Commuting the Sentence of Medical Pedophiles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Largely philosophical, I admit, but then again, such things are the difference between a mob with torches and pitchforks and a proper court with judge and jury. Because that is also a difference in philosophy.

---

I suppose I see what you're saying... though I find the difference rather academic and unimportant. What difference is there between being lynched by a mob, and being lynched by a mob that stops long enough to contort society's rules and conventions into a justification for lynching you first? Well, the latter is worse, because it tries to camouflage itself as something noble and just and deceives people into believing it was at all fair or rational.

(And that's the difference I see between a lynch mob and a modern court of law, just in case that wasn't clear enough.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

He was also a socialist, extremely left-wing and pretty much would have been a hippy nowadays.

---

Well, before we go around slandering Jesus, it's important to point out that as a political philosophy, socialism advocates the threat of government force to achieve its ends and impose itself on people who explicitly do not want it, where as the "socialism" (community behavior, really) Jesus advocated was purely voluntary, and Jesus explicitly did not force anyone to do anything - persuasion, not compulsion.

It's as important (if not more) to keep in mind that while Jesus condemned the rich and greedy, he also condemned those who took whatever they wanted by force. And however politically inconvenient it may be to say, politics and government are [at least at present] exclusively about taking stuff from others by force, occasionally with some pretty weak justifications and/or rationalizations for doing so. Because of that, it's not possible to fit Jesus' views onto the political spectrum in any meaningful way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Yes but I haven't murdered/raped/molested anyone. Or stole toothpaste.

---

Neither has every insane person... or even the typical insane person. Which is why you're not allowed to lock up the insane and leave them to rot, and why I'm not allowed to beat you and leave you to bleed out on the ground, to answer your original question. ("I never understood the reason why we can't lock up insane people forever.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Yes because pedophiles are being true to the spirit of the law but not the letter?

---

Quick quiz, what is the intent of "age of consent" laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Comparing pedophiles to Jesus isn't going to lead to a constructive discussion but I guess that's never your intent so whatever.

---

I wasn't comparing pedophiles to Jesus, but if you want me to, I will. Jesus was, in overwhelming likelihood, a pedophile. Better? And yeah, that's the truth. So maybe next time you consider wanting to kill someone for being a "pedophile," you might want to consider that your God probably was too.

(Might be important to consider here that there's a difference between raping small children and being a "pedophile," by either legal or social definition of the term. And tangentially, there might be a lesson in here for you about something your, drug-using, "gang-banging," "pedophile" hippie of a deity famously said regarding judging others. :|)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Voluntary socialism really can't exist. Its predicated on power being given to the state.

---

Not true. There have been a number of historical examples of purely voluntary communes organized in a socialist or communist fashion, functioning rather successfully and happily... until whatever country they were in put an end to it, under one legal pretense or another (not paying taxes, refusal to perform military service, growing the wrong kinds of plants, etc).

So while it's true they can't "really" exist, that's only really true because a bunch of armed thugs are bound to stumble by and bust the place up... which is true of any purely voluntary society at this point in time (and probably at any point in time that humanity exists in :( ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

And in regards to recreational drugs (which I support the legalization of) are you referring to wine?

---

That too, of course, but I specifically said "opiates," because I specifically meant opiates. Most likely a powdered form of opium, but that's still a serious drug felony in this country, and last I heard, you still believe in locking up "drug users" with all the other criminals and leaving them to rot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The connotation the term "gang" means compared to the apostles is another absurd comparison.

---

Is it? A group of armed, unemployed, social degenerates who do drugs and hang out with hookers... if that's not a gang, what is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The simple face remains is that those that molest children shouldn't have second chances in society. Period. If that isn't blatantly obvious then there is just something wrong with you.

---

And the simple fact remains that (aside from everything wrong with that statement) you still haven't even tried to reconcile your bloodthirsty, judgmental beliefs with the actual facts about who you worship as the divine... someone you'd either execute in cold blood, or vocally condemn and lock away in a cell forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Jesus also said Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

He also said to show mercy to those who commit crimes and that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

A gang might be the perfect term for those that hung out with that criminal.

---

So obeying the law (ie paying taxes) is code for more government spending? Bananas.

And individuals can have mercy on criminals. The point of government IMO is to keep people safe from the actions of internal and external threats. I voluntarily give up *some* freedoms in exchange for protection from the bad crap of anarchy. That means the state has to punish those who harm others. It has to go after those who violate others, via violence, theft, murder, rape, molestation ect ect. By creating harsh punishments, it discourages crime and causes FEWER people to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Quick quiz, what is the intent of "age of consent" laws?

---

So people like you don't rape little kids and then try to hide behind the fact you can bully them into saying it was consensual.

Quote:

---

That too, of course, but I specifically said "opiates," because I specifically meant opiates.

---

Chapter and verse?

The rest of your response uninteresting garbage so I'll ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So obeying the law (ie paying taxes) is code for more government spending? Bananas.

And individuals can have mercy on criminals. The point of government IMO is to keep people safe from the actions of internal and external threats. I voluntarily give up *some* freedoms in exchange for protection from the bad crap of anarchy. That means the state has to punish those who harm others. It has to go after those who violate others, via violence, theft, murder, rape, molestation ect ect. By creating harsh punishments, it discourages crime and causes FEWER people to die.

