Rapists can't die, children can. [Archive]

Pandora's Eyes

June 26th, 2008, 01:02 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/26/scotus.child.rape.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday to ban the death penalty as a possible sentence in child rape convictions. The ruling effectively bans death as a penalty for rape in the United States as currently 44 states do not allow such sentencing and the 6 which are nebulous now may not do so.

Let me admit, I am biased. I grew up in New York and New Jersey but now live in Texas. I have lived in Texas for nearly 11 years. I would not call myself a Conservative or a Liberal outright. But I will admit that over the years, due to my experience here in Texas, I lean more to the right now than to the left.

I live in a very safe state. We have very little violent crime in the majority of the state given its 23 plus million population. Even our cities are safer than most metropolitan communities in the country.

Having grown up in New York and having lived one year when I was 18 in Los Angeles I have to say the quality of life is served well by the conservative laws of the state of Texas.

I do understand what the liberal argument is. Most child molesters were victims themselves and are psychologically scarred. We should find ways to help these people cope with what happened to them. I actually sympathize with that and think they should be aided, not ostracized.

But I lean to the other side of the fence when I think about the fact that they are grown adults. And we cannot treat adults with kid gloves. We cannot say that they were hurt as a child and because of that, now as an adult should be sympathized with.

In a lawful society an adult must be held accountable for their actions. Raping anyone, but especially a child, is an act of such destructive consequence that if the family wishes to pursue it and the court decrees it proportionate to the extent of the crime, I do feel death is a justifiable sentence.

I say leave it to the states to decide if it is lawful and to the individual courts to decide if it is suitable to the specific case at hand.

The Supreme Court decision takes the ability to choose away from the courts as well as the states. We are rewarding rapists with our sympathy and pandering them with our tax dollars for treatment they should have responsibly sought themselves as private citizens. Psychotherapy may be expensive but it is certainly a better option than raping someone and than receiving therapy while serving a sentence in the penal system.

I hope I did not offend anyone with my thoughts. I felt quite passionate about this and wanted a place to vent.

Peter Coene

June 26th, 2008, 01:32 PM

I'm for the death penalty in cases of violent rape, regaurdless of the age of the victim. However, something like statutory rape is another issue. I'm not sure what the age of consent is there in Texas, but here in Cali its 18. Technically anyone having sex with anyone under that age has committed rape, because according to the law anyone under 18 is not mature enough to give consent.

Justice Von Brandt

June 26th, 2008, 01:40 PM

~Faust~

June 26th, 2008, 01:47 PM

Yay a death-penalty discussion!!!

My2cents: I'm fine with death-penalty, as long as it is embedded within a sound and logical juridical philosophy.

For example, when you take the scholastic worldview, you see that crime is a sin that came into this world pressed on the initially pure and innocent. The premise is therefore to wipe out the sin to purify society again.
If one steals, hack both his hands of so that he can't steal again.
If one lies, cut his tongue out that hemay not lie again (And don't teach him sign-language).
If one rapes his neighbour's wife, stone the woman so that she may not tempt any other person again-
If one murders, kill him in return. An eye for an eye-

In a society based on the concept of Foucault's biopower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower), however, the act of ending the life of a civilian lies in contrast to psychological and sociological (I can never distinguish between those two...) concepts such as rehabilitation and becoming a better person, not to say that this act would be part of the outdated feudal concept of power.

I wonder what america is like.

Peter Coene

June 26th, 2008, 02:22 PM

For example, when you take the sholastic worldview, you see that crime is a sin that came into this world pressed on the initially pure and innocent. The premise is therefore to wipe out the sin to purify society again.
If one steals, hack both his hands of so that he can't steal again.
If one lies, cut his tongue out that hemay not lie again (And don't teach him sign-language).
If one rapes his neighbour's wife, stone the woman so that she may not tempt any other person again-
If one murders, kill him in return. An eye for an eye-

I'm picking up on a bit of sarcasm here.

I myself am for the death penalty, but not as a punishment. The logic behind a punishment is to curb the perpetrator's future actions and therefore change them so that they are capable of being fully functional within society. The death penalty doesn't allow for future actions, therefore it cannot be properly viewed as a punishment in my oppinion.

Instead it is to be used in cases where there is no hope that the individual might be changed into a contributing member of society. As such you are not punnishing him for his actions, but instead protecting society from what he might do in the future. Granted one can argue that nobody is beyond saving, and this might be true. Even so, if the chances that the criminal might revert to repeating their crime is high and the crime is so dangerous to society as to warrant it, death should still be an option.

TheDirtSyndicate

June 26th, 2008, 02:25 PM

you rape my kid i'll kill you myself, fuck the consequences.

TASmith

June 26th, 2008, 02:39 PM

"juridical, sholastic"

are these words?

EDIT: From Wiktionary:

juridical (comparative more juridical, superlative most juridical)

Pertaining to the law or rule of law, legal; judicial, related to the administration of justice (as to jurisprudence, or to the function of a judge or court).

Sholastic didn't come up.

Dan!

June 26th, 2008, 02:40 PM

a few yrs probation and worth every minute imo
Oi3Hyxuf5AE

~Faust~

June 26th, 2008, 02:41 PM

I'm picking up on a bit of sarcasm here.

I myself am for the death penalty, but not as a punishment. The logic behind a punishment is to curb the perpetrator's future actions and therefore change them so that they are capable of being fully functional within society. The death penalty doesn't allow for future actions, therefore it cannot be properly viewed as a punishment in my oppinion.

Instead it is to be used in cases where there is no hope that the individual might be changed into a contributing member of society. As such you are not punnishing him for his actions, but instead protecting society from what he might do in the future. Granted one can argue that nobody is beyond saving, and this might be true. Even so, if the chances that the criminal might revert to repeating their crime is high and the crime is so dangerous to society as to warrant it, death should still be an option.

In the case that there is no hope of changing the individual, you do have the option to detain him for the rest of his life. All of the members within the EU are doing just fine with that. But then again, based on what premises does the US judge their people? As you said, death is no punishment, but what then? In some states, children can be killed by the courts. What is the basis for that? For me it is pure pragmatic extinction of potential or factual threads to society. For that reason, the example of middle-aged worldview was brought up by me, since I see its presence in such a jurisdiction.

@Complete2: As long as you're not a prosecutor, I am just fine with that.

@TAsmith: Yeah, it's gotta be "scholastic", sry english is my 3rd langage.

AdamGillespie

June 26th, 2008, 03:59 PM

We live in the 21st century. A democratic society that has a right to kill its own people seems a little bizzare to me. Life in prison seems like a worse punishment anyways..if you give them death you give them something to look farward to. Rapists aren't praised in prison, they're targets.

sve

June 26th, 2008, 04:06 PM

I was a long time lurker on the forum devoted to recent and past crimes, courts and so on.

And the thing is, if the rapist will be giving a death penalty for his crime, he will be willing to kill his victim other than spare his/her life in order to have his own spared in case if he will be caught. If it is the same punishment for both crimes in spite that the victim survived ordeal, then it is much convenient for him to kill it, dead people don't talk.

And more of it... the highest punishment is reserved for murder, and not even every murder. Otherwise it is considered excessive because the victim lives.

But subjectively it is very hard to accept, yes.

kovah

June 26th, 2008, 04:17 PM

I'm sorta for and sorta against.

In this day and age with the forensic evidence there is little chance (depending on the crime of course) that they can execute the wrong person.

I think for multiple murders and where there is no doubt that someone did it i think its a good idea, these people may have it worse off in prison but they are taking the space of someone who can be properly rehabilitated into a functioning member of society (supposedly)

Unfortunatly here in the UK prisons are nothing more than holiday camps for criminals this guy who runs a prison seems to have the right idea http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=About_Mcso

Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the 'tent city jail' to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex.

He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but 'G' movies. He says:
'They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.' He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's money.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.
When asked why the weather channel, he replied: 'So these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.'
He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back.'
He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd 2007), the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On the Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees.
'This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,' said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. 'It's inhumane.'
Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. 'Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.'

The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: 'It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!'
Way to go, Sheriff! If all prisons were like yours there would be a lot less crime and we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.

Sheriff Joe was just re-elected as Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona

nonie

June 26th, 2008, 05:03 PM

In the current system, the penalty you get is proportional to how much you can pay for a lawyer. I'm against the death penalty mainly because the majority of people put to death are simply too poor to adequately defend themselves. It's fucked up. Until the system is fair (and it will probably never be) the death penalty will always disproportionally target poor minorities.

In the hypothetical situation of all representation being equal, it's kind of a mixed feeling... While I do believe there are some crimes that are totally inexcusable to the point of that person not deserving to live, I also think the government committing murder is a crime too. I think in those cases hard labor (something without other human contact) and solitary confinement *without* perks like weight rooms should be used... If they don't value others' lives they just shouldn't be exposed to them.

Craig D

June 26th, 2008, 05:12 PM

the death penalty..
because the courts have never, ever, made a mistake and wrongly
convicted someone. Nope, never happens.

daestwen

June 26th, 2008, 05:47 PM

AdamGillespie

June 26th, 2008, 07:34 PM

the death penalty..
because the courts have never, ever, made a mistake and wrongly
convicted someone. Nope, never happens.

Thats another good point.

ChristianWeeks

June 26th, 2008, 08:16 PM

the death penalty..
because the courts have never, ever, made a mistake and wrongly
convicted someone. Nope, never happens.

Ofcourse not, this is America! Everybody is given a fair and unbiased trial and justice is always served.

The government cannot be wrong.

BuckWeisel

June 26th, 2008, 10:02 PM

There are worse things than death.

Blahm

June 26th, 2008, 10:48 PM

im for texas justice.

Blue

June 26th, 2008, 10:57 PM

Death is an easy way out, isn't it?

Peter Coene

June 26th, 2008, 11:42 PM

In the case that there is no hope of changing the individual, you do have the option to detain him for the rest of his life. All of the members within the EU are doing just fine with that. But then again, based on what premises does the US judge their people? As you said, death is no punishment, but what then? In some states, children can be killed by the courts. What is the basis for that? For me it is pure pragmatic extinction of potential or factual threads to society. For that reason, the example of middle-aged worldview was brought up by me, since I see its presence in such a jurisdiction.
Well, with as many prisoners as we have in the US we do not really have that option as most of out prisons are already way too full as it is. To keep an inmate alive for all those years as he/she dies in prison is not easilly within our budget.

Also remember that for a lot of prisoners life on the inside is actually more luxurious than life outside of prison. Prisoners receive food, shelter, and medical care all on Uncle Sam's dollar. They receive more in prison than they do while living on welfare or making minimum wage because of a weird interpretation of the ammendment that barrs "cruel and unusual punishment."

As for how we choose who gets the death penalty; that varries from state to state. Usually the courts make a distinction of 3 types of murder: Manslaughter(3rd degree) is when it is entirely accidental, as in cases of drunk drivers running over pedestrians. 2nd degree is where the murder was intentional but done on the spot in a fit of rage with no planning involved. 1st degree is when the murder is premeditated. Usually 1st degree murders get either life in prison or the death penalty, depending on how heinous the crime.

Minors receiving the death penalty are very rare. First the courts have to decide that the minor can be tried as an adult. As I understand it this is usually is a decision made when the minor is nearing the age at which he/she will no longer be a minor. If a 17 year old is tried as a minor it means that even for the worst of crimes he could commit he will only get one year in juvenile prison before he turns 18 and has to be released. If the minor is tried as an adult then a longer sentance becomes an option as it will be spent in an adult prison. While being tried as an adult legally means that the minor could face the death penalty it is usually not given as nobody wants to kill a kid.

DSillustration

June 27th, 2008, 12:49 AM

Personally, I feel the punishment should fit the crime.

Murder = death penalty
Rape = castration

Gory

June 27th, 2008, 01:05 AM

Life in prison is too easy.

Rapists and murderers need to be sentenced to a life of meaningless toil. A true Sisyphean task, you know?

Something.... Hmmm... Sales?

Nah... That definitely qualifies as "cruel and unusual."

Peter Coene

June 27th, 2008, 01:16 AM

Personally, I feel the punishment should fit the crime.

Murder = death penalty
Rape = castration
Once again I think that there is more to it an a one-size-fits-all answer. I think that in cases of statutory rape with older teens where consent was given the punishment should not be as stringent as it is. However I agree that in some more horrible cases of violent rape that mandatory castration or the death penalty should be possible outcomes. In others cases it would make sense that the rapist could avoid jail time by opting for castration.

But then again, that leaves us with the question of what the punishment should be for a woman who commits rape? I cannot think of any equivalent to castration which would make the act less likely in the future... Well, maybe if they gave her a sex change and then chopped it off, but that seems to be one too many steps added into the process.

TASmith

June 27th, 2008, 01:37 AM

emily g

June 27th, 2008, 02:00 AM

There are victim's groups that are against rapists receiving the death penalty. Why do you think that is?

Because most children are raped by a close friend or family member. The relationship between the child and abuser may be very complex--the child could both love and hate this person at the same time.

There are already lots of reasons why a child might be scared to tell someone that they have been abused, but knowing that dad/cousin/whoever could be put to death if you "told on" them should not be one of them. It is not something any child should have to face.

Can you imagine being abused by a close friend or family member and then on top of that have that person die because you "told on" them? Many children would be wondering if they should have just kept their mouths shut, and many more will make exactly that decision.

We already have children who keep quiet because "if I tell, daddy's going to prison." Well, daddy deserves to go to prison and it's possible for a child to realize and come to terms with this. But I do not think a child should have to make a decision where the possible outcome is death.

(Plus, I do not think the punishment is proportional to the crime--as awful and horrible as rape is. But that is not the main point of my post.)

Peter Coene

June 27th, 2008, 02:28 AM

"Well, with as many prisoners as we have in the US we do not really have that option as most of out prisons are already way too full as it is. To keep an inmate alive for all those years as he/she dies in prison is not easilly within our budget."

Ok, I don't want to get dragged into a really long debate, but I do want to point out how irksome this argument is to me. I mean, prisoners equal slave labor. You can make them do pretty much any kind of job for minimal pay, and yet we still lose money on them! Sure, there's the cost of security, etc, but if prisons were really run well they could pay for themselves and then some. It's not the prisoners' fault we can't organize a better system.
As far as I understand its not as simple as that. Forcing prisoners to work once again fall under "cruel and unusual punishment" in certain lawyer speak translations. As such the work has to be voluntary on the part of the prisoners and to keep it that was the jails have turned it into a reward system: if you work you decrease your sentence length. Because it is a reward not all prisoners qualify for work detail, those barred from it including those who are serving life sentences, which brings us back to this specific issue: Keeping people in prison for life bleeds the system.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think that life sentences are a bad thing or that every murder should carry the death penalty. I'm just being realistic about the way things are. The prison system takes up lots of tax dollars, and no number of licence plates being punched by those trying to get out early for good behavior is going to make up for that.

Jasonwclark

June 27th, 2008, 04:25 AM

As long as you don't care about anything but revenge, you can always go out vigilante style....

TASmith

June 27th, 2008, 05:05 AM

"Forcing prisoners to work once again fall under "cruel and unusual punishment" in certain lawyer speak translations."

All I'm saying is if this is true, work towards changing the laws. I have nothing against prisoners earning their keep. I do have something against the death penalty when people support, not even debating the crime so much as, Oh, we don't want to spend money on them. That line could apply to anyone committing any crime.

Blue

June 27th, 2008, 07:34 AM

Personally, I feel the punishment should fit the crime.

Murder = death penalty
Rape = castration

Yea but, Dan, what do they do if you cheated on your taxes? :steph:

TASmith

June 27th, 2008, 07:42 AM

I don't get the joke. They take your money?

Pandora's Eyes

June 27th, 2008, 08:40 AM

Yeah, I'm going with Craig on this one.

I'm totally against death penalty. Nothing warrants something that we can't repeal if it turns out we're wrong, and we've *been* wrong, often.

Good news is that I live in Canada, and it's been gone here since before I was born. And huh, interestingly enough, I live in the biggest city in Canada, which is down in the 20somethings of crime rates... Not to mention compared to similar size cities in the states...

Huh. Funny.

That would not work in America. Canada, Europe and many other places as well have a calmer social climate than America. So the penal system may be less severe there and crime will not escalate.

In a socialist economy there is less crime. In a capitalist economy there is more crime. There are pros and cons to both forms of economy and government. The point is, while I acknowledge Canada, Europe and Japan do not require the severity of sentencing America employs, all of those areas of the world lean towards a socialist government and economy which offers fewer consequences to the lesser sentences.

But in a capitalist society we must be more severe with punishment due to the greater percentage of crime we must deal with.

I will say that death is too severe a punishment for statutory rape. In most of those cases the minor was consenting. It is simply that, in the eyes of the law, he or she was too young at the time of the act to legally give consent. So, it is rape. But no, statutory rape does not warrant death.

