When will they ever learn?

[Olivier S]

Sorry guys, but I can't lose this:

What about Male masturbation? An Holocost? A genocide?
I have been the worst killer earth never knew when I was a teen....

I had the opportunity to say in the paddock section that it was great to read other than frenchies like me opinion's.

But it sometimes looks like a familly christmas lunch when Uncle A who is lefty and Uncle B who is righty starts a political discussion. Fun the first time, less the second, and it finishes to be really borring.

I'm free not to read, that's true. But, there are each time interesting comments (like Jimbo's ones, I might not agree 100%, but interesting.)

When will you ever learn? Right and Left won't never make others opinions change... Its a lost fight guys.

Well... Another useless post.

Olivier.

 

[Joey Dean]

I agree with Mr. Rosenthall.

Call it insanity or terrorism. It is simply evil manifesting in a self convincing manner.

 

[craig]

So you take the position that a single cell zygote is a human being?

I'm not being "politically correct" -- I'm trying to explain to you how sicence and the law views a fetus and when that fetus is given rights.

You understand there is debate as to whether terminating a pregnancy pre-viability involves a person. And that there is NO debate that doing so with an adult convicted of a crime does?

hahaha I don't need a scientist to tell me that if I cook it long enough it will come out a pizza...you guys crack me up.:laugh:

 

[craig]

Sorry guys, but I can't lose this:

What about Male masturbation? An Holocost? A genocide?
I have been the worst killer earth never knew when I was a teen....

I had the opportunity to say in the paddock section that it was great to read other than frenchies like me opinion's.

But it sometimes looks like a familly christmas lunch when Uncle A who is lefty and Uncle B who is righty starts a political discussion. Fun the first time, less the second, and it finishes to be really borring.

I'm free not to read, that's true. But, there are each time interesting comments (like Jimbo's ones, I might not agree 100%, but interesting.)

When will you ever learn? Right and Left won't never make others opinions change... Its a lost fight guys.

Well... Another useless post.

Olivier.

Sooo true

 

[Doug S.]

When will you ever learn? Right and Left won't never make others opinions change... Its a lost fight guys.
Olivier.

Yep, Olivier, at times it becomes painfully clear how "closed-minded" some people can be.

In those instances, it's best just to invoke "George's Rule":

‪George's Rule‬‏ - YouTube

Cheers from Doug!

 

[Jeff Young]

Interesting analogy. Not entirely accurate but interesting.

And if you take it out 1/3 of the way through the bake cycle, do you have a "pizza?" Could you sell your "pizza" (basically mostly raw dough and half-melted cheese) to others as a pizza?

I agree YOU don't need a scientist or a doctor to tell YOU when YOU believe a fetus is viable. But others may have a different opinion and the real question is whether YOU get to impose YOUR opinion -- and that is exactly what it is -- on others.

Right now, the law says you don't and I think that is a good thing.

hahaha I don't need a scientist to tell me that if I cook it long enough it will come out a pizza...you guys crack me up.:laugh:

 

[craig]

Interesting analogy. Not entirely accurate but interesting.

And if you take it out 1/3 of the way through the bake cycle, do you have a "pizza?" Could you sell your "pizza" (basically mostly raw dough and half-melted cheese) to others as a pizza?

I agree YOU don't need a scientist or a doctor to tell YOU when YOU believe a fetus is viable. But others may have a different opinion and the real question is whether YOU get to impose YOUR opinion -- and that is exactly what it is -- on others.

Right now, the law says you don't and I think that is a good thing.

Sure I could sell it, they call them a "par-baked" pizza..
see ya Jeff...:dead:

 

[Jim Craik]

For those how have lost site of what this thread/discussion is about, let me recap.

It appears to me that Doug, Jeff and I (& a few others) are of the opinion that some media outlets and some folks here on this site promote fear and hate. This fear/hate is aimed at folks they do not like, do not understand or are afraid of. This fear/hate is aimed at (a partial list)

Muslums
Mexicans
Immigrants
Liberals
Democrats
Community oginizers
Teachers
Unions............................

We are of the opinion that for the most part, this fear/hate is unwarrented or greatly exagerated.

From time to time this unreasonable hate/fear manafests itself in tragic ways.

The only people I have a problem with are people who promote this hate/fear (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Fox......) and those that defend this type of activity.

If you do not promote outlandish hate/fear or defend those that do, I have no problem with you. I have no problem with just being a Conservative or Republican or disagreeing with me.

If on the other hand you join in the hate/fear or defend those that do, expect to be blamed when tragic events like Norway happen.

 

[Graham]

jeff..this is how I explained it to my kids....Once all the ingredients are mixed together its a Pizza..it may not be done cooking yet but its still a pizza:thumbsup:

Better stop masturbating then :shifty:

 

[craig]

Nice save Jim, we were starting to spiral out of controll:lol:

 

[Pat]

However, Veek and Pat, there's no need to adopt his tactics for your protestations on this forum or in this thread. If you have a belief, be "brave" enough to offer supporting evidence.

Get a grip.....your cowardly protestations, your "hit and run" tactics, do nothing more than make you look like a radical right-wing, TEA partying KOOK, the kind who engages in cowardly attacks and then runs away to hide out of....what, infantile fear that someone might just have a differing opinion?

