Printable View
Yes. Deviancy is something that is different then norms of society. It does not mean "evil" it just means different. There is harmless deviancy (playing dress up) and other forms of bad deviancy such as child abuse.
Try not to be too defensive. I wasn't saying these two things are morally equivalent.
Why would I be defensive? I prefer my sex sweaty and naked, and my kinks are a little bit more pronounced than something that pretty much everyone does. I mean, really - wearing sexy lingerie is playing dress up. Hell, even wearing something you know your partner appreciates seeing you in is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Playing dress up is not something that is different from the norms of society. :rolleyes:
Wasn't exactly what I was thinking of. However it doesn't really matter.Quote:
I mean, really - wearing sexy lingerie is playing dress up.
You assumed that I was putting "dress up" (however you wish to define it) on the same level of child molestation. I'm not, so get over it.
To the main topic at hand, how many kids are you OK with being raped per 1000 offenders being let back onto the street?
I believe rehabilitation can be more effective than punishment.
Other than saying that, I have no intention of getting sucked into a conversation with you about a serious topic, because your mindset is disgusting and and reprehensible to me. I think you are the person who should be locked up for life.
I mean, really. The 17 year old in jail for fucking his 15 year old girlfriend who goes to the same high school as him is considered a kiddy rapist.
I specifically said not to muddy the waters with this. It is a red herring. Answer me this. A 30 year old man rapes a 8 year old girl. Should this map be in prison for life?Quote:
I mean, really. The 17 year old in jail for fucking his 15 year old girlfriend who goes to the same high school as him is considered a kiddy rapist.
Really? How do you determine effectiveness? See if you have all the child molesters and rapists (NOT the statutory issues of a 15 year old and a 17 year old) in prison for life their recidivism rate is 0%.Quote:
I believe rehabilitation can be more effective than punishment.
No, we're talking about the part where you proclaim to be a Christian and then don't follow any of Christ's rules. This has nothing to do with a Theocracy. You're only allowed to call yourself a Christian if you actually follow the guidelines laid down by Christ - which, by the way, are quite compatible with secular law. They don't demand anything unlawful. Thus it should be possible to follow Christ's rules within your governmental framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What you're doing here is a cheap cop-out. That's why I say you don't deserve to call yourself a Christian and that's why I said that, if Hell were real, you'd end up there. Yes, Dante's Inferno is not biblical. Neither is Hell. It was an example, you moron (you seem to have problems understanding an "if... then..." construct).
Safety does not exist without Justice. For if there was no justice, anyone could be the victim of an unjust proceeding. Justice is the backbone of safety. You can't have one without the other. And the Bible does not tell Christians to let dangerous people go free. It tells them to have compassion with those unlucky bastards and deal justly and kindly with them. Y'know, the whole "Love thy enemy"-shtick, another commandment by buddy Jesus.
Thus I say you're no Christian.
Khen, are you even a christian yourself? You keep on harping on that every time Lewk says something that you don't agree with, but in the end the only person who decides if he's a christian or not is Lewk himself.
Then I again don't understand why everybody comes down so hard on him; what I see mostly is a tendency to underthink his positions, but he's not so far off really with his idea that society deserves to be protected against certain people. I think people should maybe consider that they're not really reacting to a fellow poster, but to the failures of the US legal system that make his rather standard opinions unpalatable. If the 17 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend is a sex-offender, then Lewk is wrong. If it's a 30 year old having sex with a 8 year old, then he's not wrong at all.
By the way, from the article it's impossible to know what this guy really did the first time round.
Alright, if it's such a red herring, answer me this (Warning, it's an unfair question, but you yourself asked a similar "out of a 1000" unfair question, so..):Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You do not advocate having a 17 year old who has sex with an 15 locked up for life.
You do advocate having a 30 year old man who has sex with an 8 year old locked up for life.
This suggests that there's a cut off point where you go from, no criminal charger at all, to locked up for life. At what ages, and age difference would you place this cut-off point? A 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old? How about a 30 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old? What if there's an authority difference (teacher/student) is this always cause for life in prison?
In short: how does your system deal with grey areas?
I've been raised with some Christian values, baptized and done the confirmation, yes. I know enough about Christianism to know that Lewk is very far from what is the core of the Christian religion - the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught about love, compassion, humility and forgiveness. That is the most important part, everything else is just byplay. If you don't adhere or at least try to adhere to those rules, you don't really deserve to call yourself a Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That's why I call him out on this every time I see it - as I said, hipocrisy lands you in the 8th circle of hell. I want him to either actually follow the teachings of his religion or cease calling himself a Christian. Everything he does here is straight anathema to the foundations of Christianism.
As much as I disagree with Lewk on some of his ideas for locking criminals away for life.... Christians aren't prefect, just forgiven.
What I don't understand is why Lewk seems hell bent on NOT forgiving those who commit crimes? If I murder someone at the age of 18, even though the law says I'm an adult, very few people make sounds decisions at 18 (in my humble opinion). Say I forced myself on another female at 18? I'm sure some of the acts I took part in while in college my first stint could have been seen as rape? Meet a girl at a fraternity party, we both get back to my dorm drunk, we have sex.... oh no I have raped her....
Should I be in jail for life? Why not her, should she be in jail for life because I was obviously drunk out of my mind?
It's not a black and white issue in my mind.
Do you believe that the United States of America should base its laws upon the bible? What you do personally and what form of government works best are two different issues.Quote:
Jesus taught about love, compassion, humility and forgiveness. That is the most important part, everything else is just byplay.