And I do hear Emily_G on the concern with victims when a family member might have committed the crime. But a child does not have the emotional maturity to make that decision. I would defer to the other parent first when deciding on whether the death penalty should be requested. But in some of those cases the other parent is biased due to their own emotional ties.

And that is when I have to say it would depend on the case at hand and the severity of the rape. I do believe that a judge and jury should have the right to request the death penalty for a rapist even if the victim and spouse do not wish it. Their emotions may cloud their judgement.

I do not agree with the comment that we are a barbaric society for putting criminals to death. Philisophically speaking, God banishes people to an eternity in Hell for living a sinful life. If all a government does is kill a criminal for their crimes, I think government is being kind.

Fact is, Ghandi does not work. Holding hands and asking everyone to love you does not work. The world is not that ideal. People will violate another citizen's rights and all I am saying is let the courts and families decide if death is a suitable punishment, not the Supreme Court. Give the control to the victim, their family and the courts (which are comprised of the community since the Attornies, Judge and Jury are all members of that local society).

AsaB

June 27th, 2008, 08:40 AM

Pandora's Eyes

June 27th, 2008, 11:27 AM

I'm absolutely against death penalties. What gives us any more right to take lives? We'll become murderers, just like the people we're supposedly trying to punish. As has been said, there are far worse punishments than death. If anything, I feel like death is the easy way out. We still don't know what's on the other side.

As for rapists who don't kill their victim, are you saying the only fitting punishment should be raping them back?

I'm all for putting felons into prisons, if only to hold them away from society and committing more crimes. There are basically two types of criminals, first are the ones who have this constant need and just keep on raping and killing. Sadly the majority of them don't change at all during their stay and keep doing their thing after having served their time. The other types are the ones who did it out of passion, in the heat of the moment. The majority of those guys never do anything faulty again, so it's rather pointless keeping them behind bars for long. Just something to think about, the whole penal system is kind of funky.

Heh, I'm around discussions like these very often, my SO is studying criminal law :]

So, if your kid brother slaps you and you ask him to stop because it's wrong, does he listen? Or do you have to yank his hair and twist his ear before he runs away complaining to mommy?

If a rapist breaks into your home and has a knife, you remind him of the hurt he will cause you and of the possible jail time he might receive if he is convicted and not released on outpatient psychotherapy probation because his troubled mental state led him to commit that crime of passion, will he listen?

What if you pulled out a shotgun from the hall closet and pointed it at the would-be rapist's chest and told him to get out? Would he listen to that?

Idealism is nice. It's like a warm bubble bath. It feels really good and wholesome. But you're ignoring the fact that essentially you are sitting in a tub full of warm bubble water and your own filth which is not draining down the pipes.

You can't coddle society. It doesn't work. You have to provide consequence for wrongdoing. And at some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and say these actions are unforgivable regardless of circumstances or excuses.

We aren't children. We are adult. We each of us have our God-given free will and choose our actions. We should be held accountable.

Rape is an act of terrorism. The rapist may not be murdering the victim physically, but he is murdering her spirit, her innocence. It's arguable, given enough rape crimes in one community, the whole community would begin to feel unsafe and paranoid. It has happened where I live in Dallas until the rapist tried breaking into a house in which the single mother owned a gun. She found him climbing in through the window of her six year old daughter's room.

She shot him in the chest four times.

Thankfully, in Texas, it is legal to shoot dead an intruder in your home.

Frankly, I am glad she killed the man. I am not willing to pay with my hard-earned tax dollars for him to sit in a State Prison and read books, lift weights and eat better than the homeless do. Death is definately the easy way out. It is easier on us taxpayers to end the life of a person unfit to live in our society. Why should I suffer the burden of paying for his existence when he was unable to manage an adult life on his own? I am not one for excuses.

Maybe in the rest of the world excuses are valid. But in America, it doesn't cut it for me. Our poor own cars! Where in the world do the poor still afford cars? Well, our lower class income earners do.

Our homeless have shelters. And if they wanted to, most metropolitan cities, New York, Los Angeles and Dallas included, have day-labor offices to hire workers who are paid in cash and whose credentials are never checked. This primarily employs illegal immigrants for labor jobs in construction or maintenance/repair, but it would serve as a means of employment for the homeless if they wanted to do the work.

In America, even our homeless have options. So, I don't believe in excuses. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world. And I say wealthy based on oppurtunity and the ability to change one's station in life. It is abundant here. We should stop pandering these social degenerates who feel raping a six year old is somehow excusable due to the emotional neglect or physical rape they themselves underwent in their childhood.

Cry me a river. You rape a girl in my town you hang. I have no sympathy. ...And will someone please stop treating these bastards as victims? Does the six year old girl mean nothing? I feel for her, not the asshole who can't keep his cock in his pants. Blah. I'm done. Sorry for the rant. >:{

Zaknafain

June 27th, 2008, 11:36 AM

kauser.ali:
your post (#32) ist a crude generalisation. You obviously have no clue about canada and europe and do not understand what the word "socialist" means.

nonie

June 27th, 2008, 11:52 AM

Rape is pretty fucking horrible, but so is insisting to the victim that she's no longer spirited or innocent. It's fucking sad but I know more girls who've been assaulted or molested or raped than otherwise, myself included, and you know what? A lot of us are living successful, happy lives and don't feel like we've been ruined forever.

Rapists don't commit rape out of lust, they do it out of rage and attempts at control and power. It's an assault, and it's fucking horrible, but how can a woman get over it when everyone around her insists it has ruined her forever to the point that the man has to die for it? I don't know any rape survivors that wish death on the guy, but hell yeah their dads and brothers do. Yeah the victims I know DO want the guys locked away from other women, maybe forever. But if you kill the guy it would just add to the guilt. Guilt is the biggest hurdle for rape victims anyway, the feeling that they somehow caused it (which isn't helped by the flawed belief that lust causes rape and that women are at fault for being too tempting, which are both untrue). Killing the guy compounds that.

Part of why they threw the penalty out was because it imposes a moral quandry on a person too young to understand it, and I agree with that. As someone who was victimized as a child (not of something quite so bad) if they'd killed the guy I would have been fucked up forever. I was pretty fucked up for a long time anyway but I got over it and got over the feelings of guilt and dirtiness - and a big part of that was realizing it's NOT lust and it's not my fault, and what happened DIDN'T taint my body, my body is just fine. If the guy had "swung" for it... I would think all sexual feeling was poison FOREVER. I wouldn't have been able to get over it.

That and I don't believe in the death penalty.

Hyskoa

June 27th, 2008, 12:27 PM

Death would mean they get a free escape. Just put them in my basement.
They'll live a very, very long life.

Peter Coene

June 27th, 2008, 12:40 PM

Rapists don't commit rape out of lust, they do it out of rage and attempts at control and power. It's an assault, and it's fucking horrible,
I don't doubt the rest of what you've said and am sorry to hear what has happened to you, and I don't doubt that that in your case the act had nothing to do with lust and had everything to do with control and power. However, I think to say that ALL rape it this way is a generalization. Is the 19 year old guy who has sex with is 16 year old girlfriend not acting out of lust? Is it just a matter of control and power? What about in the cases where the girl says "no" at the last minute and the guy doesn't take her seriously because he is already turned on and his mind is too clouded by the thought he is going to get some nookie? Or in the case where they get back from a date and she is too drunk to say no and he is too drunk to realise it? Do all of these cases have nothing to do with lust?

Guys, think of it; I'm not saying you would act on such intentions, but have you ever seen a girl and gone "wow, she's frickin HAWT!!!" before realising that she is underage and you try to curb you thoughts so as not to get drawn in by something that could get you into more trouble than you want to deal with? Does that make her any less hot? As such, if you had less common sense and she been consenting would you not be acting out of lust?

Granted, in all of my experiences I have never been raped, nor commited rape, however I think that if rape only was a matter of control and power then we would have to let a whole lot of people out of prison right now for rapes that they did not commit.

Craig D

June 27th, 2008, 12:47 PM

Peter,
you're an asshole.

Blue

June 27th, 2008, 12:52 PM

I can't believe this topic is still going...

Peter Coene

June 27th, 2008, 12:56 PM

Peter,
you're an asshole.
Whoa, ease up, I am nothing of the sort. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't make me an asshole and I don't like the implication that I am.

AsaB

June 27th, 2008, 01:07 PM

So, if your kid brother slaps you and you ask him to stop because it's wrong, does he listen? Or do you have to yank his hair and twist his ear before he runs away complaining to mommy?

If a rapist breaks into your home and has a knife, you remind him of the hurt he will cause you and of the possible jail time he might receive if he is convicted and not released on outpatient psychotherapy probation because his troubled mental state led him to commit that crime of passion, will he listen?

What if you pulled out a shotgun from the hall closet and pointed it at the would-be rapist's chest and told him to get out? Would he listen to that?

Of course it's always more efficient to threat a would-be rapist with a gun rather than preaching about jailtime, I totally agree. If a raging maniac is coming through your window, I'd do anything to hold him away from me and my loved ones, even if it means to kill him.

However, that wasn't my point. I'm against death penalty by the government, where educated and civil people take well-thought out decisions to take another person's life. In the situation you took, it's often a matter of seconds, his life or yours. Of course you choose your own. I think that advanced societies in the 21st centuries shouldn't have death penalties, I find it barbaric, no matter the terrible crime.

But Blue has a point! This is a rather depressing topic, how about we get back to our drawing boards? :yayca:

nonie

June 27th, 2008, 01:12 PM

No, Peter, it's true, you are.

In the types of rapes you're describing, nobody is ever given the death sentence so it doesn't even apply to this discussion.

Why the fuck bring it up besides to disagree with my post?

Congratulations, you've become the *only* person on my ignore list :D

sve

June 27th, 2008, 01:12 PM

Why he is an asshole? I agree with him in this post. I would like to know what you see outrageous in his post? I do know that if the girl said no, even in the last minute, the partner in sex should stop.

Other than that he talks about the term Rape being stretched too much to the things of the different nature. Many girls don't look their age and hide it from the man. I can see situation like this. There were times when coworkers used this accusation to bend the opposite side, to blackmail.

Nonie has a strong post, a lot of truth.

nonie

June 27th, 2008, 01:57 PM

BuckWeisel

June 27th, 2008, 02:03 PM

Anyone who regularly posts in the Lounge is an asshole.

Ilaekae

June 27th, 2008, 02:05 PM

Sve, I'm going to give this a try, but maybe I won't be able to do it properly...

Rape IS an act of violence and control. Always. This is because the entire act is the result of ONE person attacking another, often without warning or show of intent.

Being 15 and wanting to get it on with your 19-year-old boyfriend is SEX. Not violence. It may not be socially acceptable, but it IS sex. It should not be referred to as rape in any legal or social sense, but laws are written by men traditionally who think their wimmin-folk need protection from the world because they're just to damn stupid to survive without a real man telling them what to do and how to think.

This is known as Patriarchal Bull Shit. Examples are easy to find, even on this forum.

If the 15-year-old lady above changes her mind mid-stream, she has a very real possibility of the sex she wanted escalating to actual rape if the moron she's with thinks he's got all the rights in the world. I would call this a case of aggravated rape. It's still an act of violence and control, but she may be at least partially at fault for helping create the particular situation they find themselves in. This DOES NOT mean she's guilty of anything but being a bit of an idiot. She is a victim at that point, because the situation changed from consensual sex to an act of forcible assault and violence. Did that help or make things worse?

Please note that this thread started as a discussion of CHILD rape...which CAN NEVER be considered a sexual act. You need consenting ADULTS or at least two people of similar maturity that understand what they are doing.

************************************************** *****

"Manslaughter(3rd degree) is when it is entirely accidental, as in cases of drunk drivers running over pedestrians."--Peter Coene

Tripping and falling under a bus is an accident.

Having a fatal heart attack/strok while driving and hitting someone else is an accident.

Being a pile of subhuman shit that thinks it's his or her right to drive after drinking for two solid hours and killing someone is NOT a fuckin' accident. It's cold-blooded murder. In some specific cases, the argument could be made logically that it's actually a form of premeditated murder. There is no way it can ever be considered an "accident" according to the definition of "accident." Please get your factual terminology right.

***********************************************

And while I'm making friends here, I've just discovered that "Canada, Europe and many other places" are Socialist, but "America" is not. It doesn't matter one way or the other if i agree or disagree with that statement, BUT...I thought that Canada was a part of FUCKING AMERICA! Or are we talking about a corporate/capitalist self-important SINGLE area of America called the United States here? Just wanted to make sure I was clear on what was being said here...

TASmith

June 27th, 2008, 02:07 PM

Sigh... everytime I see one of these threads I know it's gonna be a train wreck with hurt feelings and artists creating animosities... Meanwhile no one has any ability to actually change or affect the topic under debate.

"For every ten things I have to say, I edit nine of them."

Gory

June 27th, 2008, 02:14 PM

"wow, she's frickin HAWT!!!" before realising that she is underage

Wow, all I have to say is there is a VERY big difference between consent laws and actual rape.

Just wow.

Dan!

June 27th, 2008, 02:16 PM

...on second thought...Camelot is a silly place.

Jason Rainville

June 27th, 2008, 02:21 PM

Uh, this might have went over my head but... In Peter's post he wasn't an asshole. He said what he said with tact and didn't insult anyone, he stated his opinion on rape with an ending qualifier that he's never raped nor been raped and could be wrong about it.

Off topic? Yea.

Wrong? Maybe.

Asshole? Uh..... no? Don't need to call people names when they say things you don't agree with, kids.

EDIT: to keep on topic I only really have to say that I'm against the death penalty if only for the reason that we can and have been wrong about what people actually did.

sve

June 27th, 2008, 02:24 PM

I don't see any contradiction with what I said actually. maybe I need to go and sit in solitude and think one more time,,, but a question....
Consensual sex between lets say 22 yeas old and 15 yeas old with her lying about her age to him... what kind of thing is that? In law of this country it is a rape. In my eyes is not.

And children... in this country you are a child if you are under 18. She might be biologically mature but if she is under age and even if she said yes and yes please,,, he is a rapist.

Recent case: Kansas...Kansas law says sex with anyone under 14, even if it's consensual, is rape. One 14 years old girl was partying with her friends, then she and one of the boys separated from others into the room, and as was said he forced himself on her: vaginal and anal sex. Correction: just anally and not very successfully.

After one month she decided to talk to canceler in her school. Her partner in sex ran quickly to police station,,, and the conclusion: she raped him with her behind because he was younger her and underage. She is charged with raping and performing sodomy (!) on miner now, awaiting her court. Ridiculous if you ask me.

http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?s=6731396

Blue

June 27th, 2008, 02:42 PM

I feel like this is a topic no matter how long or short, anyone who reads will be put in a bad mood. This isn't a justice/political forum...We already have some flaming, users being put on ignore.. seriously, this needs to be put away before more stupid happens...Am I alone in this thought?

sve

June 27th, 2008, 02:44 PM

I'm not with you, Blue. Topics should be open for discussion. Knowledge comes from discussion, ignorance decreases... we just need to learn how to talk civilly and impersonally :).

~Faust~

June 27th, 2008, 02:52 PM

dark eagle

June 27th, 2008, 03:09 PM

I have to say I'm for the matter of murder for rape. If someone raped me I'd kill them(i have the meanest bad looks on earth).

I carry a pencil with me most times, super strength 1975 lead, made of lead-the posinous kind(doesnt kill, it makes them pass out)|live by the pencil kill by the pencil.

Pandora's Eyes

June 27th, 2008, 03:15 PM

Damnit I can't resist....

Why do you keep insisting it is self-defense for a country to give death-penalty to murderers or rapists? The state is not your friend, it does not use it's power for _your_ benefit. I understand that the US hasn't had a dictatorship until now so you might not be aware of the consequences entrusting your government with the power to decide who lives and who dies.

One more reason I am against death-penalty-

Regarding rape, I do not see any more point to be made on that matter.

There is no "state" in an elected government. We are not communist run by the military. We have officials that have been elected either through the people voting for them or through people choosing not to vote and having someone elected who does not represent the actual will of the people. Inaction is a choice.

The nice thing is these people can be removed from office if "WE THE PEOPLE" exercise our Constitutional power.

In the case of the death penalty, again it is not the state doing the sentencing. The family of the victim may request it. The Prosecutor, again, a member of the community and someone who may be removed from their office, must agree to pursue it. A Jury, a panel of selected members of the community must vote in favor of it. And then finally, a Judge, also an elected official who may be removed from office, must consent with the Jury's decision.

And to top it off, even after a death sentence is granted there is a lengthy process of appeals.

Furthermore, before the actual sentencing is carried out a Governor may grant pardon simply of their good will. Once again, the will of the people is carried out.

There is no State. No arbitrary group of men and women on top of some mountain pulling our strings. If that is what we as citizens choose to believe, shame on us. The fact is, the control always has been and will remain with the people because no matter how strong a government body becomes, its people will always outnumber its politicians, military and police.

My qualm is with the Supreme Court taking the power away from the people. The death penalty in child rape cases should be permissable of all of the above criteria are met. The people of the community wherein the crime was committed must choose.

Pandora's Eyes

June 27th, 2008, 03:37 PM

The topic on discussion here is the removal of the death sentence from the rape of *children.*

A "men can't help it" reaction is the whole reason why there's guilt on the woman's part associated with rape at all. Trying to equate statutory rape of a consenting, biologically mature teenage girl, to a CHILD being victimized is beyond reason. To do so just to argue and not to otherwise contribute anything at all is just plain disrespectful and flippant.

I liked what you had to say about feelings of guilt. I'm a guy and won't pretend to relate, and so will respect your experience and opinion.

As someone who hopes to do well at raising a daughter someday, I have to say I abhor any hint of suggestion that women "tempt" men into raping them.

That line of thinking requires women apologize for being born women. I want no excuses for men who choose to rape a child. As people have illustrated, that is not sex in any fashion.

I do not like the thought that a child, or even a grown adult woman, could be made to feel guilty if her attacker were put to death by the will of the community. What is there to feel guilty about? In my opinion, such a person does not deserve to live in any healthy society. They are a stain to any society. Why the guilt?

From what I can tell, only a woman or girl who was made to feel somehow responsible for the rape would feel guilty. And, as a man, I have to say there is no way you can hold a child responsible for rape. A girl in her teens maybe, but typically I would think those incidents would fall under statutory rape and not the violent rape we have been discussing. Statutory rape does not require death. And, depending on the situation, may not even require punishment. I do see the fault of a patriarchal judicial system there.

But in a violent rape situation, how can there be any argument made that such a person has a place in a civil society? And the argument people are making that civilized societies do not require such methods is incorrect.

Human beings, of any type of society, require consequences to instill morality and ethics. Most of our morality is created through our families, our culture, our religion and our laws. Personal preference will play a part at a more mature stage, not at childhood.

Even religion requires harsh punishment for proper behavior. I'm not discussing the validity of religion here, but the philosophy. As a concept, if God believed mankind would behave of their own volition, why would God prescribe eternal Hell as a punishment for violations of his moral code?

In every society people are governed by consequence.

But in a society that has achieved a moderate level of success, any country with an economy that sustains the needs and wants of its people fits the bill, moral ambiguity begins to bleed through. We begin to question the justness and fairness of our laws. We begin to create more grey area. We begin to feel reason and rationality rule the world.

The problem is this: we feel reason rules the world because we have been afforded the comforts of freedom from want. Those in the world and in our own societies who still feel a hunger for their wants do not share our rationality.

Point in case: there is more violence and crime in low-income communities. In the Middle East, where the economy is quite State-controlled and Socialist, the majority of the people do not share in the wealth and success of the coroporations and government. And so, our logic and reason are not their logic and reason. They are constantly pained by the hunger they feel for their wants and needs. We are not.

I argue that a person from a economically comfortable community is less likely, not impossible, but less likely, to commit an act of violent rape, especially the rape of a child than someone from an economically struggling community.

But my addendum to that is this: in America, where we are not Socialist, where our wealth is not controlled by government or military and our people are free to choose where and how they work, we should not make the excuse for someone who commits a crime, any crime, that they are merely the products of their upbringing and community.

In our country we are all free to choose to better ourselves. And I say this as an immigrant born in Bangladesh, where the Socialist culture and economy has led to the country's brightest minds fleeing to other countries to achieve the lifestyle they desire.

nonie

June 27th, 2008, 04:02 PM

I agree that there should be consequences of course. But making the penalty for rape the same as that for murder sends the message to the victim that they are as good as dead. That they are so tainted by the experience that they will never have a full and fruitful life. That virginity and "pureness" were the most valuable things they had, and without it they will forever more be worthless and traumatized and dirtied. It's bad enough when you're 19 or 16, but to hear that when you're 5 or 6 would be almost worse than the crime in question in terms of self-esteem and would serve to perpetuate and exacerbate the trauma.

Sundance

June 27th, 2008, 04:25 PM

Ghandi does work...just ask the British.

You say you are leaning to the conservitive side and making this a right/left issue. Please note that the 7 of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by sitting Republican Presidents, only 2 were appointed by Democrats.

The law is not written along party lines, it is written in black and white.
The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the US Constitution, not play Pontius Pilate and appease the mob's call for blood.

Edit... In my mind Killing someone would be considered "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"...that is why we convict people for killing people.

dusty imp

June 27th, 2008, 04:44 PM

seems to me the main reason for dissent in this topic is misunderstanding about what exactly others mean by "child". everyone in here seems to have their own definition for the term.

sve

June 27th, 2008, 04:58 PM

'In most states, the age of consent is sixteen, although some states have made the age seventeen or eighteen.
Age of Consent: Sexual Activity
.....

In most states (though not all), the age of consent for sexual activity prevents minor children from consenting to sexual intercourse. In some states, this applies to oral sex as well. This theory of law represents the idea that children under the age of consent are not able to consent to sexual intercourse.

Sexual intercourse that occurs between a minor child and an of-age adult is called “statutory rape”. This can be misleading because we don’t think of rape as consensual, but since the law holds that minor children are unable to consent, it is still rape."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71914/age_of_consent_in_criminal_law.html

sve

June 27th, 2008, 05:04 PM

Interesting info:

Age of criminal responsibility:

"In Scotland the age of responsibility is eight years, In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the age of responsibility is ten years and in the Netherlands and Canada, the age of responsibility is twelve years. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway all set the age at fifteen years. In most of the US states, the age varies between states but is normally not lower than 7 years. In Belgium, it is eighteen years. As the treaty parties of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court could not agree on a minimum age for criminal responsibility, they chose to solve the question procedurally and excluded the jurisdiction of the Court for persons under 18 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

sve

June 27th, 2008, 05:06 PM

One more interesting thing.

Age of consent

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

sve

June 27th, 2008, 05:21 PM

Conclusion:
So dear Illy&C... Maybe being 15 and wanting to get it on with your 19-year-old boyfriend should not be referred to as rape in any legal or social sense, but law sees it all the same.
Following from conclusion:
Peter Coene is not an asshole.

Peter Coene

June 27th, 2008, 07:53 PM

I can understand why someone would misunderstand what I have said in a way that would make me appear a bit assholish, but please bear with me and at least allow me to answer your question before everyone jumps at my throat for this.

In the types of rapes you're describing, nobody is ever given the death sentence so it doesn't even apply to this discussion.

Why the fuck bring it up besides to disagree with my post?

All that I was responding to was the idea that "Rapists don't commit rape out of lust, they do it out of rage and attempts at control and power."

I did not say that the types of rapists that I was talking about can receive the death penalty, nor did you say in your orriginal post that the rapists you were referring to were by definition those that we consider giving the death penalty to. All that was mentioned in that sentance was "rapists" and I went out of my way to state that while I agreed with the rest of your post I took issue with that one sentance.

Look, I have been an asshole in the past. Usually, if anyone remembers, I have apologised for it. However, this is not about my being an asshole. I am not trying to go for the throat in arguments the way I usually do, I'm not defending Hitler's status as a human being, I'm not insulting someone elses art in an attempt to point out how stupid they are in their oppinions about art. All I did was state an oppinion about what the intent might be behind a terrible attrocious type of crime, as well as behind some other types of crimes that according to the law carry the same name.

I do not feel that choosing to beleive these things and expressing them makes me an asshole. Granted, I might turn into one while trying to protect or argue these beleifs, but in this particular case I have not yet and am going to try to remain civil to avoid doing so in the future.

Regardless of that, Nonie, as I know you have ign'd me you probably won't see this. However, if I have inadvertantly caused you anguish, which aparently I have, I truly am sorry. I don't like hurting other people's feelings, even when I don't meant to. If it isn't obvious yet I'm oppinionated, and occasionally spout off about oppinions that are only loosely related to a topic, but I truly try not to do so in a mean spirited way. Granted I've screwed up with that in the past but in this particular instance was really and truly not trying to do so. Once again, due to the ign you probably missed this, but at least I've said it.

Jasonwclark

June 27th, 2008, 08:17 PM

With the death penalty, it seems like at every step in the process of condemnation, the culpability and responsibility for the death is deferred. From the cops who make the initial arrest, to the prosecutor who argues the case, the judge who delivers the sentence and the jailer who incarcerates... right down to the anonymous guy who ends up pulling the trigger, or throwing the switch (whatever the case may be.) Nobody ever really has to assume genuine responsibility for the death at hand. I think if you really want someone dead that badly, you should be willing to kill them yourself, and face up to whatever consequences might follow (from the Erinyes, to the lawsuits, come what may.) The way we do things now is so sterile and cold and protracted. Proponents of the death penalty should watch Dead Man Walking or The Green Mile, read Camus, or maybe actually see one of these things happen first hand. Its not pretty, and its not a bloody spectacle for the mob like it used to be. No badasses with Colt 45's, settling the score Wild West style. Nowadays it’s all needles and wires and glass. I don't know, I guess I'm probably letting my amorality shine through a bit much here, but at least Dexter gets the job done quickly. Death by the state isn't particularly quick or cheap. It still costs a lot of money, even in Texas, to end someone like that. So what it really comes down to I think, is a statement about your particular position on punishment and retribution. Whether you think the law works, and whether you believe that the fear of death has any bearing on criminal behavior.

I'm not sure though, that’s all very ‘responsibility’ driven language. If you start asking more serious questions along these lines, it moves you into dangerous territory, where neuroscience and genetics start to muddy the waters and make things uncomfortable. Underlying the idea of the criminal act, or the need for its punishment, is the broader idea of agency and individual will. Many educated people (the high ground in Academia) no longer believe this. Some of the brightest luminaries in Biology, Philosophy, Engineering etc. deny it publically and more so in private conversation. No ghost in the machine, just synapses firing, complex chemical relationships and physical laws. In that case, the criminal couldn't really be faulted for engaging in the criminal act, anymore than we could be faulted for then killing the criminal, because its all deterministic, or else chaotic, and either way still beyond our control. We pretty much just respond to the events as they come at us, and the workings of the conscious mind are like afterthoughts; they arise in response to something that was already bound to occur. In this respect many of our legal doctrines are still grounded on a Roman Christian tradition that's somewhat outmoded, or at least out of sync with many of our other modern ideas. It's hard to remain consistent. You could probably use the same physical laws that make the electric chair work, to show that murderers and rapists have a genetic predisposition which makes this behavior more likely for them. Or perhaps even show which areas of the brain are responsible for certain behaviors like pedophilia. I imagine there are probably neuroscientists somewhere in the world that have already published papers on it, or are preparing to do the research. What do we do if the evidence bares out though? Forced lobotomy? Castration or gene manipulation for those effected with the predisposition? It’s a hard problem to manage

Sorry for blathering on there, but I almost went into this field before I decided that I liked drawing more than writing. The field of Ethics I mean. Philosophy isn't really a paying gig unless you're willing to do ethics, and explain to whoever why "x is right" and "y wrong," and "federal funding shouldn't go to that because its unethical" etc. But I dislike Mill, and find the logic-heavy syllogistic writing, to be too dry and uninspired. Nobody ever wants to talk about Nietzsche in a court room, and nobody cares much what the current vanguard in the Anglo-American and Continental traditions have to say. Its all Augustine or Utilitarianism, or some hybrid of the two that I don't really believe in and have trouble following after long stints. Most people I know who studied Philosophy or Rhetoric in school went into Law, or possibly teaching (usually the better ones into teaching.) But I don't really have a taste for either anymore. My issue has always been that I disliked the way discussions were conducted: how students were generally trained attack and silence each other's positions, by framing complex arguments and then trying to dismantle and destroy them. I think it engenders a kind of hostility and mean spiritedness inimical to thoughtful discussion … something I’ve described in the past as a kind of 'wolf pack' mentality, and I sometimes see similar patterns on various discussions forums as well. It’s curious too, because one week you'll see a guy argue one position with all this fervor and fire in him, and the next week he'll come back arguing a totally contradictory position with equal zeal. It becomes like a game, or a puzzle, that everyone is just competing to solve. Or, to keep with the wolf pack analogy, everyone just vies for those Alpha and Beta spots, without much real consideration of the given position they're adopting at the time. Basically what happens (and I've seen this over and over again) is that the discussion invariably moves from an emphasis on content, to an emphasis on form. People start dragging in fallacies, and defining terms, and the whole character of the thing gets distorted.

In casual conversation, I can almost always tell whether someone is going to be amicable to entertaining a certain idea or a certain train of discourse, or whether it’s just going to degenerate into a normal argument. You can’t read people like that on a public forum though, because you never know who might come along and respond. Better to be careful what you say to the internet, and how you say it, even more so. On that note I should probably follow my own advice. Apologize if any of that seemed off base, just thinking about arguments and assholes and whatnot.

I do not feel that choosing to believe these things and expressing them makes me an asshole. Granted, I might turn into one while trying to protect or argue these beliefs.

Try to avoid that then

Personally, I like to be an asshat lounge lizard as much as the next guy, but I much prefer pictures when I’m cruising around on the CA boards. So here are some mildly relevant ones.

Peter Coene

June 27th, 2008, 09:06 PM

2100

June 27th, 2008, 09:27 PM

I agree with the ruling. Rape doesn't warrant a death penalty. Like DS said, the punishment should fit the crime. Only murder should be punishable by death.

Rist

June 28th, 2008, 04:54 AM

I'm sorry I thought we lived in a civilized society. Especially in the west Death as a punishment should be abandoned. I a dude rapes he should be turned into a woman, if a woman rapes, she should be surely out of her mind and locked up.

DeadlyFreeze

June 28th, 2008, 05:09 AM

I'm surprised no one mentioned this little doozey

The bill would allow judges to order chemical castrations for convicted rapists and other sex offenders. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2206684/John-McCain's-'running-mate'-Bobby-Jindal-backs-chemical-castration-bill.html)

Peter Coene

June 28th, 2008, 05:15 AM

TASmith

June 28th, 2008, 02:28 PM

chemical castration? How does that work? I figure, some general anesthetic, scalpel and thread would be best, you know if anyone had to take that road.

Ilaekae

June 28th, 2008, 02:40 PM

Simple mechanical rape prevention kit...

nonie

June 28th, 2008, 04:46 PM

Prometheus|ANJ

June 28th, 2008, 09:38 PM

Rape is perhaps different from many other crimes, because a lot of people have sex frequently and are perfectly okay with it. It's not like gunshot wounds or stabbings which are very likely to be involuntary. Sex can become rape when the victim decides it is rape. It's also not boolean, 'rape' or 'not rape', it can be anything in between, or just some related feeling. The human mind is a very complex thing... although people's tendency to think in boolean terms superficially speaks against that notion.

Physical castration as a punishment doesn't fit because:

Castration is boolean while the crime is not.
Castration is probably irreversible, which sucks if you're found innocent later.

Also, personally I'm inclined to agree with Jesus on the whole forgiveness thing he had going. We should minimize the harm being done. Of course, it's not as simple as that, I can see the idea with punishment as a form of deterrence or a way to get rid of the incorrigible, but punishment as revenge is just... weak.

Mirana

June 28th, 2008, 11:48 PM

Rape is perhaps different from many other crimes, because a lot of people have sex frequently and are perfectly okay with it. It's not like gunshot wounds or stabbings which are very likely to be involuntary. Sex can become rape when the victim decides it is rape. It's also not boolean, 'rape' or 'not rape', it can be anything in between, or just some related feeling. The human mind is a very complex thing... although people's tendency to think in boolean terms superficially speaks against that notion.

I'm confused. Sex does not equal rape. A lot of people go out and shoot animals or people and society is "okay" with it. When is rape ever voluntary? Or do you mean statutory rape? Also confused on the "anything in between/related feeling"...there are degrees of sexual mis-conduct, not all of which are rape. I was also under the impression that rape under the law had certain qualifiers like the "victim" having made clear that they did not want the act to take place.

Isn't castration currently done only if the criminal requests it? Pretty sure required castration would be mutilation/inhumane and we're against that.

Forgiveness is a fantastic idea, but unless you've BEEN raped, can you really say that's the answer? Ideally I want to be against death penality, but if I haven't ever been a victim of a crime where that was a punishment, could I say how I'd feel? :/

(I thought "Boolean" was a mathematical term only...?)

Dan!

June 29th, 2008, 12:22 AM

(I thought "Boolean" was a mathematical term only...?)

logic-either true or false

Prometheus|ANJ

June 29th, 2008, 01:28 AM

I'm not sure how to comment on that. I think you misunderstood me, gravely.

Yeah, boolean values are 1 or 0. Analog values can be in between. Then there's false choice, that an issue is either A or B when it could be C or F, or a little of each. A,B,C and D could define dimensions, and the issue at hand could be a point in space, or a ambiguity field even.

So we have two words to describe this very complex field. Rape or not-rape. This means that we have to collapse and truncate the field when we use any of these two words.

Mirana

June 29th, 2008, 01:43 AM

Yah...I did say I was confused...meaning I would like you to clarify.

tarwater

June 29th, 2008, 01:43 AM

If a person rapes a child they may or may not be deserving death, I don't know, but I don't think the punishment for someone convicted for such a crime should be death simply because of what others have already said, and that is our justice system is far from perfect. Innocent people ARE convicted. Every week in the news you hear about another rapist that has served X number of years getting proved innocent by improved DNA analysis and such.

I think that is what some people don't understand. People who believe that the rapist deserves death may be right, but the ability of our justice system to know %100 for certain that the accused is actually the person who committed the crime??...our courts aren't that fool proof. If the person is falsely convicted and executed they are going to %100 irreversibly dead.
There should be room to fix that mistake.
There are crimes that people can commit that are definitely deserving of death, but because of what I just said, I can't support the death penalty, regardless of the crime.

TASmith

June 29th, 2008, 05:29 AM

So what's this chemical castration? Still no one's explained it. Exactly what chemicals are involved here?

bluefooted

June 29th, 2008, 06:07 AM

So what's this chemical castration? Still no one's explained it. Exactly what chemicals are involved here?

You shoot up rapists with Depo-Provera (progestin, I believe) and it kills their sex drives.

But anyone who's even read this thread can see the problem with that...

TASmith

June 29th, 2008, 12:40 PM

I remember some news show where a child molester volunteered for some form of castration to stop his urges - also as a way to get out of prison sooner.

So does the drug permanently kill the urges or is it just temporary?

nonie

June 29th, 2008, 01:25 PM

It's a hormone, one women use for birth control, and as such I would think it's temporary. Women can use it and then go off it and regain the ability to get pregnant.

TASmith

June 29th, 2008, 01:31 PM

well then that's hardly castration. When I first heard that written I had some frightning notion of something along the lines of liquid drain cleaner.

*shudders*

dark eagle

June 29th, 2008, 01:53 PM

What i dont get is if a child didnt give consent(which would be useless any way in this case) the offender would have the responsobillity for the consequnces, but if the tables were turned and the child rapes someone who doesn't give consent the blame is passed onto the parents and the childs responsobility is overlooked. Talking about pedophiles heres something kinda off-topic but there ya go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5f73EHRhA

hit me at 30 theres a 80% chance ill live,hit me at 40 theres a 80% chance ill die, drive past me 20 and theres a 100% chance youll go to jail.

Serpian

June 29th, 2008, 03:10 PM

I don't think it should be a question of whether the rapist should be symathized with or not. I think it's a simpe question of principles. I think death penalties are wrong, always.

Peter Coene

June 29th, 2008, 06:59 PM

I don't think it should be a question of whether the rapist should be symathized with or not. I think it's a simpe question of principles. I think death penalties are wrong, always.
But then you are left at the point of one person thinking its wrong and another thinking its right and conversation becomes a deadlock. If you have one person who beleives in the death penalty for one reason and another who does for another reason then the conversation covers other matters that are related, though somewhat tangential, and becomes a lot more interesting.

daestwen

June 29th, 2008, 08:11 PM

That would not work in America. Canada, Europe and many other places as well have a calmer social climate than America. So the penal system may be less severe there and crime will not escalate.

In a socialist economy there is less crime. In a capitalist economy there is more crime. There are pros and cons to both forms of economy and government. The point is, while I acknowledge Canada, Europe and Japan do not require the severity of sentencing America employs, all of those areas of the world lean towards a socialist government and economy which offers fewer consequences to the lesser sentences.

Um, sorry, this took me a while since I haven't been around and this is probably off topic but...

uh..

since when was Canada a 'socialist' country (or with a 'socialist' economy)? I mean, we lean to the left, sure, but we are most assuredly a capitalist country, through and through...

As for statutory rape... I think it's a really hard discussion on that one. I mean, technically, under that definition, my first time having sex would qualify as 'statutory' rape here in Canada (14, but you can only have sex with people up to two years older than you, until you're 18, and then you can't have sex with anyone younger). But it was with someone I loved and had been with for over a year, so it would be a ridiculous statement to call it rape in any sense of the idea.

We use to marry off girls at 12, man. Saying that NO 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 year old can make a conscience choice about their sexuality is dumb. The law really is only there because there are people that know how to take advantage of people - especially people who haven't had a lot of experience in life - and that law is there so that we can get them with something, if otherwise it would be considered 'consensual'.

Mirana

June 29th, 2008, 11:43 PM

Saying that NO 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 year old can make a conscience choice about their sexuality is dumb. The law really is only there because there are people that know how to take advantage of people - especially people who haven't had a lot of experience in life - and that law is there so that we can get them with something, if otherwise it would be considered 'consensual'.

Mmm, I think part of it is adults thinking "What is the age at which someone could make an informed decision about sex." That's pretty subjective as not everyone is going to have the same maturity level. Even then you could be completely mature but not have had the experience to know when a much older partner is playing to your emotions. I think the real problem area is when the "older" partner is really not that much older, but is just out of the 18 cut-off. I think it comes down to...if you're older than 18 and your partner isn't, then you need to take cold showers and wait a couple yrs. You and the partner may be in love, but mom or dad may not think so and that's not worth jail time.

Peter Coene

June 30th, 2008, 01:46 AM

Mmm, I think part of it is adults thinking "What is the age at which someone could make an informed decision about sex." That's pretty subjective as not everyone is going to have the same maturity level. Even then you could be completely mature but not have had the experience to know when a much older partner is playing to your emotions. I think the real problem area is when the "older" partner is really not that much older, but is just out of the 18 cut-off.
I agree that is part of it, but I think that one of the most important factors is this:

Parents don't want to admit that their little angel could be sexually mature.

If you make a law that says "people under 18 are not sexually mature and cannot make such decisions for themselves" then adults can point the finger at someone other than their teenage offspring. "My 17 year old would never do something like that! S/He is too pure and innocent! The big bad 21 year old must have currupted and seduced him/her!" Notice that the age of concent is higher in states where parents have more of a tendancy to be overprotective of their brood, whereas in others where the parents would be more likely to blame the little twerps, and maybe smack them arround a few times for being stupid then force them to get married, the age of consent is lower.

Pandora's Eyes

June 30th, 2008, 01:42 PM

I think the biggest problem we have here is people believing in an ideal society.

Listen, Jesus had a great idea. Loving everyone and turning the other cheek if someone hits you sounds fantastic. BUT IT DOES NOT WORK!

Jesus got killed. Brutally. I'm not saying let's all be vengeful and hate everyone who has ever harmed us. No. Forgiveness is important for our own emotional well-being. By forgiving others we in turn learn to forgive ourselves and better ourselves and society as a whole.

I'm all for forgiveness. But not blind forgiveness for everything done. Forgiveness should be earned, not given.

And this whole argument that sentencing someone to death for the rape of a child makes the child feel like she is as good as dead since the penalty for rape was the same for that of murder...wow, i can't even begin... that's a whole lot of speculation and assumption there.

first off, none of us know what is in their neighbor's heart and mind. we cannot say for certain EVERY child who is raped and has his/her rapist put to death would -definately- feel he/she is as good as dead.

second, the punishment for the crime is meant for the convicted, not for the victim. no one is saying a raped child is as good as dead. the states which believe in death for child rape are simply saying to them, the act of raping a child is just as severe and vulgar as that of adult homicide. that's all.

there is nothing wrong with that. if a particular state and community believe raping a child is just as despicable an act as cold-blooded murder then that society feels pretty strongly about protecting the lives of children and not showing compassion for rapists. that's fine with me.

and this holier than thou attitude people adopt, death is wrong, period, jesus said forgive... GOD CONDEMNS YOU TO HELL if you don't follow his rules... again, i'm not wanting to open up a discussion on the validity of religion.

my point is simply philosophical: those who quote religion and the teachings of ghandi/buddha/jesus to proclaim putting someone to death is wrong, those same religions declare a punishment of eternal Hell for failing to follow God's rules for man.

bottom line, you screw up major, you don't belong in a civilized society.
the death penalty, as well as war, serve a basic societal function as well.
we are over-populated as a planet. we are running out of food and/or the ability to cost-effectively produce/deliver that food to the masses.

so, i say darwinism rules. survival of the fittest. if you are a violent criminal and unfit for society, obviously you are not the most fit of that society. you don't deserve to continue your existence. it's been a waste anyway. why shed a tear?

if you are a pacifist country unwilling to lift a finger to help the people of your own nation...say...myanmar... a military coup that does not want to feed its own people... i say invade and destroy the current establishment. let the people of myanmar who have been starving become the new leaders in a democratic government. i bet you the people of that country will eat more if they are in charge than their current government.

same goes for iraq. screw the dictatorship. let the people of iraq govern themselves. again, war will eliminate the socially unfit/weak.

it will decrease the high population. it all serves to balance life on earth.
stop crying and empathizing with violent criminals and child rapists.

this serves no purpose and does not progress society and/or mankind.

Presence

June 30th, 2008, 02:08 PM

I don't think it is reasonable to take away any option from a jury. If you have a group of ethical individuals who come to sentence of death based on both sides of the argument you must allow that sentencing to take place.

If you force the jury to operate within a set of constraints prior to the argument I believe you are actually keeping the accused of a true trial.

BuckWeisel

June 30th, 2008, 02:26 PM

my point is simply philosophical: those who quote religion and the teachings of ghandi/buddha/jesus to proclaim putting someone to death is wrong, those same religions declare a punishment of eternal Hell for failing to follow God's rules for man.

Buddhism is an atheistic religion, no god nor satan to put a person in hell.

bottom line, you screw up major, you don't belong in a civilized society.
the death penalty, as well as war, serve a basic societal function as well.
we are over-populated as a planet. we are running out of food and/or the ability to cost-effectively produce/deliver that food to the masses.

We certainly have the capacity to produce enough food for everyone but everyone doesn't want to be a farmer for a living.

so, i say darwinism rules. survival of the fittest. if you are a violent criminal and unfit for society, obviously you are not the most fit of that society. you don't deserve to continue your existence. it's been a waste anyway. why shed a tear?

Social Darwinism isn't the same as the original Darwinism. In the eyes of true Darwinism, the murderer is the fittest and the person that got killed is the weakest. Of course weapons kind void Darwinism since its the person with the bigger gun and not really a matter of physical strength or genetic traits. When you talk of Social Darwinism you must recognize that emotions and general opinion of society is in play in which, again, it has very little to do with "fittest." We save weak people everyday simply because of our values and compassion.

If you think you are a fan of Social Darwinism, think about it next time you find yourself in the minority of opinion and are being ostracized even though you may have a smarter idea than society. Either that or don't go to the hospital next time you are fatally wounded. Society doesn't want you to contaminate their precious gene pool with your stupid DNA.

same goes for iraq. screw the dictatorship. let the people of iraq govern themselves. again, war will eliminate the socially unfit/weak.

Or the war will come to your door step. Who do you think the non socially week will come after when theyre done with their own country? Even worse, what will happen when the socially week get advanced weapons, take over, and then fly a couple of air planes into some of your buildings?

it will decrease the high population. it all serves to balance life on earth.

Easy to say when your life isn't directly on the line. You would probably change your tune if a major natural disaster wipes out your city and kills your family and destroys everything you've ever known. Oh well, they should have been more fit to live on this planet.

If you don't get my point by now, its that "survival of the fittest" doesn't work with humans. Yes there may be some pretty good examples, especially in the realm of extreme sports, but as a law it doesn't necessarily apply to us. Most humans have a conscience, we are sentient. We philosophize, we advance, we can evade nature's wraith. Seemingly, we also have a wider range of emotions than other animals. For the most part we don't live the way we need to or should, but the way we choose to.

Obviously that may not be the best way to do things, but in a way its a right earned by our species. We played by the rules for a while, but now we're smart enough to break some of them.

Pandora's Eyes

June 30th, 2008, 04:27 PM

Buddhism is an atheistic religion, no god nor satan to put a person in hell.

I view Buddhism more as a philosophy or ideal than a religion. True, there is no deity to pay worship to or antithesis to fear temptation from. A good idea. I just think its pacifistic philosophies are naive.

We certainly have the capacity to produce enough food for everyone but everyone doesn't want to be a farmer for a living.

And thus, we do not have the capacity to produce enough food for the world. Part of the ability to produce is meeting the labor and shipment requirements of the need. We seriously lack all of the above.

Social Darwinism isn't the same as the original Darwinism. In the eyes of true Darwinism, the murderer is the fittest and the person that got killed is the weakest. Of course weapons kind void Darwinism since its the person with the bigger gun and not really a matter of physical strength or genetic traits. When you talk of Social Darwinism you must recognize that emotions and general opinion of society is in play in which, again, it has very little to do with "fittest." We save weak people everyday simply because of our values and compassion.

I'd say the fittest member of the society would be the one with the biggest gun, as you put it. And in modern society that is the law. Not a physical person, true, but I believe the law of the land is the most active force which shapes any given society. So, in the case of the murderer who killed a citizen and then received the death penalty, Uncle Sam is the strongest since he eliminated a deterent force within his society.

Or the war will come to your door step. Who do you think the non socially week will come after when theyre done with their own country? Even worse, what will happen when the socially week get advanced weapons, take over, and then fly a couple of air planes into some of your buildings?

And that is why you prevent beligerent nations from gaining military weapons of a significant threat. Example: North Korea just dismantled a nuclear cooling facility. Eventually, Iran will be forced by threats of physical warfare as well as economic strain due to trade embargos to cease its nuclear proliferation. Their access to weapons from foreign sources outside of their country has already been curbed due to diplomacy between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as well as a greater influence from China.

Easy to say when your life isn't directly on the line. You would probably change your tune if a major natural disaster wipes out your city and kills your family and destroys everything you've ever known. Oh well, they should have been more fit to live on this planet.

Periods of struggle tends to strengthen people. Major cities typically have emergency funds in reserve in case of natural disasters. A hedge fund is kept enough to operate the vital operations of the city for a fixed period of time after disaster strikes. The Federal Government does not provide funds for this purpose but does encourage every major city do so.

New Orleans chose to ignore this vital policy in city planning. Their city managers did not choose to set any funds aside for a major disaster. And immediately after Katrina struck they clammored for aide.

Now, Katrina was a major tragedy. But compare the reaction from New Orleans after Katrina versus the reaction from New York after 9/11, or California after wildfires ravage their countryside and the more recent flood devestation in the MidWest.

If you choose to plan for disaster you will be more prepared. I'm not saying lets shun New Orleans. But certainly, lets learn from their mistake in not properly planning for emergencies.

So, in reference to what you're saying, if disaster strikes and people die, yes, they should have been more prepared to live on this planet. It is the job of the elected government to make plans and have options in the event of a major catastrophy. If a community fails to do so, it is their error and they will suffer for it.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't help then if we are able. But simply that they most surely will suffer if they choose to not strengthen their community by preparing for the unexpected.

If you don't get my point by now, its that "survival of the fittest" doesn't work with humans. Yes there may be some pretty good examples, especially in the realm of extreme sports, but as a law it doesn't necessarily apply to us...Obviously that may not be the best way to do things, but in a way its a right earned by our species. We played by the rules for a while, but now we're smart enough to break some of them.

I respectfully disagree. Survival of the fittest is how we have come to be the dominant species on the planet despite our physical inferiority to countless other species. Event the cockroach is physically stronger than humans.

If we do not use our intellect to strengthen society we will fail.

My point in this entire thread has been that the Supreme Court's decision to not allow local communities to choose the form of punishment they deem suitable for the rape of a child, or any other crime for that matter, does not serve to strengthen society, but rather weakens it.

Once again, Big Brother's meddling is weakening the strength of our union. We would be a better country if local affairs were left to be settled by the local community. The federal government may certainly set broad principles. But specifics such as the right of a court of law to sentence death for a specific crime should be set by that particular court of law and its community of citizens, not by nine judges sitting on a hill in Washington.

The Jolly Fatman

June 30th, 2008, 06:03 PM

waranghira

June 30th, 2008, 06:08 PM

tl;dr

didn't the bible promote forgiveness but still keeps punishment?
that's why jesus died, to take our punishment.

Pandora's Eyes

June 30th, 2008, 07:07 PM

tl;dr

didn't the bible promote forgiveness but still keeps punishment?
that's why jesus died, to take our punishment.

only one-third of the world is christian, regardless of denomination. something like 22% of the world is muslim. and then we have hindu/buddhist and all others in descending percentages.

while christianity may be the majority in terms of largest membership of a single religion, it is a minority when compared to total global population.

my point is not about one religion being correct and another not. my point is, as a philosophy, religion is a flawed basis for policy making.

that is why our forefathers prescribed seperation of church and state. people believe different things. even among christians, the various demoninations believe different things on specific issues. and so, if we base public policy and the law of the land on religious bias, we will alienate a large portion of our society who do not share that religion's views. and in the long run, as that religion changes and reinterprets its views, as all religions have and continue to do so, the foundation of the society's laws will be undermined.

so, simply put, religion does not dictate law. religion's place is in the private hearts and minds of its followers. people should be free to believe in and practice their religion how they see fit so long as they do no harm to the rest of society and do not hinder others within that society from practicing their religion peacefully.

sve

June 30th, 2008, 07:19 PM

Relatives of the slaughtered victim indeed are very often asked if they want to go for the ultimate punishment for the murderer of their loved ones... but judge has a final responsibility and right to choose degree of a punishment. Jury after seeing all evidence defines if the dependent is guilty or not and recommends what punishment is appropriate for his crime.
Judge's ruling can be appealed a few time in higher court.

Flake

June 30th, 2008, 07:34 PM

.
Survival of the fittest is how we have come to be the dominant species on the planet despite our physical inferiority to countless other species. Event the cockroach is physically stronger than humans.

Oh I dunno, I reckon I could take a few dozen roaches, more with appropriate weaponry.

Polar bears however, Im not messing with them...

Pandora's Eyes

June 30th, 2008, 07:42 PM

*Skipped most of the thread*

While reading some of your posts, I got a brilliant idea that could change the legal system for the better. In cases, like rape, instead of having the courts decide what happens to the rapist, why not have the victim decide? If the victim wants the rapist to die, then have the rapist executed. If the victim wants the rapist to go to jail for the rest of his/her life, send the rapist to jail. If the victim wants the rapist to get "raped" by a knife, then rape the rapist with the knife. The possibilities are endless. The victim should have total power, not the courts.

BRILLIANT!

*Disappears*

this would not work as this is vigilantism. an elected democracy votes people into the roles of officials who provide decisions based on their proven experience and judgement. the victim of a crime and her family may request desired punishment. but for the benefit of society, those who have been elected to make decisions due to their knowledge and insight should make the final call. that is progress. what you are describing is tribal law.

Presence

June 30th, 2008, 08:08 PM

Kauser it isn't vigilantism, I think Jolly meant the decision would take place within a legal system, it isn't an issue of revenge. I think that through any crime there is a key relationship developed between the criminal and victim, one that should never be silenced by the court's 'ethical' voice. Sometimes that voice causes more problems than solutions and the system it upholds costs billions of tax payers dollars and allows the most guilty to actually walk.

In the end the victim should have the final say. The criminal opens the judicial relationship, the victim should close it. That would be a natural cycle to which ethics could blossom.

but for the benefit of society, those who have been elected to make decisions due to their knowledge and insight should make the final call. that is progress. what you are describing is tribal law. No judge, especially male, could fathom rape. A judge could have a definite concept of it but could never understand it and no amount of harvard degrees or time in the courtroom could possibly come close to the impact it has had on its countless victims. Who then is better prepared to issue a judgement, the judge, or victim?

I think a judge should honestly be more of an guide in ethics, someone who is almost a lawyer for social ethics in the case. The victim still holds the power but the guide is there to ensure there has been ethical consideration in the final sentencing. But if the victim still wants your head on a plate for raping her then you sir will hand it over. I might be off here but I believe early celtic law had a central theme similar to this.

I realize that we as a society want to look at ourselves and say "we did the right thing, the ethical thing." it is a part of being human and being better than the worst of what is within us and within our society. We want a system that is going to move us forward but the problem is, well, us. Even a system that is supposed to be the peak of man's reasoning and enlightenment is broken, corrupt and disfigured. It is in the end a perfect reflection of who is within it.

Somehow though if you keep it down to the victim, the criminal and the crime (no lawyers, judges, juries, courtrooms or media) it becomes a very clear situation...Then again a ton of very rich lawyers and judges would be out of jobs and places of power, and we wouldn't want that now would we.

daestwen

June 30th, 2008, 09:28 PM

Giving the power of judgment to the victim is kind of dangerous, and just asking for a 'revenge' based society. The reason we have judges is because they are supposed to be impartial.

kauser.ali: I'm having a hard time sifting through some of your arguments, (And you never did explain why Canada isn't a capitalist country...) but... Firstly, I think assuming that all people who are against the death penalty are doing so on account of religion is ridiculous. I'm not religious at all, but I still think it's a terrible idea. Not because I think it's morally wrong or something, just from what I've seen, it doesn't *work* as a deterrent, and we end up killing innocent people in the bargain - exactly the people we're claiming to protect. So why us it as a form of punishment when it's simply so inefficient?

And Darwinism has nothing to do with whether or not the individual lives, but whether they pass on their genes. So, say you have a violent criminal who is sentenced to death, and not allowed to keep their genes in the gene pool. If they have children, are the children put to death too? Or castrated?

Sure, there are people that are very dangerous, and that is why we lock them away for a long, long time.

Ilaekae

June 30th, 2008, 10:07 PM

kauser.ali, without commenting in favor of or against your comments, I think you should slow down a bit and go back and look at all that you've written. You're starting to contradict yourself in a few places, which is where the real "wars' here begin. Don't dig a hole you can't get out of...

Presence

July 1st, 2008, 12:59 AM

Giving the power of judgment to the victim is kind of dangerous, and just asking for a 'revenge' based society. The reason we have judges is because they are supposed to be impartial.

So if the verdict of the judge does not meet the needs of the victim, where does that leave the victim?

Keep in mind this is based on a predatory crime, not a parking ticket.

Peter Coene

July 1st, 2008, 02:07 AM

Buddhism is an atheistic religion, no god nor satan to put a person in hell.
But there is karmic debt, which according to some could be a living hell.

I realise that I don't speak for Buddhists here, but I've always figured that if karma exists then it must be either a deity or the tool of a deity. Anything that defines good or bad while implementing justice in my oppinion is in one way or another sentient, and if it is supernatural then why not call it a god? I realise that the definition I'm giving is rather loose and doesn't exactly fit the definition given by the Abrahamic religions, but its the way I see God, and as such Buddhism and even non-religious Atheists who beleive in morals follow him, even if they don't admit he exists. But those are just my thoughts on the big guy.

daestwen

July 1st, 2008, 05:54 AM

So if the verdict of the judge does not meet the needs of the victim, where does that leave the victim?

Keep in mind this is based on a predatory crime, not a parking ticket.

And where would we *all* be if we answered every victim's need for blood?

Or, for example, say that a girl was kidnapped for years and years, escaped, and then the perpetrator was found? What if she had stockholm syndrome, and begged the judge to let him go with absolutely no justice? Or if her parents wanted a very severe punishment, and she wanted none - are they not also victims for having their child stolen from them for ten years? Whose idea of justice is more important there?

Do you see what I mean when I say this gets dangerous? :/

Blue

July 1st, 2008, 06:27 AM

I view Buddhism more as a philosophy or ideal than a religion. True, there is no deity to pay worship to or antithesis to fear temptation from. A good idea. I just think its pacifistic philosophies are naive.

How much research have you done into buddhism? Any?

Cthogua

July 1st, 2008, 10:14 AM

and this holier than thou attitude people adopt, death is wrong, period, jesus said forgive... GOD CONDEMNS YOU TO HELL if you don't follow his rules... again, i'm not wanting to open up a discussion on the validity of religion.

my point is simply philosophical: those who quote religion and the teachings of ghandi/buddha/jesus to proclaim putting someone to death is wrong, those same religions declare a punishment of eternal Hell for failing to follow God's rules for man.

At the same time doesn't the belief in an afterlife kind of take some of the teeth out of killing someone? Killing someone isn't such a huge deal if you believe that the mortal body is simply a shell for an immortal soul. To an athiest death is a much bigger deal, there's no continued existance, hellish or blissful. Granted every religion that I can think of says it's basically wrong to kill someone, however selective interpretation can produce nearly any kind of conclusion, including that it IS ok to kill in certain circumstances.

If you choose to plan for disaster you will be more prepared. I'm not saying lets shun New Orleans. But certainly, lets learn from their mistake in not properly planning for emergencies.

So, in reference to what you're saying, if disaster strikes and people die, yes, they should have been more prepared to live on this planet. It is the job of the elected government to make plans and have options in the event of a major catastrophy. If a community fails to do so, it is their error and they will suffer for it.

On the preparation for natural disasters thing...There are a few recent examples of a corrupt city government not being prepared for what in hindsight was a coming disaster. However saying that everyone that dies in a natural disaster was just simply not prepared is wildly myopic. Even in the instance of Katrina and New Orleans. Do you spend the limited amount of city funds on attempting to deal with the outrageously high murder rate, or to build up levees that, so far, have been adequate? I'm not excusing what, like I said, was an obviously corrupt government. I'm saying that pointing the finger at someone for not being prepared for something that in modern memory has never happened, while they're mired in heaps of very current problems is ignorant and unconsidered...consult what you said about "Holier than thou" folk.

Anything could happen at any moment, poisonous gas could bubble up from a nearby lake, a fucking meteorite could evaporate a city, underwater earthquakes can trigger tsunamis that travel halfway around the world. You should certainly be prepared for things that are more likely to happen, it doesn't mean that less likely things won't ever happen. You simply CAN'T be prepared for everything, we're not omnipresent. So through you're own logic this inability to prepare for everything makes us all the weak link, and the whole pseudo-Darwinian system kind of falls apart. There is no fit or unfit when we're all the same, ie not omnipresent.

Pandora's Eyes

July 1st, 2008, 03:43 PM

How much research have you done into buddhism? Any?

Plenty. No need to take an accusatory tone there Blue. I simply said that I do not view Buddhism as a religion. I view it as a Philosophy, a way of life. If you drop the arrogant tone and research it yourself you will see that unlike the Abrahamic faiths or even Hinduism or Wicca, Buddhism has no central deity or deities to worship.

The belief is based around the teachings of one man, referred to as "Buddha," though that was not his birth name.

I did not criticize Buddhism. I simply said that while they have good ideas their pacifistic nature seems naive to me.

No need to slap me on a guillotine for stating my opinion.

Pandora's Eyes

July 1st, 2008, 04:02 PM

And where would we *all* be if we answered every victim's need for blood?

Or, for example, say that a girl was kidnapped for years and years, escaped, and then the perpetrator was found? What if she had stockholm syndrome, and begged the judge to let him go with absolutely no justice? Or if her parents wanted a very severe punishment, and she wanted none - are they not also victims for having their child stolen from them for ten years? Whose idea of justice is more important there?

Do you see what I mean when I say this gets dangerous? :/

Life is dangerous. And dangerous people do not belong within a society. I do no understand everyone's unwillingness to kill someone who is deserving of such severity.

I suspect none of us will ever have to know the horror of having a child violently raped. At least, that is my hope. But I'm also quite sure that were it to happen even those who are the most ideal, the most vehemently against the death penalty would cry for the blood of the rapist.

I'm reminded of Chuck Palahniuk, the writer of Fight Club and Lullaby, who was firmly against the death penalty until his own father had been murdered. He thought a long time before finally requesting the death penalty at the trial.

All I have said throughout this entire thread is the Ghandi belief of "an eye for an eye leaves us all blind" sounds very nice and ideal but in the long run it will weaken society. It will leave good, honest people less safe.

For instance, that mentality has promoted gun control in the States. In the end, if the gun control lobbyists had their way the only people who would have guns are police, the military and criminals. Everyday citizens would not be able to defend themselves should the need arise.

Tell you what, if you want a child rapist to live so bad, you feed and clothe him. Keep him in your basement for all I care. Give him water and exercise and the latest John Grisham novel to read in between sets of weight lifting.

I don't want my tax money to pay for him to live out his meaningless existence.

And no, I am not condemning his children to death for his crime. Someone mentioned something about Darwinism serving to strengthen the gene pool. I was merely referring to the "survival of the fittest" aspect of Darwinism.

But I think we've gotten off on a tangent. My only complaint is where does the Supreme Court get off telling all fifty states they no longer have the authority to punish child rapists as their respective communities sees fit?

If a community does not want to sentence a rapist to death, fine. If they want to put him in jail for a time and then let him out, great. I hope they can live with the fact that no child molestor ever recovers. They are always repeat offenders and somehow manage to find housing near school grounds after being released from prison. Imagine that.

It's the mentality people. Anyone who can rape another human being has a mentality beyond saving. They have effectively broken some moral boundaries that every decent human being has from birth. I say drop `em like a bad habit. And don't shed a tear for someone who would gladly rape your daguhter, sister, wife or mother.

Blue

July 1st, 2008, 04:28 PM

Plenty.

As a Buddhist, i can tell you that Buddhism is in fact a religion (being philosophically/psychologically based, opposed to faith based, does not unmake its status as a religion) . It is also not a pacifist belief structure (unless you are defining violence and intolerance for other's beliefs as and activist structure) and has many texts describing Buddha as a shepherd carefully leading a flock of sheep (man) across a violent river (life) towards safe shores (nirvana). Mahayana Buddhists even go as far as saying that loving all people and things (ie. doing good for all) is the only way to attain enlightenment. Even that buddha himself will never enter nirvana until he has guided each of us towards nirvana, while absorbing all of our pain through each of our lives.

That and all the monks who are being slaughtered in Tibet for defending our beliefs. A religion which emphasizes knowledge, learning and understanding of all people and things has a very hard time being naive. To be as such, you would need to limit your intelligence and narrow yourself to 1 belief. Buddhism, I would say is probably the least naive out of all our current popular religions (but then again, I am not a professional Theologian).

I take offense to you belittling my religion (I attend guided meditation at a local temple and I am listed Buddhist on all legal/government paperwork), but I hold no anger towards you. :) I do understand the lack of interest in the west towards buddhism (and the mass misconceptions towards it), however I would hope that you could learn from this and better understand us over all.

Instead of replying with strife upon reading my posts, try to be a bit more civil. You should not assume so much about me based on one line.

edit: Also, Buddhism is based on many Buddhas (originally stemming from one man, yes). And you are right, it is not his name it is his Title. Anyone can become a Buddha.

Peter Coene

July 1st, 2008, 05:13 PM

As a Buddhist, i can tell you that Buddhism is in fact a religion (being philosophically/psychologically based, opposed to faith based, does not unmake its status as a religion)

Religion is a word, and only holds the meaning that somebody chooses to attach to it. Something as simple as a definition can become like a religion, in that one person may choose one definition and another may choose another. To you Buddhism is a religion, to someone else it may not be.

In my oppinion it can be either in that there are different approaches to Buddhism; some are strictly philosophical, others are steeped in spiritual beleifs, many are somewhere in between, or allow you to simultaniously hold beleifs in other religions. Those versions that are strictly philosophical are, in my oppinion, no more a religion than epicurianism or stoicism, while others that stress a beleif in reincarnation, karma, prayer/meditation and other spiritual belefs are a religion. But once again, this is my oppinion and it is no more wrong or right than yours or anyone else's on this type of issue.

Ilaekae

July 1st, 2008, 06:06 PM

If I followed that correctly, despite all Blue's efforts or statements to the contrary, it turns out he doesn't belong to a religion because "somebody else" said he doesn't.

Kewl...

That makes life easier for me--based on the last couple of posts, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of vocal "Christians" in the United States don't belong to religions either, but are followers of cults that support various political or extreme social causes/lifestyles/acts of genocide/or various acts of sexual perversion.

Should I alert the media, or does somebody else wanna do it?

Presence

July 1st, 2008, 06:34 PM

Peter Coene

July 1st, 2008, 06:36 PM

If I followed that correctly, despite all Blue's efforts or statements to the contrary, it turns out he doesn't belong to a religion because "somebody else" said he doesn't.
In that case you didn't follow it correctly.

That makes life easier for me--based on the last couple of posts, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of vocal "Christians" in the United States don't belong to religions either, but are followers of cults that support various political or extreme social causes/lifestyles/acts of genocide/or various acts of sexual perversion.
Thats quite possible. I suggest you get to know the ones that aren't vocal but are devout none-the-less.

Should I alert the media, or does somebody else wanna do it?
Unless said religions are having sex with teenagers or bashing gay marriage I don't think that the media gives a shit.

Peter Coene

July 1st, 2008, 06:41 PM

Ethical consideration couldn't take place if the victim is mentally unfit of course. If it was decided that the girl was of healthy mind and still came to the verdict of innocent the parents have to live with that, especially if she can.

The problem here is that according to age of concent laws nobody under the age of consent is of sound mind to make that decision. It becomes a moot point.

sve

July 1st, 2008, 06:47 PM

I personally know many people whose religion is just a following of tradition and not too much of spirituality. I would say they are majority.
About Buddhism not having any deity to worship. Theoretically it is not a deity, practically... it is the whole other thing.

Presence

July 1st, 2008, 06:54 PM

The problem here is that according to age of concent laws nobody under the age of consent is of sound mind to make that decision. It becomes a moot point.

Age of consent isn't a practice of protection it is a practice of judicial prerogative.

Pandora's Eyes

July 1st, 2008, 06:58 PM

Ethical consideration couldn't take place if the victim is mentally unfit of course. If it was decided that the girl was of healthy mind and still came to the verdict of innocent the parents have to live with that, especially if she can.

