|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Heterosexuality is a condition in which people have a driving emotional and sexual interest in members of the opposite sex. Because of the anatomical, physiological, social, and cultural limitations involved, there are formidable obstacles to be overcome. However, many heterosexuals look upon this as a challenge and approach it with ingenuity and energy. Indeed, it can be said that most heterosexuals are obsessed with the gratification of their curious desires.
Hormonal Imbalance? One theory advanced is that heterosexuals have an imbalance in their sex hormones: Instead of the normal mixture of the two, they have an excess of one or a dearth of the other resulting in an inability to enjoy full and satisfying relationships with their own sex. Economic Conditions? Our society grants financial and other incentives for exclusively (i.e. neurotic) heterosexual coupling: From tax concessions to council houses. To be gay is expensive and many people simply cannot afford it. Fear of Death? A terror of mortality lies beneath much heterosexual coupling. Driven to perpetuate themselves at any cost, most heterosexuals are indifferent to the prospect of the world-wide famine that will result if the present population explosion continues unchecked. Many heterosexuals attempt to convert others into this lifestyle heedless of the environmental disaster that would lead to the death of the species were everyone to be as they are. Cultural Deprivation? Most heterosexuals will be found to have come from a background in which an appreciation of the beauty of their own bodies has been ruthlessly suppressed. Heterosexual men in particular think themselves ugly, beauty being ascribed only to women. Many psychic disorders stem from this self-rejection. Pathological Condition? Many heterosexuals claim that they were just born that way. Unfortunately, this doesn’t hold water. All human beings are the result of the interaction between their substance and their environment and heterosexuals, like the rest of us, must share in the responsibility for their condition. Social Conditioning? Many unthinking heterosexuals succumb to the daily bombardment of conditioning from the mass media and live out their lives trapped in oppressive stereotypes. We should feel compassion for such people, not hostility, for their rejection of all those parts of the self that do not conform to the married-couple ideal is a measure of their loss of contact with their own unique sexuality. Childhood Trauma? A bad experience with a member of the same sex while young may cause rejection of all members of the same sex through fear. The desire continues in the subconscious and emerges as a heterosexual neurosis. Parental Problems? In most cases of compulsive heterosexual behaviour, the parents will be found to have suffered from similar difficulties. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: So you've got the hots for your friend, huh? Have you told him? I can see how awkward it must have been...you desperately wanting to express your feelings of love and affection for your friend but choosing not to, him seeing that you were huring inside from the conflict of knowing that your desire was for him but choosing to repress it. How sorry you must have felt for him since he apparently believed that you could be honest with him about yourself when you knew you would choose to lie to him about what you were feeling. After all, you chose this, right? If you can "choose" to be gay, then you must find certain types of men attractive. I think I've asked you this question before, but in case I haven't, I'll ask you again: What sort of man turns you on? Are you somone who goes for the big, hunky muscle bears or are you more of a blond twinkie kinda guy? Do you love a man in a suit? Are you the type who likes clean-shaven men? Full beards? Stubble? When you look at a man, what catches your eye first? His eyes? His mouth? Chest? Arms? Legs? Ass? Package? You claim that you "choose" not to be gay, so that must mean that you do have strong sexual attractions to people of your own sex that you simply "choose" not to engage in. So I want to know: What type of man are you "choosing" not to be with? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote:quote: How can you possibly make a choice about something you've never thought about?
quote: You're the one saying you chose. Therefore, you must. In order for you to "choose" not to be gay, you must "choose" not to act upon those very real sexual desires and urges for people of your own sex. So tell us what they are.
quote: Non sequitur. This isn't about your friends nor about the accuracy of your gaydar. This is about what kind of man you find attractive. Is it this kind of man? Or is it this kind? Maybe it's this kind: Too hairy? OK... So spit it out. You "chose" not to be gay, so tell us what kind of man you are "choosing" not to be gay with. What kind of man would you be gay with if you chose to be gay? What are you waiting for? Hmmm...Seems Jude Law's picture stopped being shown. Found another to replace This message has been edited by Rrhain, 04-03-2005 06:27 AM Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy...um...you want to have sex with the Pope?
