take away the right to hate, and you really have taken away probably the most valuable right of all: the individual's right to intellectual sovereignty.
You're right, Michael. You beat me to it by about 10 hours.
Michael,If I can jump into the question you ask Sibby -In statute abortion may not be murder at this time, in this country. Just as Hitler's actions were statutorily protected and slaveholding was statutorily protected. But, I (and most who oppose abortion) see no moral distinction between killing a child who is born and killing a child who is unborn.If, one day, abortion is made illegal I think we should move forward not backwards. Forgive those who did that in the past and, in the future, punish abortionists. While morally the killing that abortionists do is on a par with what the Nazis did, the law is different. Legally the more analogous situation would be slavery.
You could argue that forcing a woman to submit her body to the life threatening ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth against her will is slavery, Carl. But I don't find your parallel with abortion convincing. It would be bad business or at least counterproductive to kill slaves, wouldn't it?
Here's one of those "provocative questions" from Bill which is simply a misstatement of his opponent's position. Nothing like the Socratic Method. Nowhere, no how, do I suggest the killing of slaves.What the Nazis, those who supported slavery, and those who support abortion have in common is that each relies on an assumption that certain human beings are less than human beings. I believe, in each of those cases, the assumption is false.The legal analogy between abortion and slavery, relative to Sanborn's question, is that slavery was once, like abortion, legal. Once slavery was outlawed we didn't go back and lock up all the slaveholders. (Which would have been an ex post facto law.) We moved forward.I suggest that, should society ever become so enlightened about the unborn as it ultimately came to be about slavery, we not follow the model of how we dealt with the Nazis, but rather follow the model of how we dealt with slaveholders.
i consider you a friend, too, bf. after all, we're facebooked.just don't ask me questions like that. you should know me well enough to know that i don't think it's morally right to hate people.
carl, you're good.
I love people like Carl, whose opinions transcend party affiliation and really seem to indicate a deep level of independent thought. Carl, I likely won't always agree with you, but please keep writing.
Got it Carl. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nicely written Carl.
Carl,I've expressed my position on abortion in a new post. I disagree with your post of 9:15 a.m.What the Nazis did was born of hatred, malice and ignorance, which is not on par with abortion.To imply it is is to say the abortionist and the woman seeking the abortion hate the unborn. I don't think that is so, and I suspect you don't either.As a public relations person, I would suggest that that premise is the very reason anti-choice movements continue to fail.
Dead is dead.If you kill me because you hate me, or hate something about me I am no more dead than if you kill me for any other reason.Absent self-defense it's evil for one person to kill another person regardless the amount of hate in (or absent from) the killer's heart. Killing people with gas chambers or killing people with abortionist's tools have the same evil result - the deaths of innocent people.
legit point, ms, in 11:00. i think that's precisely why we pro-lifers refuse to suggest that abortionists, and the women who have abortions, actually be charged with murder. there is a much different motivation between what hitler did and what abortionists do.that's also part of the reason, i believe, that while abortion was illegal in england, in our colonies, and eventually in all of our states, it was not punishable as a felonious murder.
Michael,If you were consistent in your views on motive you'd agree with me regarding abortion.You wrote:"I have a fundamental problem with making the punishment for violent crime born of hatred being more severe than punishment for violent crime born of, say, jealousy."and you wrote:"My question is why should it matter? The crime is the crime. Assigning more severity to crimes associated with being a bigot of any kind doesn't fly."Yet now you write:"What the Nazis did was born of hatred, malice and ignorance, which is not on par with abortion."It's not the motive that matters it's the result. The result, for the victim of the gas chamber and the victim of the abortionist's knife or device or chemical is the same - death.
"The result, for the victim of the gas chamber and the victim of the abortionist's knife or device or chemical is the same - death."I was dead for a really long time before I was born, Carl. I don't think you're being very rational here. I think you're playing on emotion. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or immoral about death and dying.
Another of Fleming's mischaracterizations.I never wrote nor implied that anything is intrinsically wrong or immoral about death and dying.It's the killing I branded as evil.Death is not evil. But, the manner by which one becomes dead may be evil.
Now you're contradicting yourself, Carl.
Did you follow the two most recent SD Abortion Ban ballot issues, Carl? If so, did you support either of the two bans? And if so, which ones? (I ask because I don't know who you are or where you're from, sorry.)
My comments are all consistent.
Are you going to answer the questions about the bans, Carl?
"The next intrusion on his much-deserved sleep is a well-dressed, puffed-up insurance salesman (T. Roy Barnes), who arrives in the back yard asking: "Is this 1726 Prill Avenue?" With a smile and a loud shot, he calls up to Harold in a long exchange to ask him about a gentleman named Carl LaFong. To make sure that Harold has gotten the name right, he spells it out:Salesman: Carl LaFong, Capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g. LaFong. Carl LaFong.Harold: No. I don't know Carl LaFong - Capital L, small a, Capital F, small o, small n, small g. And if I did know Carl LaFong, I wouldn't admit it!"——————————————————BTW, good to have you around. Carl. I've been wondering if you'd show up. (Always with the clever new names this guy...)
Nope. If you have points to make use your words and your ideas and make them. I'm getting bored with this thread.
"this guy"? You've mistaken me for someone else.
Right from the start, I haven't really been able to follow you on this thread, BF. Maybe it's time to move on.
That's easy enough you know, folks. Just stop posting to the thread.And bingo. It's over.
Hey BF, I seem to recall a poster on SDWC many moons ago that wrote like you and used that little owl image. Was that you? I can't recall the actual handle...
Yes, that was probably me posting as "Boiled Owl."...it's a long story. Good memory man.
Boiled Owl. Damn. If I had to guess, I would have said Red Owl, but I knew that wasn't right.
Post a Comment