The victim's idea of justice is informed by the way she has been raised (by her parents no less), the relationship she now has with the criminal, and by her guide. Her decisions take precedent over any needs or wants of secondary victims (her parents). Because guess what, she was the one locked locked in the basement for ten years, not them.

And I will tell you right now where ALL of us would be if the victims in our country got what they needed. We would be safer, our tax dollars could go towards building preschools instead of prisons and we would need fewer psychologists.

I think this comes down a to great unnerving societal fear, a fear that if we are to put in harsh rules, WE are the ones who are the bad people, we won't be able to look at ourselves unless we know there is distinct separation between us and the criminals. Well you know what, that is bullshit. No victim of a crime has a problem in dealing terms of sentencing, so why must we?

I think ego might be the answer to that.

Couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.

Pandora's Eyes

July 1st, 2008, 07:16 PM

As a Buddhist, i can tell you that Buddhism is in fact a religion...

Again, I like Buddhism. It's a good concept. My definition of religion is deity worship. If we leave the deity worship aspect out of it then we could classify Marxism as a religion. People who follow the teachings of Nietzchie could be following a religion. The difference is one follow the teachings of a person and the other follows the supposed revelations of a deity.

And about the pacifism being naive, the same may be said of Jesus' teachings. He too was a pacifist. Some have even suggested Jesus traveled to Tibet and learend from Buddhist monks about pacifism. Unlikely due to the distance, but an interesting parallel.

I am also including Ghandi in the naive realm due to his pacifism.
I meant no offense to Buddhists as a group and I apologize if offense was taken.

My point was against Pacifism as a philosophy in general, not against any particular follower of Pacifism.

In order for us to all get along and lead perfect pacifistic lives, we would need to shed our human compulsion towards desire. Desire leads to greed and want of things and jealousy/envy over that which we have not attained.

So, get rid of human emotion and we can be rid of desire and thus all lead perfect pacifistic lives. We'd be the philosophical equivalent to angels. No emotion. No desire.

Of course, desire and greed does seem to serve a function here on Earth. It is due to desire and greed and human want for things that we have progress. If mankind didn't desire for an easier way of life bridges would not be built. Neither would planes or cars, maybe not even the wheel, etc.

We can't live like Angels on Earth. We're humans. Humans want and need and crave and lust. It is well and good that we have the intellect to fight against some of our more base animal insticts. But we will never be totally rid of them. That is why I argue Pacifism is naive. But Pacifism seems to show up in a variety of religions/philosophies. Heck, it's even part of Death Cab for Cutie's music!

So, it's an ideal. But not one I care to waste my time striving to attain as I believe it to be futile. I suppose I would call myself a Capitalist. But that might have something to do with my being an American...

sve

July 1st, 2008, 07:54 PM

Communism ( Marxism) has many features of religion. I would call it just that.

Pandora's Eyes

July 1st, 2008, 09:15 PM

Communism ( Marxism) has many features of religion. I would call it just that.

Whom are they paying worship to?
Communism is a form of government. A social structure. A political strategy, even. How is it remotely like a religion?

Are you told to pray? Are you given personal values?

Most communist states discourage religion of any kind because most religions offer values which defy the communist ideal.

Communism teaches against individual value over the value of society as a whole. You cannot convince people to suffer for the greater good if their religion tells them God wants them to be happy and live well.

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

Mainly due to the danger communism poses. It is a social structure which belittles human beings into numbers. You are no longer a person with values but merely a servent of the state, of the community at large. "Everyone belongs to everyone else."

Read Brave New World and then talk to me about communism being a religion.

Ilaekae

July 1st, 2008, 09:49 PM

A slight head's up, kauser'....

You're explaining Communism to a woman I'm pretty sure grew up under the Soviet...

sve

July 1st, 2008, 10:16 PM

Thank you, I will try to find and read the book you recommended. But yes, I kind of knew it from my own experience and from experience of many people I met in my life before 1993, I lived in socialism longer than in capitalism.

I said it has many attributes of religion:

First of all: dogmatism.

Yes we were told to pray and believe: we blindly from very early years (childhood) were told to follow rules and goals which Communist party laid for us (without any right or even a hint that we have this right to evaluate and judge). Rebels were punished.

One of the biggest ideas: sacrifice. And awaiting of a beautiful, flawless future with even rights for everyone who belongs and plenty of goods for everyone who is loyal..

The idea of communism was a dogma with holy books and holy leaders on the top. The past leaders were idealized and forbidden to criticize. This was considered a political crime: a heresy :). Authority in our country belonged not to Prime minister or president or such... but to the current leader of Communist party. We had an incarnation of devil on earth: America.

Face of Vladimir Lenin was forbidden to draw casually, by regular people. All literature and art was under a strict ideological censorship.

Every school or college had to hang portraits of the leaders and symbols of belonging to communistic society in their classrooms..

We even had a Holy Trinity:
Marx, Engels and Lenin.

We had and sang hymns devoted to our flawless leaders and our beautiful dream: a classless, sinless future society, a heaven on earth which our generation will not see probably, but future generations will. We had our spirited, inspired by communistic ideas martyrs and heroes who gave their life for those ideas, examples to blindly follow. We had a traditions and protocol to follow.

Every prominent figure in business or any other occupations had to be a communist or he would not have any promotions ahead of him..

Communism as a subject was a must to be taught in all schools, universities, colleges. The same about history of the communistic revolution, we had to remember dates of all their meetings and prominent events. You had to belong to communistic organization( for youth) in order to be a student in university or any colleges.

We had priests and other ideologists working on legacy of the idea. We had palaces and temples to celebrate our holy days.

We had uniforms and signs of belonging to our belief.

The religion was built on principle of democratic centralism: minority submits to the majority just for the sake of integrity of it.
Yes, communism degrades any other religion like many other regions do.

Most people who were communists or followers didn't read or analyze ideas of Marx but just took them in faith and follow them blindly.

Yes, we were given personal values: interests and ideas of communistic society are higher than your own life. You should selflessly sacrifice your life for future generations.

We paid worship to communist party, its symbols, its past and current leader who was very far from his people, and to communist ideas. We were forced to love and adore without understanding the essence from the age when we were not able to analyze yet..

We had a set of moral rules of builders of communistic society.
One of the biggest crime: treason and disloyalty to our communistic society and its ideas. Punished by jail, death, ostracism or exile.

here is on of definition of communism:
Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humanity is free from oppression and scarcity.
Looks like next morning after Judgment day for me.

Blue

July 1st, 2008, 11:28 PM

Religion is a word, and only holds the meaning that somebody chooses to attach to it. Something as simple as a definition can become like a religion, in that one person may choose one definition and another may choose another. To you Buddhism is a religion, to someone else it may not be.

In my oppinion...

So, you're breaking down a religion with just under 400 million followers world wide to a debate of your personal definition and arguing it's very existence to based solely on what you perceive it as?

Surely you can realize the absurdity....

Again, I like Buddhism. It's a good concept. My definition of religion is deity worship.

The US government recognizes Buddhism as a Religion. Although you may try to split hairs and explain to the fox he is not a dog.. this does not alter reality.

Ilaekae

July 1st, 2008, 11:33 PM

The loud thumping you hear is my head banging on my wall...

Craig D

July 2nd, 2008, 12:22 AM

Read Brave New World and then talk to me about communism being a religion.

Just how is Brave New World anything to do with communism?
Yes it's a disutopian novel set in a totalitarian state but so what?

Many of your arguments make little sense and are not coherent.

Like, uh, whats your point dude?

BuckWeisel

July 2nd, 2008, 01:32 AM

Well I have opinions about things because they should be thought about by people, but not just any people, people with thoughts an opinions on them. Of course an opinion by my definition is not the same as your definition because we are two different people and we have different opinions about different things. I like what you say, and I agree with it except that I don't agree because we are people and we disagree on things like your opinions which differ from mine in that they are not the same.

But I will have to disagree with you there because I can not agree to that statement. I think the Colts have a pretty good chance of going to the super bowl this year, but you opinion is invalid. Its the same with gas prices, and thats a possibility but I don't think that you can go that far with those socks. George Bush is a Nazi.

Aly Fell

July 2nd, 2008, 02:34 AM

I'm amazed this thread is still breathing, but hey, in for a penny...

"A gun is not an argument."

the death penalty, as well as war, serve a basic societal function as well.
we are over-populated as a planet. we are running out of food and/or the ability to cost-effectively produce/deliver that food to the masses.

Possibly, but isn’t there a better solution than killing people?

same goes for iraq. screw the dictatorship. let the people of iraq govern themselves. again, war will eliminate the socially unfit/weak.

War does that for us? Eliminates the socially unfit and weak? The wonder of arbitrary war eh... War generally eliminates the poor and the young whom the old and the rich throw at the enemy.

Life is dangerous. And dangerous people do not belong within a society. I do no understand everyone's unwillingness to kill someone who is deserving of such severity.

So first its murderers and terrorists (can o'worms), then rapists, then... oooh, who next? Thieves, then maybe drug dealers, then muggers, then embezzlers, how about pick pockets, then people with mental illness who can't help themselves, then those that can. Then how about smelly people, those who wear black, those who are black, those who are gay, those who look at me kind of funny... Who's going to make these decisions? They had better do it quick, "and decrease the surplus population..." I mean, there's too many of us, right..? The thing is, where do you stop? One person’s reason is another’s unreason.

You talk a lot about how the biggest gun rules the day, ( you'd probably relate to Voltaire who said God is on the side of the big battalions) and then say we should use our intellect to strengthen society. Guns are not your intellect. They are a knee jerk impulsive solution to problems that require intellect to resolve. You win by instituting fear in the people you wish to subject to your arbitrary control. There is NO intellect in that process, merely the demonstration of power and the subjugation of will. If that is seen as an example of intellect, well there's little I can say really...

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire.

On the subject of the highly-charged emotive issue that you use to justify capital punishment; that of child rape, I fundamentally believe state sponsored capital punishment is wrong. The state is as responsible for those that transgress as much as for those that conform. And the 'state' is us, surely. You know, the strength of ANY society is measured by how it implements the philosophy it so proudly waves in people's faces; which means how well it treats its most underprivileged and it’s most dispossessed.

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns."

Peter Coene

July 2nd, 2008, 03:37 AM

Age of consent isn't a practice of protection it is a practice of judicial prerogative.
Please explain, because as the law seems to me: if you have sex with a minor, regardless of whether they give consent, regardless of whether or not their parents approve, you are guilt of a crime which carries the word "rape" within its title and if caught by the law you will most likely go to jail or at the least have your name put onto a sex offenders list and not be allowed to move or leave the state without express permission from your parole officer.

The reasoning given is that no minor (those under the age of consent) has a mind well developed enough to give consent to a sexual act. It is similar to the reason given for why it is a form of rape to have sex with someone who is severely mentally handicapped or intoxicated. That is the was the law has always been explained to me, and as such you would need to remove the age of consent from the lawbooks before a law like yours giving the victim the right to choose the offender's punishment could be implemented. Otherwise you would have to wait untill the victim reached the age of conself to hold the hearing, in which case you are removing the right to a speedy trial.

Peter Coene

July 2nd, 2008, 04:56 AM

So, you're breaking down a religion with just under 400 million followers world wide to a debate of your personal definition and arguing it's very existence to based solely on what you perceive it as?

Surely you can realize the absurdity....
To those 400 million followers it is a religion, and I have already stated that to me it is in most of its incarnations a religion. If it is not a religion to somebody else why should that matter to you?

The US government recognizes Buddhism as a Religion. Although you may try to split hairs and explain to the fox he is not a dog.. this does not alter reality.
The US government also recognises Scientology, the Flying Spaggetti Monster and quite a few other things that, in my oppinion, are quite a bit less a religion than Buddhism. However that is a matter of tax benefits and stuff like that. If I wanted to I could have my own beleifs, whatever they might be, listed as a sepparate religion.

Religion, as provided by sepparation of church and state, is not a matter for any government to define or make any rules about. Delving into religious matters is not for the state to control. Therefore any government giving a belief's status as a religion has no bearing in whether or not that belief is a religion but only states that the government will keep its hands off because there are people who would be really pissed if it didn't.

But I really don't see why you are getting so pissy. All I am promoting is a move towards individual rights, included in those rights being the right to define for oneself what is or is not a religion. You said yourself that Buddhism "emphasizes knowledge, learning and understanding of all people and things." This idea, the significance of a word and its definition as being held differently by different people is something worth thinking about in that it related to the very question of communication and being in general. (When I myself was looking into Nichiren/Soka Gakkai Buddhism these were the types of thoughts that always surfaced in my thoughts... as well as trying to understand the spiritual meaning of chanting "nam-myoho-renge-kyo" over and over again.)

Yet you have blown it off because you were only able to percieve it as an insult to your own belief system which was in no way my intent at all. My intent was to explain that neither you nor kauser.ali was wrong, because you both hold different definitions as to what is a religion, and in your own definitions you both are right. However it was also encouragement, to both of you, to look at the other person's thoughts and try to find some truth in them. Knowledge, learning, and understanding should be saught for all people and things, shouldn't it? The fact that at 1st glance the people and things may seem to be against you bears no reason for not trying.

What harm is done if you, me, and 400 million are wrong and it isn't a religion? Does Buddhism cease to be Buddhism if it is not a religion? Will the good that comes from it, the nature of it, the very things you love about it, somehow be changed? "Religion" itself is a western word from a langauge that had no bearing on the nations in which Buddhism developed. For hundreds of years the west had no impact on the areas where Buddhism flourished, so it seems obvious to me that the word is not neccesary to Buddhism in the slightest, but instead is only applied as a way for Westerners to try and understand these thoughts from the East by labeling them with a word that is familiar to them. If that was a mistake and it will be better understood without that word than are we not doing Buddhism a disservice by calling it that? On the other hand, if calling it a religion will be better understood, then we were right.

Either way, don't we learn more from thinking it through rather than in our pride trying to protect something that in reality needs no protection?

emily g

July 2nd, 2008, 08:02 AM

I am also including Ghandi in the naive realm due to his pacifism.
Yeah, Gandhi was so naive....thinking he could achieve independence for India through non-violent means. That would never work.

Blue

July 2nd, 2008, 09:18 AM

Ilaekae

July 2nd, 2008, 09:32 AM

I really have trouble following these long discussions. I'm not really all that well-educated, and even if I was, it wouldn't matter because I'm kinda stupid. In fact, it even took me over 25 years to realize how really fuckin' arrogant and stupid I was when I was in my twenties.

That said and hopefully understood, I hope you'll all forgive me if I just mostly sit on the sidelines when these really important discussions come up and make snippy sarcastic totally unrelated comments every once in a while so I can feel involved, too...it's the best I can do, so be a little tolerant.

Add: Blue snuck in before me... I dated a tropical fruit once. His name was Jennifer. :P

BuckWeisel

July 2nd, 2008, 09:49 AM

"I am not young enough to know everything." -Oscar Wilde.

Peter Coene

July 2nd, 2008, 11:55 AM

Peter, you seem to be lost within a state of "believing whatever you want to" regardless of any outside influence of logic or fact.

Peter, by this logic, I could argue all day that you are a coconut and because this is how I choose to view it, you should sit back and say "You know, maybe I am a coconut". Should you not accept my view of you as being a tropical fruit?

Perhapse, but that is immaterial. If you actually read everything that I said I myself have not once stated that Buddhism is not a religion. I reflected that perhapse some offshoot groups might not be, while others definately are a religion. All I stated was that it was worth reflecting on. Big and important things such as anything regarding religion and one's own personal beleifs warrand such reflection.

I myself am not important, neither are coconuts (well, unless you are stranded on an island) Therefore it does not quite warrant the same reflection. Now, it is usually much easier to say that something is not something which it claims to be rather than that it is something that it has never claimed to be.

However, since you brought it up, I will stop and ask myself what I might have in common with a coconut and what I don't. Both myself and a coconut are to some extent tangible, this is a nifty thing to have in common, especially as it is much easier to classify a tangible thing than it is with those pesky intangible things like thoughts and philosophies. That said, coconuts are made of organic material and so am I. If you break a coconut open you will find white hard stuff and liquid. If you break me open, if I am anything like I have been taught I am, you will find hard white stuff and liquid... but the liquid in most places is a different color, and there is lumpy mushy red stuff as well. The connection sort of breaks down from there.

Also, while we are both mostly tangible there is still a question of the intangible. I myself think about meanings and significance, religion, women, art and the job I'd love to have. If coconuts think they have always kept their thoughts to themselves, so I cannot answer for them. On a spiritual level, perhapse I am the same a coconut. What is the spiritual meaning of a coconut's existance? What is the spiritual meaning of my existance? Are the two related? If I am not a coconut at this time and reincarnation is a reality will I reincarnate as a coconut? I have no satisfactory answers to those questions which I can come up with on my own, so perhapse on some spiritual level I am a coconut, but there is no way of saying for certain.

What matters though is that whatever conclusion I have come to I have tried to reason it out and feel no reason to be offended by the suggestion. To say that Buddhism is a religion because it is and 400 million people agree with you seems rather un-Buddhist of you.

Craig D

July 2nd, 2008, 12:19 PM

However, since you brought it up, I will stop and ask myself what I might have in common with a coconut and what I don't. Both myself and a coconut are to some extent tangible, this is a nifty thing to have in common, especially as it is much easier to classify a tangible thing than it is with those pesky intangible things like thoughts and philosophies.

yadda yadda yadda

Craig D

July 2nd, 2008, 12:23 PM

I'm sorry, I have just found myself trying to insult someone on the internet who wishes to debate what he might have in common with a coconut.

I will step out of the lounge now. Please I hope.

Blue

July 2nd, 2008, 12:24 PM

This conversation is going the way of Douglas Adams. I would have to say I'm actually enjoying it quite a bit. :) Cheers on the avy.

To say that Buddhism is a religion because it is and 400 million people agree with you seems rather un-Buddhist of you.

6 billion people will point to strawberry and tell me the leaves are green and the fruit is red. This does not make them right, however. The leaves may actually be a shade of pink and the fruit a vibrant black. This without considering that it may not even be leaves or fruit, but rather a microchip and lipstick. This pink microchip with vibrant black lipstick may even not be a strawberry at all, but rather a full grown gorilla! So then, how am I suppose to sit back and eat this poor gorilla? Or is it that knowledge is based on what a mass of humans agree one thing to be (most often sourcing from a smaller group of humans the masses respect and believe based on their education)? :)

But on a serious note, religion is defined as such:
re·li·gion Audio Help [ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Peter Coene

July 2nd, 2008, 12:24 PM

yadda yadda yadda
asshole (gotcha back)

Peter Coene

July 2nd, 2008, 12:39 PM

This conversation is going the way of Douglas Adams. I would have to say I'm actually enjoying it quite a bit. :) Cheers on the avy.
Why thank you.

6 billion people will point to strawberry and tell me the leaves are green and the fruit is red. This does not make them right, however. The leaves may actually be a shade of pink and the fruit a vibrant black. This without considering that it may not even be leaves or fruit, but rather a microchip and lipstick. This pink microchip with vibrant black lipstick may even not be a strawberry at all, but rather a full grown gorilla! So then, how am I suppose to sit back and eat this poor gorilla? Or is it that knowledge is based on what a mass of humans agree one thing to be (most often sourcing from a smaller group of humans the masses respect and believe based on their education)? :)

Thats the spirit, now apply that thinking to something that is not based in the physical, like religion, and see what you come up with.

You have to remember, are talking to a guy that was brought up on the belief that when he consumes a small chip of unleavened bread and a sip of wine every sunday he is eating the flesh and blood of a man.

But on a serious note, religion is defined as such:
Each of those is a sepparate definition. As I said before, with all of those accounted for even existentialism, stoicism, and epicurianism are religions. However, if each person has his say, according to some, Buddhism may not be. I have even talked to Buddhists who claim that they do not view their beliefs as a religion. If that is the case then what can I argue for or against? A dictionary appears to be made of paper, people are perhapse made of ideas attached to flesh, who is to say that something based entirely on ideas can be better explained by words on paper or ideas on flesh?

Pandora's Eyes

July 2nd, 2008, 05:15 PM

...here is on of definition of communism:
Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humanity is free from oppression and scarcity.
Looks like next morning after Judgment day for me.

eh... are you kidding me? Communism is the morning after Judgement Day?

first, a preface: i was born in Bangladesh. but grew up in America.

and now: as a red-blooded American let me say, "Fuck Communism and Socialism and Carl Marx and all his brethren!" it's in quotes since i actually had to shout that outloud.

The State does not love you. The State does not sacrifice for you while it asks you to sacrifice for it, the community, the greater good, etc.

The basic premise behind the Abrahamic Religions (i will only speak of those as they are my basis of knowledge) is that God loves Man despite Man's inability to properly love God. God does not ask that you sacrifice. He asks worship and love but he asks that of Man in free will. Not by force, which Communism does.

You can dress Communism up as a religion all you want but it ain't. You can paint that pill red and call it Tylenol but it's still cyanide.

The Abrahamic Faiths value the individual life. Moses freed slaves. Communism makes slaves of people in the worst way, it shackles your mind. You said it yourself, no free expression, controlled beliefs, forced blind worship of Communist symbols and ideals.

As an American at least I am free to believe in whatever I want to believe in. Any religion I choose to follow. And I can gain advancement in my profession regardless of my political party affiliation, religious bias or otherwise.

And you tell me Communism is the morning after Judgement Day?

BTW, I said read Brave New World because many believe Huxley was hinting at the futility of Man's effort to create Utopia on Earth. Communism and Socialism are just that, attempts at creating Utopia on Earth. Now do you get my point Craig D?

And while you're at it, read Animal Farm. There's a blatant anti-Communist story for you. "All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others." Yeah, Communism works. Sure.

What I love about Communists and Socialists is that it's always a promise that soon we will achieve Heaven on Earth. Soon.

You can't find one example of a Socialist or Communist society in history that works -exactly- as those two philosophies describe themselves.

American Capitalism works. That is why for such a young country we have had more progress than countries far older than us. And we certainly enjoy more freedom than any Socialist or Communist nation.

I don't have to pay for ice cubes. I was asked to pay for ice water in Europe. No, the water was free, but the ice...

And I don't have to wait six months for kidney surgery like my relative in Canada. I can get that done frickin' ASAP!

Alright, this thread probably needs to stop because we have lost our original intent. This has become about society and political structures. As an American I'm pretty damned proud of our Capitalism because it works and affords our people more freedom than any other society in history has afforded its people.

What's truly sad is Americans do not realize how lucky we are. I am an immigrant and so I get it. But most Americans don't even know. They complain about 40 Million Americans who have no health care but don't realize 260 Million DO! Hell, our poor still drive cars! And you can walk up to a store and get a job without having to join a political party or denounce your religion.

Don't talk to me about the idealism of Communism. Bangladesh is quite Socialist so I do know a little something of those two ideals. Heck, even Carl Marx said Socialism was the final step in a society's progress towards the ideal of Communism.

Well, fuck them both and the mental slaves they make of human beings. You're stuck in the fucking Matrix and thinking you're breathing real air if you swallow -that- pill. Blah.

Give me fucking liberty or fucking death. :patriot:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bY61wX1RX2EJ/610x.jpg

sve

July 2nd, 2008, 05:26 PM

Don't talk to you about idealism of Communism? what... do you want to hear only yourself talking? You think you already know it all?

OK then. You should have announced it from the very beginning.

Flake

July 2nd, 2008, 05:31 PM

Dude, did you even read Sve's post?

I ask because to me it reads as a very calm rational post about the ways in which communism resembles a religion of sorts.

You appear to have read it as "Communism!, fuck yeah!"..?

Pandora's Eyes

July 2nd, 2008, 05:43 PM

Dude, did you even read Sve's post?

I ask because to me it reads as a very calm rational explanation of communisms resemblance to a religion of sorts.

You appear to have read it as "Communism!, fuck yeah!"..?

she never said one thing negative against Communism. she surely did explain quite rationally how it is similar to religion.

my point is that it is unlike religion in that it is forced upon you and not freely chosen. but yes, Communism is certainly meant to replace religion.

and the picture of the Communist "trinity" beneath the line of "looks like the morning after Judgement Day" certainly appears to be pro-Communism.

sve

July 2nd, 2008, 05:55 PM

Heh, Internet marvels are unlimited. I'm never bored and never fixed on one idea and I'm grateful for that.

Ilaekae

July 2nd, 2008, 07:40 PM

Welcome to the CA Forum Lounge...

...where no one is ever wrong...though it would be pleasant to have a few that are actually right sometimes...

:oneye:

TASmith

July 2nd, 2008, 07:57 PM

"she never said one thing negative against Communism."

It sounded pretty negative to me.

Pandora's Eyes

July 2nd, 2008, 09:12 PM

"she never said one thing negative against Communism."

It sounded pretty negative to me.

Well, it read like she was defending the ideals of Communism. If I am wrong and she was not supporting Communism then I am mistaken and sincerely apologize.

I get a little heated on matters of patriotism sometimes. It's a tough time to be an American. I just read a story about how a singer was asked to sing the Star Spangled Banner at a political gathering in Denver, CO and she changed the lyrics to a gospel hymn that many call the "Black National Anthem."

That really bothered me. Pride of your people is one thing. But the National Anthem is the National Anthem and should be respected.

SVE, sorry if I misunderstood your post. It seems everyone else thinks you were not defending Communism so I must be in the wrong here. Hope I didn't irritate you too badly with my "Fuck Communism" rant! lol.

Forgive my zealotry. :donk:

light

July 2nd, 2008, 09:19 PM

ego flex, one sided, twenty paragraphs with half baked philosophies noone will ever read or notice

sve

July 2nd, 2008, 09:47 PM

Why is it important if I defended it or was against it? We were discussing if Communism resembles religion. Any religion has certain common features, positive or negative, it is subjective for everyone.
Communism is Utopia IMO, and morning after Judgment day is Utopia IMO.

Ilaekae

July 2nd, 2008, 09:55 PM

Kauser...

What some self-centered moronic twit does at a ball game has no part of this thread. You wanna rant about it, do so, in an appropriate place. DON'T make it one more proof that everybody here that is trying to discuss something with you is all part of a seditious fuckin' conspiracy that's out to prove you're a traitor of some kind. You damn well owed Sve (and a few other people) an apology, and you posted one...a real one, so I give you points for that.

Now, get off your fuckin' self-centered high horse and actually try to listen to people instead of assuming you know what they said without actually reading AND understanding what they wrote. It gets boring and a bit childish real fast.

You and I in a locked room would probably kill each other. Reason? Judging by your rants, I'm fairly certain you'd consider me a traitor, seditious, unpatriotic, and anti-US. If that was your honest opinion, you'd be entitled to it without any comment from me, but as I start to interpret your attitude from your writings, and your bull-headed insistence on coming out on top, I'm fairly certain you'd be saying it with a self-righteous sneer on your face, and that would really piss me off.

I have an absolute hatred of fascists and dogmatic religious freaks with closed minds. Your discussions comes across as fascist rhetoric to me, not a defense of your patriotism. Chill out. Think twice before you post something, and maybe try to see at least SOME good in SOME opinions that are unlike yours and may be just as valid as yours.

Sorry for the rant in public, but I think I've dropped enough hints, and now I've lost my patience. My sincere apologies for that.

You have the ability to state things concisely and clearly to support your opinions. You do it in a less combative way, and you'll be a real joy to "argue" with. Treat your discussion mates as the enemy and always wrong, and you'll just piss everybody off. It's happened before here. I would not like to see it happen again. Unnerstand?

I'm making these comments to you because it's possible I'll get banned for it. It could hurt someone else who really needs this forum if they said them. I don't care. I'm here because I like it. I just don't like to see people I've come to see as friends get pushed around verbally.

Can we end this and be at least civil to each other, if not friends?

Flake

July 2nd, 2008, 10:03 PM

Well, it read like she was defending the ideals of Communism. If I am wrong and she was not supporting Communism then I am mistaken and sincerely apologize.

She wasn't, she was explaining it from an in depth perspective that most of us will (thankfully) never have.

You were wrong and spectacularly so.

BuckWeisel

July 2nd, 2008, 10:04 PM

sve

July 2nd, 2008, 10:20 PM

Thank you, Illy, for calling me a friend and trying to protect me, it is very, really kind of you and I appreciate it enormously... And you, Flake,... thank you for trying to clear misunderstanding... I'm ready to be solely responsible for my actions and words though.

I like to observe. It is all lessons of human nature.
Thank you again... but I wasn't offended. I didn't talk to my opponent only, I talked maybe to you and some other people.

And kauser.ali... about patriotism.
Real patriots who love their country, they love it for what it is, they know its ugly sides as well as its good ones. They don't close their eyes on its deficiencies and love some ideal, phony country.
If their country soul is sick from its own domestic diseases... they are aware of it and suffer from them because they love their country and want to see it healthy. Hiding shortcomings increases the sickness.

Blue

July 3rd, 2008, 11:05 AM

ego flex, one sided, twenty paragraphs with half baked philosophies noone will ever read or notice

Your first day on the internet I see? :)

DSillustration

July 3rd, 2008, 11:23 AM

In order for us to all get along and lead perfect pacifistic lives, we would need to shed our human compulsion towards desire. Desire leads to greed and want of things and jealousy/envy over that which we have not attained.

So, get rid of human emotion and we can be rid of desire and thus all lead perfect pacifistic lives. We'd be the philosophical equivalent to angels. No emotion. No desire.

Hey, It's possible.
http://www.moveleft.com/vegontv/images/spock_giving_vulcan_salute_286x215.jpg

nonie

July 3rd, 2008, 12:12 PM

DMbBuEoEYnk

"No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism." If you want to be a patriot, do it this way.

King Kobra

July 6th, 2008, 08:12 AM

King Kobra

July 6th, 2008, 08:13 AM

nonie: how do you add youtube videos in a post.

nonie

July 6th, 2008, 11:52 AM

{yt}number at the end of the youtube vid url{/yt}

Replace {} with []

Redmond

July 7th, 2008, 12:14 PM

I'm for the death penalty. A forced sexual assault against an unwilling victim is always wrong and there's no sympathy possible when there is undeniable proof.

We need to stop making criminals into heroes or victims in situations when they're clearly in control of their own actions.

Pandora's Eyes

July 7th, 2008, 04:35 PM

wow. this thread ran away like a freight train!

i'm glad everyone participated. but i'm saddened by how heated it got. i definately had a role in that.

i do think i can be a bit bull-headed at times with my opinions. need to work on that...

far as sve's comments on communism being similar to religion, i think we just misunderstood each other. systematically communism is indeed similar to religion. imo, the difference lies in the purpose. i view religion's purpose as that of transcendance, of elevating people out of the muck of this world into another.

i can see how communism tries to do the same. so, i see your point sve. but i have to say i do not like the results. i have not seen one communist nation in this world's history accomplish that goal. i do not see communism as uplifting simply by the sheer results of the nations that have practiced it and continue to do so.

i see communism as the ultimate form of control.

i'll admit, many religions can take on that same level of control. and that is why i am glad we have seperation of church and state here in the u.s.

far as patriotism goes, yeah, we've all got problems as nations. i'm not denying america's negative. our biggest negative is lack of patriotism. our people do not appreciate being americans and some are even ashamed of it.

i don't think you could say "god damn china" in their home turf and get away with it. i don't think japan would tolerate its people burning their flag.

but that sort of thing is tolerated here in the states. we do it for the sake of acceptance of all. but where is the line?

the supreme court interferes with everything. that's what started this thread.
they decreed it is permissable for people to burn the u.s. flag as a form of free expression. and now they've decreed states who vote in the majority for a convicted child rapist to die cannot do so.

i'm seeing this nation creep ever closer towards a socialist mentality and that sickens me. capitalism is an incredible ideal. it truly works. you allow people, without government interference, to compete with one another and you get progress. everytime in our past when the government has interfered with our people's ambition the government hindered progress.

the space race was won by the soviets due to the pentagon's delay in properly funding werner von braun. sputnik only became the first probe into outer space due to the u.s. federal government's lack of urgency on the matter. werner von braun saw it. he knew it could be done and understood what it would mean for the nation to be first in space.

it's nice that we were able to surpass that misstep by landing on the moon. but ever since then we have had terrible delay in achieving the next logical step, mars.

the space race is just an example. government interference in anything slows down progress because it is too much red tape, too many hands in the cookie jar. the feds don't need to control business, don't need to tell local courts how they may sentence child rapists and certainly don't need to tell us how we may receive healthcare.

this supreme court decision is just one more example of "big brother" screwing everything up for the hard working people of this nation. and i frankly do see us as the modern day greece. the world's hope for a democratic ideal.

but it's all being tarnished by the bufoons in washington. we are the only nation in the history of the world that established its power not through expanding our borders but through expanding our influence globally.

that is a remarkable achievement. and our own people are blind to it and not proud. that is the negative in america. our people's lack of pride and our government's constant interference with the status quo.
___________________
R.I.P. Michael Turner 1971-2008

nonie

July 7th, 2008, 05:27 PM

Pandora's Eyes

July 7th, 2008, 06:20 PM

"you allow people, without government interference, to compete with one another and you get progress."

No... You get those with wealth becoming more and more wealthy and those without it serving as slaves. You get monopolies and strangled markets. Those companies that gain control of the market do so by being heartless bastards and sure as hell aren't going to do nice things like pay a decent wage if they don't have to. If a company can profit more by behaving without ethics, then they will soon beat out the honest companies - there are reasons why we've got checks on our capitalist system... and we haven't done enough because we *still* we have evil giants like Walmart, Exxon, etc.