You do realize that he's dead, yes? You're a necrophiliac? No, I'm not joking. I asked you what kind of man you want to have sex with and you responded by saying the Pope. So you like defrocking priests, eh? Something about the cassock gets you erect, does it? Stop jerking around and answer the question honestly. If you were to choose to be gay, what sort of man would you choose to be with. What kind of man cause you to get an erection? What kind of man makes you want to get naked and to do things with him that would bring the two of you to orgasm? I'm quite serious. That is, if you're being serious about you choosing.... Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy responds to me:
quote: So how do you think gay people feel when you say that they "chose" to be gay? If you feel that you have every right to tell other people that their sexuality, their love and devotion and emotion and caring and concern, was just some frivolous plaything that they carelessly threw away, then you should expect the same thing in kind. So answer the question already. If you chose not to be gay, what sort of man would you like to have an orgasm with but choose not to?
quote: Then stop being such a prick. How dare you tell others that they don't know why they fell in love. How dare you tell others that they don't feel as deeply as you. How dare you mock other people with your holier than thou crap as if you could possibly understand what another person's love and devotion is.
quote: Pagan? The reason I respond in this "infantile" manner is that you are behaving like an infant. Everything is about you. You know how everbody is supposed to feel. You know that gay people aren't really responding to their real feelings. They're simply "choosing." So time to test that little claim of yours. If you "chose" not to be gay, what sort of man are you "choosing" not to ejaculate with?
quote: Don't care. Answer the question. What sort of man makes you cream your pants? What sort of man makes you want to bend over and let him have his way with you ten ways to Sunday?
quote: I dare you. As a much better author than I put it, "Thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct."
quote: And what is "alternative" about my lifestyle, do tell? You seem to know all about it. So enlighten us all. Am I gay? Straight? Bi? Maybe I'm asexual. Am I married? Single? In a group? When was the last time I had sex? What sort of person do I find attractive? When I have sex, assuming that I do, how do I do it? Do I like kissing? Is oral sex my favorite? Maybe I like toys. You know so much about it, you tell the story.
quote: (*blink!*) Are you out of your tiny little mind? Homo[I][B]SEXUALITY[/i][/b] isn't about sex? Hetero[I][B]SEXUALITY[/i][/b] isn't about sex? How on earth can anybody talk about sexuality without talking about sex? Oh, there's other aspects to sexuality beyond sex, that's true, but if you don't actually have any sort of sexual desire to go along with those other feelings, then you're "just friends" and we aren't talking about sexuality. You said you chose not to be gay. So what kind of man do you fantasize about covered in your jism but you "choose" not to pursue? You're the one saying that gay people "chose" to be gay. How do you think that sounds to them? And the most ironic thing of it is that at this very moment, Sondheim's Passion is on PBS.
Loving you Is not a choice, It's who I am. Loving youIs not a choice And not much reason To rejoice. But it gives me purpose,Gives me voice, To say to the world: This is why I live.You are why I live. Loving youIs why I do The things I do. Loving youIs not in my control. But loving youI have a goal. For what's left of my life... I will live,And I would die For you. THAT is what you're telling gay people they don't understand, Phatboy. THAT is the passion and devotion and ultimate giving of one's body and soul that you claim gay people don't really appreciate. They simply "choose" to be gay. It isn't real. It isn't true. And you and your tiny, fragile ego get into a huff because I ask you what turns your crank? Grow up, you disgusting little worm. You have no soul, you foul, pathetic creature. How dare I? How dare you! Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mr. Gotti writes:
quote: Incorrect. The problem was not that they received unfair trials. The problem was that they DID NOT DO THE CRIME. They were, indeed, innocent. Not just "guilty of a lesser charge" or "not deserving of capital punishment." THEY DID NOT DO THE CRIME. Of 24 people on death row in Illinois, 13 were INNOCENT. How do we know they were innocent in the end? They were released from jail.