---

Render unto Caesar that which is his isn't "code" for more government spending. OMG. :donkey:

You didn't bother to reply pages ago when I brought up cultural definitions (marrying off 12-13 yr old girls to older men, or to other 12-13 yr old boys), let alone what to do with Loughner. You just want to use the threat of incarceration as harsh punishment, and that alone is the deterrent to crime. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. Or fry 'em. :rolleyes:

You haven't really addressed mental capacity, mental illness, or even defining pedophilia. "Medical pedophilia" must be straining your binary, black and white view of the world, huh. Probably too much of a stretch to ask your opinion of juveniles convicted of a violent crime, and being sentenced to "Life Without Parole".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So people like you don't rape little kids and then try to hide behind the fact you can bully them into saying it was consensual.

---

:rolleyes:

An amusingly naive characterization, but I guess it's close enough. Anyway, now that we've established the spirit of the age of consent laws (sort of), I can use it to show how you're a pharisee. You know, ignoring the spirit of the law, but harshly enforcing its letter nonetheless:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by th'article

Take the case of a fourty-year-old man we'll call Alex. Alex's wife, Julia, began to notice a change in his sexual preferences. For the first time in the two decades she had known him, he began to show an interest in child pornography. And not just a little interest, an overwhelming one. He poured his time and energy into visiting child pornography websites and collecting magazines. He also solicited prostitution from a young woman at a massage parlor, something he had never previously done. This was no longer the man Julia had married, and she was alarmed by the change his his behavior.

At the same time, Alex was complaining of worsening headaches. And so Julia took them to the family doctor, who referred them on to a neurologis. Alex underwent a brain scan, which revealed a massive brain tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex. The neurosurgeons removed the tummor. Alex's sexual appetite returned to normal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewk's response

Not buying it. If I was on the jury I'd have no problem convicting.

---

(Despite the fact that the evil "pedophile" in question raped no one, attempted to rape no one, and has no sexual attraction to "children," you'd have no problem subjecting him to lengthy incarceration and a brutal death at the hands of your fellow less-than-brilliant, bloodthirsty intolerants... and for what infraction, praytell? Certainly not an infraction of the spirit of the law, which he never violated.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Chapter and verse?

---

The soldiers gave him wine mixed with bitter gall, but when he had tasted it, he refused to drink it.

Matthew 27:34

Not that I suspect you'll be able to figure out why this indicates Jesus had used opiate-based drugs at least once before, but it does, all the same. And it's not the only reference either, just a nice, obtuse one that will require some small amount of research into and thought regarding a book that you're supposed to use as a guide on how to live your life. Seems to me that this would be a hard, if not impossible goal to achieve, so long as you fail to understand anything about it beyond its simplest, most literal interpretation. And I hardly think we need to discuss what an overly simple, literal understand of the Bible can lead to... such as the idea that one not beat one's nigger too harshly, unless it really deserves to be beaten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The rest of your response uninteresting garbage so I'll ignore it.

---

Yeah, anyone's going to believe that... and you still haven't answered my question, by the way.

Very mean, and unChristian of you to make me suffer needlessly with my confusion, when a wee bit of evangelizing could ease my pain, qualify as charity to those in need on your part, and perhaps even save my immortal soul. Surely someone such as myself, who rapes and bullies children could use the Word of God most of all... or is that another bit of the faith you ignore because it doesn't suit your tastes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Render unto Caesar that which is his isn't "code" for more government spending. OMG. :donkey:

---

To be fair, it actually isn't.

It was a clever evasion of a trap (are you unrighteous by supporting the evil Roman empire, are can we have you executed for treason by getting you to denounce the state), and the common interpretation is generally that God doesn't care about politics. Or, more specifically, Jesus didn't care about politics 2,000 years ago, because the job was to be a Messiah, and save the Jews' souls, rather than a political leader (whose job would be to free the Jews bodies from Roman rule).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I voluntarily give up *some* freedoms in exchange for protection from the bad crap of anarchy. That means the state has to punish those who harm others. It has to go after those who violate others, via violence, theft, murder, rape, molestation ect ect. By creating harsh punishments, it discourages crime and causes FEWER people to die.

---

Hang on, if that's what you believe then why don't you support other nonviolent govt measures that reduce crime and death???

But we both know why don't we. It's not the ends you described that really matter, it's the violent means. Those means are ends in themselves aren't they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

.....To be fair, it actually isn't.

---

That's what I said. Or is there a typo somewhere?

Quote:

---

It was a clever evasion of a trap (are you unrighteous by supporting the evil Roman empire, are can we have you executed for treason by getting you to denounce the state), and the common interpretation is generally that God doesn't care about politics. Or, more specifically, Jesus didn't care about politics 2,000 years ago, because the job was to be a Messiah, and save the Jews' souls, rather than a political leader (whose job would be to free the Jews bodies from Roman rule).

---

The translation (as I see it) is that there are more rulers on earth than just God or the Messiah, and that's just fine. To recognize "Caesar" as a ruler in his own right, as a leader of government and people, is to recognize that earth and heaven are different 'places'. Jesus didn't automatically attribute nefarious or evil motivations to 'rulers on earth' or compare them to 'rulers in heaven'.

That's not to say that some rulers on earth weren't/aren't tyrannical despotic dictators. God was portrayed as a tyrannical despotic dictator, a fearful force, full of anger, smite and retribution. That was the Old Testament interpretation, but not the New Testament according to Jesus or His apostles. That's when God "became" man in order to speak to man, in a language that man could understand. Not created "of" man, but made "for" man, a Holy Trinity as Father (creator), Son (descendants), Holy spirit (soul).

But never mind my ramblings this late at night, early in the morning. Too many spirits or water turned to wine. Amen. :p