I'm not against checks. Maybe I should have been more clear about my definition of "interference."

I do believe some regulations should be in place to prevent monopolies and ethics violations. But this current government brand of "regulating" is borderline hostile takeover.

You mentioned Exxon Mobile. In fact, all of the oil companies are currently under attack for raking in record profits the past few years while crude oil prices have soared in tandem.

The government is accusing the oil companies of profiteering and price gouging. And plenty of politicians, such as Obama and Clinton, have suggested a "windfall profits tax" against oil companies. The principle agenda? If the oil companies make more money than the government thinks they ought to then they will be severely taxed as punishment.

The oil companies are indeed making record profits. This is not due to price gouging. They aren't making a higher margin of profit. They are simply selling more volume of product.

India and China have increased their demand for oil severely the past few years. And this increase in demand has led to higher crude oil prices as the supply simply cannot increase as quickly as the demand has.

The oil companies are indeed making record profits. But not because they are charging a higher margin compared to their overhead costs. They are selling more barrels of crude oil than they used to, more volume, and thus the dollar amount in profits is considerably higher.

But the government wants to step in and charge them for making money. How is that fair? You want to lower oil prices, loosen the regulations against off-shore oil exploration and allow these companies to do what they want to do, invest their earnings into future business growth by finding more oil and drilling it out.

That's the kind of government interfering I'm against.

And the wealthy don't become more while the poor remain slaves, Nonie. Bill Gates had no wealth. He made himself into a billionaire, didn't he? That is progress. That is what free-market capitalism is all about. That is what I want to protect.

Pandora's Eyes

July 7th, 2008, 06:44 PM

...we *still* we have evil giants like Walmart, Exxon, etc.

I have to comment on this "evil giant" adjective regarding Wal-Mart and companies like them. Come on!

Wal-Mart offers consumers a price small businesses cannot offer. That is what they do.

They pay a wage comparable with the quality of work required. Wal-Mart employees aren't tax attorneys solving difficult legal concepts. They are, by definition, low-skilled labor workers. I am not trying to insult anyone here. I have two friends who work at Wal-Mart.

What I am saying is the job of a Wal-Mart employee requires no college education, does not even require a high school diploma far as skill level is concerned. You are either ringing up a cash register or stocking shelves. It is a low-skill level job. A bank teller requires more skills.

And thus, Wal-Mart's offered wage for their employees is fair. How much should someone stocking shelves or ringing up groceries get paid? Ten an hour?

Wal-Mart also provides job opportunities for workers overseas. In order to keep their prices low they have factories worldwide, mostly in third-world countries where the cost of living is low, and thus the pay offered to the workers there is minimal compared to what would have to be paid to workers in America.

What people complain about is the quality of work at those factories. Many toys, for instance, have come from China that were against US quality control code. That is a managerial problem at that particular factory, not at Wal-Mart.

People complain about the long hours factory workers in these third world countries have to work. What people fail to realize is that these same workers were starving before being offered the job at the Wal-Mart factory. They would work the fields as the majority of third world countries have an agriculture industry or a shipping industry where manual labor is all that is available. Maybe they could be fishermen? The Wal-Mart factory, while it may pale in comparison to America's work standards, is better than what they have had in the third world.

And while China may not be third world, even there the job opportunities for non-college graduates are far more limited than in America. Factory jobs are a relief for their laborforce.

I don't understand the hatred of "Corporate America."

I remember this article about people complaining that the Nike factory in Vietnam only paid $100US per month to its workers. These human rights groups wanted Nike to pay the same wage to Vietnamese workers as they would have to pay to American workers. Trouble is, $100US is enough support a family of four in Vietnam! These human rights groups weren't understanding how low the cost of living is there.

Plus, if you want sneakers for $60 instead of $200, quit yer griping!

Nonie, what I am against is the current mentality in America where people are vindictive towards those with wealth. Wealth is created, for the most part, not distributed. Sure, some are born with it. But the majority work hard for it and earn it. I do not like the current Socialist mentality in Washington where the government wants to tax those making more than a certain amount of money per year a higher percentage of taxes.

Steven King once said in an interview he had to pay 50% income tax during the 80s! Here is a guy who worked hard developing his talent and does something for a living most people could not do. Why should he be penalized for his efforts by having half his yearly income taken away by the IRS?

If you pay 22% federal income tax now while you work at Best Buy selling computers as a single twenty-something or teen, why should you have to pay 47% federal income tax once you get married and earn six figures as a doctor/lawyer/film director/orchestra cello player, etc.? It is a jealous mentality.

Socialism weakens. Capitalism strengthens. Believe it.

aedman

July 7th, 2008, 07:25 PM

Dealing with extreme situations and ideas is always a good way to make your point but it seldom clarifies things or offers a real chance to understand a problem for the gray area it is. Wal-Mart and other corporations, the wealthy, economic divisions and class resentment, mostly live in these gray areas.

Wal-mart is bad and good. Bad for some people, good for others, bad and good for most. Yes, they sell cheap (in many senses of the word) goods which is beneficial to many Americans on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Your paycheck will take you farther there.

It's also sometimes bad for those same people- Wal-mart is kind of known as a main street killer, with unbeatable prices through their economies of scale, they often really thin out if not completely destroy local mom and pop type places that have had the misfortune of selling goods or services that overlap with Wal-mart. Wal-mart has also allegedly used its huge buying power to pressure companies on the supply side to lower the prices they charge Wal-mart in ways that were less than fair. It's possible that it's this very same attitude, of racing to the bottom, who can do the most for the least, that leads to problems of quality and safety when corners need to be cut for everyone to preserve their shrinking margin of profit. Wal-mart has also had some issues (who knows where originating from in the line of command) with preventing unionization of its workers.

The other side of it is that yes, Wal-mart is a gigantic employer that hires on unskilled workers who may otherwise be unemployed- they've been helpful in hiring elderly workers who are turned down elsewhere. But these benefits also raise the question of if the system of overseas manufacturing and things like Wal-mart and other megacorporations (because Target, Home Depot, etc. all have some of the same negative features, if markedly fewer) had not cropped up in the first place, would these people be taken care of- whether through stable long-term factory jobs or fair pensions so that our elders don't need to be returning to the work force 20 years after retirement? Who knows what road the system could have gone down, and I suppose it doesn't matter much, since this is the road we're on.

As far as the overseas factory working condition stuff, I think that's a pretty deep and wide issue, and there's factories operating at all kinds of different standards. Some of it is good, people getting the money they need for their families in safe conditions, some of it is okay, and some of it is horrific such as cases of rape being used as an intimidation tactic to punish low productivity that are being investigated in Bangalore and other places.

I think the concerns in my mind mostly have to do with community, how these systems that are outside of various levels of community affect them for good or bad, and whether "growth" as defined in economic terms is always the best or most important thing. It's a question of competing interests, and how much the playing field should be controlled. I guess what I'm saying here is that I know too little, and the issue is too big for an artists' message board to dissect.

In any case this whole thing has been off-topic for awhile.

Peter Coene

July 7th, 2008, 09:24 PM

nonie

July 8th, 2008, 03:24 AM

Pandora's Eyes

July 8th, 2008, 04:54 PM

Ethics as low as their prices :P

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02walmart.html?ref=business

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-06-23-retailers_x.htm

I don't see the point. This is no different than any other company in the world. The hatred of Wal-Mart and Corporate America in general to me reeks of jealousy and lack of understanding of the business world.

If you were a Wal-Mart exec you would conduct business in the same manner or you would be without a job soon enough.

nonie

July 8th, 2008, 07:34 PM

I don't see the point. This is no different than any other company in the world. The hatred of Wal-Mart and Corporate America in general to me reeks of jealousy and lack of understanding of the business world.

If you were a Wal-Mart exec you would conduct business in the same manner or you would be without a job soon enough.

That's exactly why unrestrained capitalism is bad.

Pandora's Eyes

July 9th, 2008, 05:53 PM

That's exactly why unrestrained capitalism is bad.

You amaze me Nonie. You live in one of the most expensive cities in the US. All of us in the US live in the lap of luxury and do not appreciate it. Just the freedom to go buy a burger and fries at 1 AM is a luxury the majority of the world does not have.

And yet you cry about the unfairness of US Capitalism.

Capitalism is what grew our economy as fast as it did. It is why we have a fourth of the world's wealth even though we are a mere 300 Million people.

We are the world's largest consumer of crude oil. China is number two.
China has nearly 1.5 Billion people. The US has 300 Million. And yet we consume more crude oil than they do. Why? Because we live in comfortable cities and suburban towns and rural country ranches. We drive nice cars and big trucks and SUVs. We fly when we want to visit family or go on vacation.

We live well Nonie. And it's all because of US Capitalism.
This conversation we're having over the internet is thanks to Capitalism. Since it was the US Department of Defense that created the Internet for military purposes during the Cold War.

Grow up and respect the freedom that you have.
Or don't be surprised when someone more aware than you of the benefits of Capitalism, such as China or India, comes over and takes your luxury away from you.

After all, Japan, Russia, Israel, England, China and India have all switched to a Capitalist economy after learning from the US. And they are all proud of their nation's newfound economic strength.

Only in America are fools ashamed of the comforts our country has afforded us. I hang my head in shame.

Ilaekae

July 9th, 2008, 05:57 PM

The DOD invented the innernetz?

Pandora's Eyes

July 9th, 2008, 06:20 PM

The DOD invented the innernetz?

ha. good bushism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation

Pavel Sokov

July 9th, 2008, 06:23 PM

The age of consent is 16 in ohio.
But the thing is why are children seen as so precious above teens and adults?
I see the act as more perverted to rape a child, but really all rape should be treated equally.

I think people should be killed if they do horrific crimes of any type, not just for murder.

no, not all rape is equal.

a child has very low mental defenses against mentally surviving rape, and adults are more or less better at living with it.

also the size of the vagina is probably not adequate for sex when the person is like 10 years old, which results in bodily damage that an adult wont have. so you are completely wrong and make no sense.

you should really think more i find.

Flake

July 9th, 2008, 06:41 PM

After all, Japan, Russia, Israel, England (by which I'm going to assume you mean the Britain or the United Kingdom), China and India have all switched to a Capitalist economy after learning from the US. And they are all proud of their nation's newfound economic strength.

Did you miss the part where her maj's United Kingdom was a capitalist empire back when the US and India were colonies of said empire?

Also Israel? What? Israel didn't even exist until fairly recently and I'm reasonably sure they didn't start out as communists..

Read a book, then post.

Edit: actually, read a book, then don't.

Ok, I've typed this but I'm already getting that "Talking to brick wall" vibe, before I hit "post".

Pandora's Eyes

July 9th, 2008, 07:03 PM

Did you miss the part where her maj's United Kingdom was a capitalist empire back when the US and India were colonies of said empire?

Also Israel? What? Israel didn't even exist until fairly recently and I'm reasonably sure they didn't start out as communists..

Read a book, then post.

Edit: actually, read a book, then don't.

Ok, I've typed this but I'm already getting that "Talking to brick wall" vibe, before I hit "post".

You cannot call any nation that holds a Monarchy as its system of government a true Capitalist nation. They restrict competition and promote a caste system. England had done that for many years before switching to a more Socialist economy. Over the past ten years they have been increasingly Capitalist.

Israel was formed in 1948 and I never once said they were Communist. Though due to the influence of Carl Marx most Jews have a tendency to prefer Socialism which would lead to Communism. But Israel maintains a Capitalist economy as that has allowed it a strong foothold in the oil industry of the Middle East.

You effectively had no point in your ramble other than to spite me. But whatever. I'm effectively ejecting myself from this thread. I regret having started it. It's derailed off topic for some time now. Moving on...

Flake

July 9th, 2008, 07:28 PM

You cannot call any nation that holds a Monarchy as its system of government a true Capitalist nation.
If the monarchy is pretty much a figurehead/ tourist attraction you most certainly can.

England had done that for many years before switching to a more Socialist economy. Over the past ten years they have been increasingly Capitalist.
"England" in the 80's was a rabidly capitalist economy, over the last ten years they elected an alegedly socialist government instead. You have it ass backwards.

But Israel maintains a Capitalist economy as that has allowed it a strong foothold in the oil industry of the Middle East.
Maintains? Your first post implies that Israel changed from something else into the glorious capitalism?

Edit: why am I argung with a random American about the political landscape in Britain? I'm from here, I live here..this is silly..

Seriously, read a book or get off the interwebs.

_Mario

July 10th, 2008, 05:13 AM

We live well Nonie. And it's all because of US Capitalism.
This conversation we're having over the internet is thanks to Capitalism. Since it was the US Department of Defense that created the Internet for military purposes during the Cold War.The worldwideweb that you are using to communicate now was developed in "socialist (i.e. a bit like communism, just not worthy of a cold war ;)) Europe" (at CERN) and funded with public money.

And if you want to talk about real capitalism then you should take into account that, as it is now, it is an abused system. I do not see anyone being compensated for sonic pollution or most pollution in general (governments get some money out of this but it does not work out in the end). And nobody is compensating me (for example) but I have to accept and put up with billboards (visual pollution) everywhere. Only the billboard owners get compensated for the space. So where exactly is this real capitalism? Show me private ownership of air molecules, photons, and their economic value.

Pure capitalism is an optimal theoretical system but in the real world it needs "socialist" restrictions because we can only quantify capitalism to a degree.

A company is an artificial construct to facilitate the cooperation of people and reduce some personal risks and it is sad that some people use capitalism as an excuse for accepting sociopathic behaviour from companies.

Antisocial personality disorder diagnostic criteria (from Wikiedia).Three or more of the following are required:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

Peter Coene

July 10th, 2008, 11:42 AM

The worldwideweb that you are using to communicate now was developed in "socialist (i.e. a bit like communism, just not worthy of a cold war ;)) Europe" (at CERN) and funded with public money.

You've made a lot of good points, however, the technology you are referring to was built on top of American inventions and copying other American inventions. Also, if it weren't for American Capitalism you guys would be all excited about how all the greatest technological advances were a result of German National Socialism. Er, I'm not sure if that exactly proves a good think or a bad thing for Capitalism, but it is interesting to point out.

edit: I still don't see what this has to do with raping children.

Craig D

July 10th, 2008, 12:15 PM

Also, if it weren't for American Capitalism you guys would be all excited about how all the greatest technological advances were a result of German National Socialism.

Just keeping this quote around to show people where your level of
historical knowledge sits.

For example, Communist Russia played a significant part in the defeat of Nazi Germany. How they didn't trip over their own feet without capitalist ideologies I'm sure I don't understand, but there you go.

To forestall your next retort no I am not, and have never been, a member of the communist party.

Aly Fell

July 10th, 2008, 12:22 PM

Where would we be with old Werner eh?

Once rockets are up, who cares where they come down... that's not my department, says Werner von Braun.

QEJ9HrZq7Ro

Peter Coene

July 10th, 2008, 01:38 PM

Just keeping this quote around to show people where your level of
historical knowledge sits.
I swear, its like you follow me arround just to attack everything I say.

So, you think that the allied powers would have won that war without us? Russia was giving its all, whereas we still did an equal ammount from the other side without putting forth half the effort. Britain alone on the West Front would not have been unable to hold out, and seeing as Russia was giving all it had they too would have been lost in that war. Whereas we were fighting both the Nazis AND the Japanese simultaneously and still not reducing our population to poverty the way the Russians had to.

So yeah, the Russians fought hard and did a lot. They still would have ended up giving straight arm salutes and shouting "Sieg Heil" without us. If you can proove otherwise, do so, otherwise, please refrain from attacking my knowledge of history.

But you missed my point entirely. We were not talking about Russian communism, we were talking about American Capitalism and European Socialism. If this were about communism I think you would be surprised what I have to say on the subject.

nonie

July 10th, 2008, 01:39 PM

I grew up poor. Like, food bank poor, not having anything to eat besides cantaloupe at home for 2 weeks at a time poor. Sure we always had a house, thanks to government programs like Section 8, and we didn't starve, thanks to welfare, food stamps, government-funded free lunch at school, Energy Assistance, etc. I probably only survived childhood thanks to the more *socialist* policies of the US. So while I may be benefiting *now,* there are a lot of things in my life that had to align to make that possible.

I'm not trying to say capitalism is all bad. Capitalism without restrictions and safeguards is bad. Big profitable companies that have good ethics are possible and should be rewarded. For example, I don't drink Starbucks because I don't drink coffee, but I think they're a decent company that treats their employees well and has some admirable policies - fulltime status well below fulltime hours with full benefits, covering tuition, pioneering recyclable packaging, etc. And Google treats their employees downright ridiculously well. It is possible to be capitalist and humanist.

And hey, while San Francisco IS a wildly expensive city, it's also really liberal, green, and progressive - probably the most socialist city in the US. Minimum wage here is much higher than the national average, they're working on implementing city-wide free wireless internet, we already have universal health care for children, ect. And somehow everyone here seems so much more laid back and happy than any other place I've lived. Sharing is good :)