quote: And what makes you think that the person you're condemning to death is going to be McVeigh? Just because you can find an example of someone whom everyone, including the person, thinks is deserving of his punishment doesn't mean that everyone who is facing the death penalty deserves it. If you truly want to "err on the side of life," wouldn't that require abolishing the death penalty? Or are you saying that it is better that thousands of innocent people die in order to ensure that all guilty people die? Some of us think that it's better for guilty people to go free in order to ensure that the innocent don't get punished. It isn't that there aren't people who are worthy of the death penalty. It's that there's no way to make sure you never, ever apply it to an innocent person. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Irrelevant. Even if it were possible to make it perfectly humane, killing innocent people is never justifiable.
quote: Irrelevant. Since it cannot deter 100% of crime (since that would mean there is no crime), no matter how much crime it does prevent cannot justify killing innocent people.
quote: Bingo. And notice how you seem to ignore this.
quote: Because when you're dead, you can't appeal. When you're dead, you can't introduce new evidence. When you're dead, it's over and if we find out we made a mistake, we can't go back and correct it.
quote: Yes, it does. There is a process involved in arrest and conviction. When you kill the person at the end, the process ends. If the person is still alive, the process can continue. No, it isn't perfect. Innocent people will be trapped. But why are you so quick to jump to the end when there won't be any chance of backtracking if we found we made a mistake?
quote: Yes, it does. The key word there is "good." That isn't good enough. If we're going to execute people, we need to make certain that it never kills an innocent person ever. And since that is impossible, we can never institute a death penalty. Yes, life in prison is, in effect, a death penalty, but while you are still alive there is the ability to stop it if we find that we made a mistake. There is no reason to skip to the end.
quote: Of course not. But it's better than killing them. Unless one wants to do away with the entire justice system, then we need to realize that there will be innocent people who get put through the wringer. Why is anybody so quick to impose finality?
quote: Huh? Are you saying that these innocent people are going to commit a crime later on so we might as well lock them up now? I do not understand the meaning of your sentence.
quote: Because that would mean society as we know it would go away. Anarchy isn't pretty.
quote: Tell that to the 13 people in Illinois who are alive because they didn't get killed.
quote: Indeed. And one of those things that needs to be revamped is not jumping to the end. It isn't because there aren't people who are worthy of death. It's because there are people who aren't.
quote: Yes, that's precisely it. That is the exact reason why the death penalty is always inappropriate. Since we cannot guarantee that everyone who is sentenced to death is actually deserving of death and since death stops the process, it is always inappropriate. Unless we're going to do away with justice entirely, then there will always be mistakes. There is no perfect system. But since we know we are going to make mistakes, wouldn't it be prudent to try and minimize their effect? Why skip to the end?
quote: Because there will always be somebody who didn't do it who got killed. Why are you so quick to kill him?
quote: Irrelevant. Even if it were perfectly clear that the death penalty was not an endorsement of killing others but simply the justifiable punishment for heinous crimes, killing innocent people is never justifiable. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
schrafinator responds to me:
quote:quote: Yes. Since release from jail doesn't just happen but only comes after an investigation that indicates the person should not be in jail (assuming that the release is not because the person has served his sentence and since these people were on death row, the only way for them to have served the sentence would have been for them to have died), I had assumed that it was obvious that their release from jail was indicative of just such an investigation which showed them to be innocent. The point I was trying to make was that these people were not kept in jail. They were not removed from death row and placed into the general population of prisoners. They were not charged with lesser crimes. They did not have another trial. They were released. The original claim of Mr. Gotti was:
A lot of media were reporting "half were exonerated." This is not the case. Half received unfair trials. That isn't true. They were exonerated. They were released from jail and allowed to go free.
quote:quote: Non sequitur. I wasn't advocating the abandonment of the justice system. I was pointing out that justice for the innocent is more important. We are going to make mistakes. No system is perfect. It is therefore better to err on the side of the innocent than on the side of the guilty.
quote: Of course. That's what I've been saying all along. Therefore, since we know we are going to make mistakes, why is anybody so quick to engage in a procedure that will guarantee that we won't be able to correct it? When you're dead, there's nothing left to do. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: Non sequitur. With a "u."
quote: Only if one is being disingenuous and abadoning the premise of the criminal justice system punishing a person who has been found guilty of a crime by a known-to-be-flawed system.
quote: Are you not arguing that the death penalty can be justified? Given that it is impossible to know for certain if all people condemned to death actually did the crime for which they were convicted, how is that not arguing for the execution of innocent people? It isn't as if we are forced to administer the death penalty. There is imprisonment. What, therefore, is the possible justification for execution when we know that there will always be the chance that there is somebody who has been convicted but is actually innocent? Why skip to the end?
quote:quote: But you are advocating for the death penalty. This will necessarily result in the execution of innocent people. Therefore, you are advocating a process that kills innocent people. You don't have to administer the death penalty, do you? Is the only other option release? There is no such thing as imprisonment?
quote:quote: Indeed. The fact that you ignore even your own arguments makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion with you. It is, however, something within your control. Pay attention to what you are saying. Actually read what the other person has said. Stop trying to stroke your ego.
quote: It is neither ad hominem nor non sequitur (with a "u"). You have ignored your own statement. That is not an argument against you. It is an argument against your claim. Consider: 1 + 1 = 2.2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. Um, didn't you just say that 2 + 2 = 4? And doesn't 1 + 1 = 2? Therefore, isn't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 equivalent to 2 + 2? And therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. To insist that it is something other than 4 is to ignore your own argument. It has nothing to do with you. Stop trying to stroke your ego.
quote: But you ignored your own argument. You established something as true and then immediately behaved as if it were false. That is illogical.
quote:quote: That is precisely the point, however: The system is inherently flaw. There is no way to guarantee that everybody who is convicted is actually guilty. There is always the possibility that a mistake has been made. Why would anybody advocate a punishment that cannot be rectified should a mistake be found?
quote: But that ignores the argument that the system is inherently flawed. There is no way to perfect the system. There will always be mistakes. It can never, ever be perfect. Therefore, since there will always be innocent people who have been convicted, why would anybody advocate their death? This is not about the people who deserve the death penalty. This is about the people who don't.
quote:quote: Incorrect. All other sentences have some sort of means of restitution should it be found that there was a mistake. While time spent in prison cannot be returned, it is conceivable that some sort of recompense can be made. If we kill you, however, there is no way that we can ever pay you anything back. You no longer exist.
quote:quote: You're advocating the death penalty, are you not? This is in comparison to life imprisonment in which the person eventually dies. Why are you skipping to the end? Why are you jumping to the point of death?
quote: "Generally"? Not good enough. Your system needs to be 100% perfect without ever having any chance for error. Such a system cannot exist. Therefore, to advocate for the death penalty is to advocate for the death of innocent people because it will always happen.
quote: Since there is no way to apply the death penalty only to those who are truly guilty, since it will always be applied at least once to an innocent person, there is no way to apply the death penalty that results in no innocent person ever getting killed.
quote:quote: This isn't about those who are guilty. This is about those who are innocent. There will always be somebody who looks guilty but is actually innocent. This is because a trial is an investigation based upon observation and as we have learned from science, it is impossible to observe everything. The only way to have perfect knowledge is to observe everything and since we cannot observe everything, we cannot have perfect knowledge. And that is completely ignoring the fact that justice is carried out by humans who have agendas and biases. Ergo, mistakes will always be made. And it's non sequitur with a "u." And you meant "strawman," at any rate.