Doug

Doug, I can't prove that you don't beat your wife, molest your dog or drink beer through your nose. But I do assume you don't. The dictionary calls proving, "convincing or persuasive demonstration". That definition suggests some receptivity is necessary. The anger you and others display indicates a lack of respect for those of us with differing views rendering any reasonable dialog impossible. So how can you be surprised we we choose not to "play".
I especially liked the accusations of cowardice, a truly classy move and an interesting way to enhance meaningful dialog. Try it in a bar sometime and I bet you'll get prompt and meaningful feedback.
Just for the record, at the time Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski also known as the Unabomber, went on his 20 year period of postal antisocial behavior he lived as a hermit and didn’t have a TV, radio or electricity. When he injured 23 people and killed three, he didn’t have the means to listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck. While I can't prove it, I suspect he didn't log into GT40s.com and blog in the paddock. Since he's been incarcerated since 1996 I suspect he hasn't. There is also no evidence he was in the Tea Party, endorsed Sarah Palin or went to church regularly.
In 1980, the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit, issued a psychological profile of the (then)unidentified bomber which described the offender as a man with above-average intelligence with connections to academia. This profile was later refined to characterize the offender as a neo-Luddite holding an academic degree in the hard sciences – pretty close. Kaczynski recalled not fitting in with the older children in elementary school and being subjected to their bullying. As a child, Kaczynski had a fear of people and buildings, and played beside other children rather than interacting with them. His mother was so worried by his poor social development that she considered entering him in a study for autistic children. He resigned his teaching role at Cal Berkley (a bastion of conservative thought) after the university received numerous complaints and low ratings from the undergraduates he taught. This is not a normal guy.

Interestingly, Donald Foster, who analyzed the writing at the request of Kaczynski's defense, notes that the Unabomber manuscript contains instances of irregular spelling and hyphenation, as well as other consistent linguistic idiosyncrasies. Hmmm, I guess some of us may need to be more careful opening the mail. Just sayin’…

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I understand your point, but there is a different. Turning the light out is permanent. Someone who is locked up, even for life, always has a chance. Proving innocence. Proving sanity. Etc.

The turning the light out is one step too far, and can become far too arbitrary.

I'm saying when someone is proven guilty, with todays DNA the proof is obvious. The killer in Oslo is obvious, as well as the Fort Hood killer. Turn out the lights!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

For those how have lost site of what this thread/discussion is about, let me recap.

It appears to me that Doug, Jeff and I (& a few others) are of the opinion that some media outlets and some folks here on this site promote fear and hate. This fear/hate is aimed at folks they do not like, do not understand or are afraid of. This fear/hate is aimed at (a partial list)

Muslums
Mexicans
Immigrants
Liberals
Democrats
Community oginizers
Teachers
Unions............................

We are of the opinion that for the most part, this fear/hate is unwarrented or greatly exagerated.

From time to time this unreasonable hate/fear manafests itself in tragic ways.

The only people I have a problem with are people who promote this hate/fear (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Fox......) and those that defend this type of activity.

If you do not promote outlandish hate/fear or defend those that do, I have no problem with you. I have no problem with just being a Conservative or Republican or disagreeing with me.

If on the other hand you join in the hate/fear or defend those that do, expect to be blamed when tragic events like Norway happen.

You in turn preach hate and fear of the right, republicans, the wealthy, etc, etc. I don't recall anyone saying they hate
Muslums
Mexicans
Immigrants
Liberals
Democrats
Community oginizers
Teachers
Unions

 

[Jack]

Kill 'em all and let God sort it out!

 

[Doug S.]

I'm saying when someone is proven guilty, with todays DNA the proof is obvious. The killer in Oslo is obvious, as well as the Fort Hood killer. Turn out the lights!

Not quite sure how DNA enters this discussion.....perhaps if there were no witnesses and "circumstantial" evidence was needed, but in both cases there are not only numerous witnesses, but even admissions by the perpetrators.

As for turning out the lights.....I really wish I could come up with a firm opinion. Just recently a prisoner here in TX was exonerated by DNA evidence...he might well have died in prison had that not occurred. IIRC the crime included rape and murder, but I've slept since then and I could easily be mistaken.

I guess my point is that we DO "turn out the lights" at times. Timothy McVeigh did not last long. The issue is how do we know we don't "turn out the lights" on an innocent person. Right, it takes an ABSOLUTELY fail-safe case, IMHO, and there aren't many of them.

Now, before you assume I'm a bleeding liberal, let me say that I am in favor of the death penalty when the crime is particularly heinous (as were the massacres in Oslo and at Fort Hood). Unfortunately (??) our legal system mandates an automatic appeal for every death sentence, which can take decades with all the dilatory tactics utilized by BOTH sides.

Many defendants enter into a "plea-bargain" agreement in order to avoid the death penalty (ala Kaczynski, the "Unabomber"), an act encouraged by overburdened prosecutors. Kaczynski was a coward...he deserved the death penalty....who is to blame for him being alive today?

Does anyone remember "prison ships"? As I understand it, the perpetrators of the most heinous of criminal acts were imprisoned on ships in shark-infested waters. Their treatment was rather "cruel" (I err on the side of understatement here), and many of those criminals chose to take their chances with the sharks rather than their jailers. What would be wrong with that these days in cases where it is obvious the criminals cannot ever be trusted to be reintegrated into society?

Let them turn out their own lights, so to speak :thumbsup: .

Cheers from Doug!

 

[Jim Craik]

If you do not promote outlandish hate/fear or defend those that do, I have no problem with you. I have no problem with just being a Conservative or Republican or disagreeing with me.

Posted by me.

Al, read what I wrote, I mean what I said.

The vast majority of Concsevatives and Liberals do not preach hate/fear or defend those that do. Only a small percent fall into that catagory.

Unfortunalty, you are one of them.

******

You in turn preach hate and fear of the right, republicans, the wealthy, etc

posted by Al.

Al I live in the Silicon Valley, virtually everyone I know is wealthy.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Posted by me.

Al, read what I wrote, I mean what I said.

The vast majority of Concsevatives and Liberals do not preach hate/fear or defend those that do. Only a small percent fall into that catagory.

Unfortunalty, you are one of them.

******

posted by Al.

Al I live in the Silicon Valley, virtually everyone I know is wealthy.

Oh Jim, you cut me to the quick!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Not quite sure how DNA enters this discussion.....perhaps if there were no witnesses and "circumstantial" evidence was needed, but in both cases there are not only numerous witnesses, but even admissions by the perpetrators.

As for turning out the lights.....I really wish I could come up with a firm opinion. Just recently a prisoner here in TX was exonerated by DNA evidence...he might well have died in prison had that not occurred. IIRC the crime included rape and murder, but I've slept since then and I could easily be mistaken.

I guess my point is that we DO "turn out the lights" at times. Timothy McVeigh did not last long. The issue is how do we know we don't "turn out the lights" on an innocent person. Right, it takes an ABSOLUTELY fail-safe case, IMHO, and there aren't many of them.

Now, before you assume I'm a bleeding liberal, let me say that I am in favor of the death penalty when the crime is particularly heinous (as were the massacres in Oslo and at Fort Hood). Unfortunately (??) our legal system mandates an automatic appeal for every death sentence, which can take decades with all the dilatory tactics utilized by BOTH sides.

Many defendants enter into a "plea-bargain" agreement in order to avoid the death penalty (ala Kaczynski, the "Unabomber"), an act encouraged by overburdened prosecutors. Kaczynski was a coward...he deserved the death penalty....who is to blame for him being alive today?

Does anyone remember "prison ships"? As I understand it, the perpetrators of the most heinous of criminal acts were imprisoned on ships in shark-infested waters. Their treatment was rather "cruel" (I err on the side of understatement here), and many of those criminals chose to take their chances with the sharks rather than their jailers. What would be wrong with that these days in cases where it is obvious the criminals cannot ever be trusted to be reintegrated into society?

Let them turn out their own lights, so to speak :thumbsup: .

Cheers from Doug!

DNA enters in to where we have conclusive evidence that a person is guilty of a crime of murder, and not convict a innocent person.

 

[Jeff Young]

Plenty of people have been convicted with faulty DNA evidence. Once you "turn out the light" there is no chance to correct that.

 

[Doug S.]

DNA enters in to where we have conclusive evidence that a person is guilty of a crime of murder...

Help me out here, Al...and I don't mean that in any demeaning manner.

DNA could help prove that a particular person was present at the crime, but how many individual's DNA do you suppose was at the Oklahoma City site...must have been a thousand at least in that busy building.

DNA could have proven McVeigh had a hand in preparing the bomb(s)...it would have to have been on the remnants of the truck and its contents. Didn't prove he drove the truck there, though, that took other methods.

DNA can occasionally PROVE that a person committed rape, although I have heard of instances where vengeful women managed to gather DNA material to fake sexual assaults (yep, they are VERY few).

Other than that, I'm unsure what you mean about helping convict a criminal...do you mean proving that the person on trial is actually the defendant?

DNA...and not convict a innocent person.

Yes! That's how the gentleman in TX was able to have his conviction overturned, some old trial material that had DNA on it. It was a rape/murder case, to the BEST of my recollection...:shy:

What I wonder is how, if they had the DNA all along, did they manage to convict the wrong person? Apparently, in this case, the person convicted was not even in the area where the crime occured when the crime was being committed.

I'd agree that DNA is very useful, and considering the forensic advancements in the past 20 years, I'm sure that 20 years from now we'll be able to do more than we even imagine now. I'm sure that the government is developing a DNA library of current prisoners, but what about us law abiding citicens? I, for one, prerfer my anonymnity, would rather the government NOT even have my fingerprints (I think ONE arm of the government has them, I'll not say which), much less my banking information or my DNA information, and particularly that the GPS function on my cell phone NOT know where I am at all moments.

I'm all for the guilty getting what they deserve, as long as we are sure they are guilty. Humans make mistakes....DNA can help and hinder....it IS a very confusing and scientifically complex area.

Cheers, Al....good to have you back on the board!

Doug