What kind of analysis led you to this conclusion?Originally Posted by Loki
What kind of analysis led you to this conclusion?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
How much does a person suffer from a lethal injection? How much does a person suffer from the things that happen in prison for their entire life?
Hope is the denial of reality
People tend to value their life, though. Why do you think most criminals appeal their death sentence?Or why a plea bargain can get you out of a death sentence, not give you death instead of life sentence?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You seem to know, so why don't you tell me. And the audience.
You seem to know, so why don't you tell me. And the audience.
(also I would appreciate if you expounded on "the things that happen", esp vis a vis the elements which cause suffering, tyia)
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Lewk - you're calling the man a moron without understanding why he takes the position you don't like. You ought to listen to the interview and then make a judgement call like that. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130332059
The transcript quoted below leaves out some particulars you'll have to listen to get:
. . . . . .Mr. STEVENS: I think there is one vote that I would change, and that one was upholding the Texas capital punishment statute.
TOTENBERG: In 1976, when Stevens was first on the court, he voted to uphold the death penalty. At the time, he says, the court believed it was upholding statutes that allowed the death penalty for a narrow category of offenders, using procedures that, as Stevens puts it, prevented loading the dice towards the prosecution.
But as the court's composition grew more conservative, he says, the universe of those eligible for the death penalty grew, and the court permitted more prosecution-friendly procedures in capital cases.
Mr. STEVENS: We did not foresee how it would be interpreted. I think that was an incorrect decision.
Conservative pundits, likely. Certainly not Jesus, we all know what he would think of capital punishment....
They can speak all they want, but they shouldn't be able to use their wealth to make their voice vastly louder than everyone else in order to exert an inordinate influence on the governance of the country. That's a subversion of democracy.So, wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to speak because they...have money? Socialism?
Free speach means you can say what you want, not spend millions to exert a level of influence on elections that 99.9% of the rest of American could never hope to do.
Personal experience of course. lol
Last edited by EyeKhan; 10-05-2010 at 05:11 PM.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Well, since you didn't get it the first time, let me repeat myself...So, wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to speak because they...have money? Socialism?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I'm aware of the logical boundaries. You're talking about "what if we were in an oppressive, censoring society where it would be dangerous to attach your identity to your words," which doesn't reflect the situation we face, and Being is talking about ways to abuse privacy, which does happen to be the situation we face. I am uninterested in strong personal philosophies which ignore context. Context matters. You want to harp on "what-ifs" and we already have strong protections in place to safeguard us from going in a direction where those "what-ifs" might be reality. One can easily postulate that they won't work, or will be eroded in time, but the same thing could happen if we enact the principle you want. The argument has no persuasive power.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
This topic just came up because one of the justices who made the pivotal 5/4 disagreement you're referencing said that he was wrong.The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You must be reading a different translation of the Constitution than me because my copy clearly states in Article 3:
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court...
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
The 8th Amendment covers this since brain-washing is intellectual servitude.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Campaign donations aren't anonymous (and I don't think they should be). But if you run a group that advocates a certain view, I don't think you should be required to disclose your identity. I don't see why I should be required to file with the government if I want to run a newspaper ad containing a five-paragraph rant about why public teacher unions should be illegal.
Though restricting such groups from running candidate ads a certain time from an election seems like a reasonable compromise that's been toyed with.
I am talking about the wider context of our relatively abuse-free society in these areas. It's not as if history is totally lacking examples of states that used various types of "registrations" for media, parties, etc. as a tool of repression.
If one wants to create good laws and maintain freedoms, one must take these things to their logical conclusion to avoid letting a potential "tyrant" do the same thing on their own terms.
The tyrant might be the coalition with no names associated to its funding.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Gee, it's much better to use ambigious text as evidence instead of looking at how the text was interpreted at the time.
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's not a legal punishment. Good job on being less informed than 18-year-olds by the way.The 8th Amendment covers this since brain-washing is intellectual servitude.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, you don't need to take everything to its extreme form to avoid that and trying to do so will probably actually do more to facilitate the creation of that which you want to avoid than what is being proposed here.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yes the Congress makes Law. The Court rules on Law and can strike it down as unconstitutional.Gee, it's much better to use ambigious text as evidence instead of looking at how the text was interpreted at the time.
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Read the damn Amendment Loki, punishment is the exception...involuntary servitude is allowed as punishment but for nothing else.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
That was only established with Marbury v. Madison, over a decade after the Constitution was ratified.
How about you actually read how the amendment was/is interpreted by the courts instead of throwing your inane interpretation out there?Read the damn Amendment Loki, punishment is the exception...involuntary servitude is allowed as punishment but for nothing else.
Hope is the denial of reality
Opps. I was talking about the 13th Amendment. Frickin Roman numeral system.
My point stands. Just replace 8th with 13th.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Yes it should. Otherwise if your argument is that we shouldn't care what the founders thought then why bother enforcing the 8th amendment or any of the amendments?They amended the Constitution to fix that idiocy long after the original intenders were dead. I hardly think it takes another amendment to realize that executing prisoners is cruel and unusual.
Let me take a completely different look at this for you.
Say there was an amendment that said: "The Federal Government can not execute people." Great right? No executions. But then along comes some judge hell bent on having executions. So he and other judges like him ignore the constitution and choose some inane interpretation that allows the government to execute people. IE: Government passes the sentence then outsources the execution meaning they didn't execute anyone themselves. This interpenetration is COMPLETELY against the original intent of our make believe amendment.
In this hypothetical situation are you with the judge or are you with the original intent of the amendment?
You must choose NOT on an issue you want or not want to see but how the government is structured. Do you want to strip away the protections that the bill of rights grants people and leave it up to a small oligarchy that can ignore the will of the people? The bill of rights is designed to stop the will of the majority from doing some bad things (like restricting essential freedoms) but we want this to be based on what the amendment writers intended, otherwise we give the judiciary immense power.
I wonder if you said that with a straight face since it is part of the body of the Constitution. I even pointed to the specific article and section. Article 3. Section 2.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