quote: Non sequitur. This isn't about treatment in jail. This is about the ability to fix a mistake. If you skip to the end and kill the person, there is no way to ever fix the mistake. Once the person is dead, there is no going back. The system needs to exist otherwise we can just forget about any concept of justice. The system will always have innocent people caught in it. Therefore, it is imperative to try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.
quote: Nobody is making this argument, however. I am assuming the most optimal system possible. That system, however, is not perfect because no system ever is. Therefore, reforms to the system are irrelevant. This isn't about the system, this is about the ability to fix the inevitable mistake.
quote: And you ignored the argument.
quote: Indeed. I directly said so. So seeing as though we have an innocent person who is eventually going to die in the custody of the state, do we want to reach that point quickly by killing him immediately or slowly by keeping him alive as long as possible? It's going to happen. There is no way to get around it. An innocent person is going to end up convicted of a crime he didn't commit and will spend the rest of his life in jail. Do we want to skip to the end or do we want to give us as much time as we can to go over the case and try to find mistakes?
quote:quote: Right...because it's worked so well every other time it's been tried.
quote: Right...because four people out in the middle of nowhere is such a wonderful model of a multi-million person city. And we have never, ever had a case of four friends going out into the woods and having fewer than four coming back because they got into a fight and one of them got himself killed. It doesn't work.
quote: No, it's pretty much been solved. Anarchy natrually dissolves into chaos at the societal level at the very least.
quote: Because anarchy has worked so well every other time it's been tried. At any rate, this is irrelevant.
quote: Because no system is ever perfect and thus there will always be an innocent person condemned to death. Why is anybody so quick to jump to the end?
quote:quote: Insult? You said, and I quote:
Ending the death penalty will not make the system better for anyone. Are you trying to say that the people who were on death row but released from jail due to the discovery of their innocence do not find themselves better off for not having been killed? This isn't about you, holmes. Stop trying to stroke your ego. Your argument is that not dying is somehow not better than dying. I think I could bring forth at least one person who would disagree with that sentiment. This is not about you. This is about the argument you made. Are you trying to argue that someone who was released from jail after being on death row doesn't find his freedom more valuable than dying? That he is better off?
quote: But since there will always be innocent people on death row, doesn't that indicate that we can never institute a death penalty? Let's not forget, Bush claimed to have reviewed all of the death row cases in his state. And yet, he claims no mistakes were made. Do we believe him? Are you seriously claiming that there is a way to be perfect? Why is it that nobody has ever found a perfect system before? Have you considered publishing? You could probably get a Nobel Prize out of it.
quote: Yes, it does. And those are your words, not mine lest you try to be foolish and claim it is an ad hominem comment. It means you are willing to kill people who are innocent at the earliest opportunity rather than the last. It means you think you can be perfect. Nobody else has ever managed this feat so it would be interesting to see what it looked like.
quote:quote: Because it is never possible to prove guilt 100% every single time. To do so requires a perfect system and such a system cannot exist. You always have to draw the line somewhere which always requires a judgement call for those cases close to the line which means a mistake will always be made.
quote: But this isn't about the guilty. This is about the innocent. This isn't about meting out punishment to those we declare to be guilty who actually are guilty. This is about trying to minimize the effects of those we declare to be guilty who actually aren't. There will always be a case whom we have every reason to think is guilty but is actually innocent. There is always a false positive.
quote: Yes, because there is no way not to misapply it. No system is perfect.
quote: This has never happened before. What makes you think you can do what nobody has ever managed to accomplish before?
quote: Which will necessarily require the immediate death of an innocent person because no system is ever perfect.
quote: This isn't about the system. I am assuming the most optimal system possible. But the most optimal system isn't perfect as no system is ever perfect.
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not say that, did you? You think you're perfect?
quote: You seriously think that there is a perfect system out there? A system that is invulnerable to human fallibilities, agendas, and biases?
quote:quote: Then why did you bring it up? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024