Grey areas get to be decided by juries/judge. The non gray areas (lets say an extreme example) if criminal is an adult and the child is 13 or younger. This could be tweaked but I'd be happy if all of those molesters and rapists end up going to prison for life as a great start.Quote:
In short: how does your system deal with grey areas?
If the criminal is not an adult but is > 5 years that is also bad. IE 17 with a 12. 16 with a 11 15 with a 10. Again this can be tweaked as I certainly don't think an 18 year old has any business with a 13 year old but the mandatory life sentences without the chance of parole can be being with this kind of concept.
A person can forgive. The entire purpose of society is to keep people safe. You don't just forgive a mass murderer and let him free. The individual family could forgive the murderer but they can't say "OK now go free." Crimes are done against society.Quote:
What I don't understand is why Lewk seems hell bent on NOT forgiving those who commit crimes?
The bar to be convicted of rape should be high. None of this feminist bull shit where the girl decides AFTER having sex that it was rape. However that might be a good lesson on not getting drunk. ;)Quote:
Say I forced myself on another female at 18? I'm sure some of the acts I took part in while in college my first stint could have been seen as rape? Meet a girl at a fraternity party, we both get back to my dorm drunk, we have sex.... oh no I have raped her...
And the rights of 10,000 18 year olds matter less to me then one potential innocent life lost when they kill again. They have proven that they can not control their impulses and they have taken away someone's life. That other person has no more future in this world, why would society let the monster that ended that life go free and strike again?Quote:
If I murder someone at the age of 18, even though the law says I'm an adult, very few people make sounds decisions at 18 (in my humble opinion).
Lewk, what if they're mentally ill while committing the crime, disconnected from reality or can't grasp morality (right vs wrong)?
Do you think that's also about not "controlling impulses"? Or is that some pc feminist bullshit, too?
So you want to put a mentally unstable person out on the streets? Crazy. Keep them locked up too. It doesn't matter *why* they did something when we decide what to do with these dangerous animals. Sure study it so future crimes can be prevented. They have already done it though and that means they need to be kept away from the rest of society.Quote:
Lewk, what if they're mentally ill while committing the crime, disconnected from reality or can't grasp morality (right vs wrong)?
I'm not convinced Lewk's separation of church and state spiel is dishonest. Islam is inherently a political religion insofar as I know, but is Christianity? Someone refresh my memory. I know a Christian should do his best to spread the word and try to convert people, but are they also commanded to infiltrate 'politics', inasmuch as the Jews of Jesus' era understood politics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Wait, so what was all that one innocent person BS you spoke of earlier then? We're going to punish someone who isn't in control of their actions now? Through no fault of their own? To me, that sounds innocent too.
Lewk wants prisons galore, and asylums all around? That's messed up.
Lewk's main reasoning is the need to protect people, shelter them from harm done by others. He wishes to go about that by locking up each aberration and atavism capable of violence. I don't really think it makes a difference in that particular train of logic why the violence was committed, but now that it has, the perpetrator must be removed. Lewk confuses the issue by talking of justice and spicing the soup with a little vengeance, but that's neither here or there really.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Isn't that the situation in the US already?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
A lot of the mentally ill in the US are living on the street, actually; I think it was in Reagan's time but I might misremember, that a lot of facilities, in particular the more open, out-patient ones, got closed down and their inmates shoved to the street, homeless and destitute. A great many of those are also Vietnam war veterans, a grateful nation sends its thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
They do have loads of prisons. Many are over-crowded, too.
The overcrowding would go down drastically if possession of drugs wasn't treated as a felony, but instead as an opportunity for rehabilitation.
JFK's time, when "mental institutions" were like prisons, and they wanted to change the attitude toward treatment instead of isolation/punishment. They closed hospitals and tried to assimilate mentally ill into mainstream. Didn't have the community support systems, tho--few outpatient clinics or supervision for taking meds. We're still trying to fix that. :(
We do have more prisons than any other first world nation....
There have been differing interpretations\. The separation argument is primarily based on a line attributed to Jesus, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's," made in response to a question about paying taxes, an attempt to trap him into inciting rebellion against the Roman Empire *and thus getting him out of the hair of the local religious hierarchy* But it's not relevant, because Lewk only says that when someone manages to make a good case that Christianity is against what he wants to see happen. If the gist of Christian thought seems to be for it, he'll cite that as support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Further proof to me that serious conservatives are driven by fear. What's it like to be so fearful, Lewk? Must be awful.
There is a new label for the Far Right. FRIGHT.
NICE. Nail, meet hammer.
Or just legalize it and tax the hell out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
So I’m not a serious conservative? Lewk doesn’t speak for us all my friend. I consider myself very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibilities. I just don’t like paying for laziness, or people who choose to make bad choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
That made me chuckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
But aren't conservatives against taxes like that, especially if they're meant to punish or discourage certain behaviors? Wouldn't that be the big bad guv'ment involved in social engineering?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
I'm not trying to punish or discourage, If people want to get high, let them. If people want to do mind altering drugs, let them. I say tax the crap out of it and let them do what they please.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
But "taxing the crap out of it" is punishing or discouraging the behavior. What you're saying is let people do as they please, as long as they can pay for it in taxes (not just demand-driven price) and it's a behavior congress deems "bad".Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
I thought Libertarians and Conservatives were against this kind of social engineering via teh guv'ment.
With things like alcohol and tobacco and drugs you could argue that using those substances also results in higher health care costs, and is indirect taxation for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT