Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 493 494 [495] 496 497 ... 852

Author Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread  (Read 870005 times)

Andir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7410 on: November 23, 2011, 08:53:01 am »

We discussed this before (Atheist thread?) but they are "blue laws."  I'd like to see any State uphold it.
Logged
"Having faith" that the bridge will not fall, implies that the bridge itself isn't that trustworthy. It's not that different from "I pray that the bridge will hold my weight."

Virex

  • Bay Watcher
  • Subjects interest attracted. Annalyses pending...
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7411 on: November 23, 2011, 09:03:13 am »

The second idea is the basic idea of it, really. Does it actually harm anyone without their consent or not? If not, then who the fuck cares?
So uh... banning people from office based on their religion or lack of it doesn't harm anyone?  That would seem to be the implication here.
As far as I know, only heterosexual, white, Christian men are to be regarded as people, so in essence, no.  ::)
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7412 on: November 23, 2011, 09:53:54 am »

We discussed this before (Atheist thread?) but they are "blue laws."  I'd like to see any State uphold it.
They can't be upheld because they'd be struck down in the Supreme Court very quickly... unless Ron Paul's proposed changes to the cases which the Supreme Court can hear come into effect.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 09:55:46 am by Leafsnail »
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7413 on: November 23, 2011, 10:35:05 am »

Just to be more explicit about this, his primary target with that bill was abortion.

Also "sexual practices", and the establishment of religion, and same-sex unions.

Quote
Ron Paul explicitly opposes the incorporation of the constitution. He wrote here;
Quote
If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases — not only when it serves our interests.
Now, a lot of people opposed Kelo (and rightly I think), but normally on the merits of the case, not on the idea that incorporation is invalid.

Yeah, I'm aware of why Ron Paul doesn't think the Supreme Court should have a say, but it's extremely suspicious that he just happened to single out conservative hot-button issues, and I think the view that states should be able to impose official religious matters on the population is kind of absurd and backward.


The fact of the matter is that it's taken the Supreme Court of the US to knock down a lot of backward and regressive laws, including pretty much all the anti-"sodomy" legislation that was on the books until, what, 2003? Not to mention the religious policies/legislation the type of which I've already mentioned.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7414 on: November 23, 2011, 12:56:18 pm »

You remember our little discussion on security clearances earlier?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/michele-bachmann-pakistan-nuclear-intelligence-source-revealed-160707748.html

edit: finished reading the article. Apparently it had already been published, and that was her source. There could still be issues with that though.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 01:01:09 pm by Nadaka »
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7415 on: November 23, 2011, 02:52:57 pm »

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/gay-slaying.html

It isn't the 21 years. It isn't the plea deal even. The comments below from posters are crazy, as usual. It's the absolute bigotry of the whole "logic" behind the excuse of "homosexual advances" defense that bothers me. It is insane that this could conceivably reduce first degree premeditated death penalty eligible hate crime gun specification murder to voluntary manslaughter.... "Voluntary manslaughter" is traditionally just murder with "adequate provocation," to reduce the charge

I.) First, let's go with just the facts of what the kid did:
1.) He got and brought a loaded gun into a school with the intention of killing another student.
2.) He sat with the gun in a room full of students and deliberately sat behind his victim.
3.) He waited until his victim was facing the front of the room and shot him repeatedly in the back of the head.

II.) Sounds like pretty clear murder doesn't it? Now let's add some information:

1.) The victim was a slight of frame, feminine homosexual.
2.) The kid who shot him was a documented white supremacist who has lots of "white power" propaganda. On this basis, he believes homosexuality is an abomination.
3.) The school, tried to keep the gay kid from being gay.

III.) "The defense:"
1.) Gay kid was openly gay.
2.) Gay kid occasionally flirted with boys.
3.) Gay kid flirted with his killer before the incident. (though not immediately before or even the same day)

IV.) Argument:

Let's even assume for a second that the gay kid really did flirt with his killer repeatedly; that doesn't logically follow as a defense. Break it down into its component parts, a.) Someone who you don't like at all and lets even say are repulsed by; b.) makes advances towards you; c.) but despite these advances doesn't actually do anything (it's flirting). Here, the killer did not like gays and allegedly a gay kid was hitting on him. Imagine, for the sake of argument, it was an incredibly unattractive girl whom no one had any interest in at all who flirted with the guy.... See how it becomes clear when you replace "gay" with "very unattractive girl" as the undesirable party making the undesirable advances, how it is completely unacceptable to freaking kill the person? Much less by pumping bullets into the back of their head in front of an entire classroom of students...?

And, all of that actually assumes the gay kid really did flirt with the white supremacist kid who killed him? It's entirely possible he never, ever flirted with the kid who killed him, which really blows the defense away.

V.) Trial History and Response
The prosecution cut the 21 year plea deal rather than risking a second trial that could deadlock like the first one did. The first trial deadlocked.... Think about that, faced with the admitted, uncontested evidence that the jerk shot the gay kid in the back of the freaking head in front of a room full of people, about half the jurors wouldn't convict the white supremacist of first degree murder, which he very clearly committed.... The prosecution was afraid of another deadlock.... Thus, they cut the plea deal to make sure the killer served 21 years rather than going through trial forever....

VI.) Summation:
WTF? Where were the parents who let kid have loaded gun and raised kid as white supremacist? How the hell did kid get loaded gun in school? How did he shoot gay kid in the back of the freaking head in the middle of a crowded classroom? How did even part of a jury think "gay kid was gay and flirted with boys," made it less than premeditated murder.... This was not a "heat of passion" defense. He planned to take the gun into school in advance to shoot gay kid. He shot gay kid exactly as planned. They'd never let that fly with a boy shooting an "unappealing" girl or a girl shooting an "unappealing" boy. Moreover, no flirting happened even allegedly that day, but only on prior days.

Bigoted. Gay life not worth as much.... :(
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 03:00:59 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7416 on: November 23, 2011, 03:03:06 pm »

From what little I've read about the case, the shooter's parents may have been a contributing factor.
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

MonkeyHead

  • Bay Watcher
  • Yma o hyd...
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7417 on: November 23, 2011, 03:31:06 pm »

Questions:

1) I am assuming that such a ruling defies all precedent in such cases. If so, can the ruling be reviewed/amended (e.g. court of appeal?)

2) How can the accused "agree" to a sentence? When did justice become participatory? Ok, so I get the logic of plea bargaining to some extent even if I do not agree with some of the moral or ethical considerations... but this "smells" different.

3) Where in the US did this occur? Is the area in which it occured a pretty conservative state so could overarching political thinking of the empowered individuals come in to play?

The more time I spend on these forums, the more I feel thankful for being lucky enough to live in a Western democracy that isnt the USA.

ECrownofFire

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Dragoness
    • View Profile
    • ECrownofFire
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7418 on: November 23, 2011, 03:45:14 pm »

The second idea is the basic idea of it, really. Does it actually harm anyone without their consent or not? If not, then who the fuck cares?
So uh... banning people from office based on their religion or lack of it doesn't harm anyone?  That would seem to be the implication here.
Oh for fuck's sake... My second statement was completely separate from the Ron Paul thing.

Oh, and it would be harm, obviously. It's a form of censorship and discrimination.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7419 on: November 23, 2011, 03:52:35 pm »

Which is why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. He's one more in a line of "State's Rights" enthusiasts. And it so happens that the states have a tendency to be short-sighted and discriminatory if not reigned in by the federal government.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

ECrownofFire

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Dragoness
    • View Profile
    • ECrownofFire
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7420 on: November 23, 2011, 04:11:06 pm »

Did you think Bachmann couldn't get any stupider?

Well...
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7421 on: November 23, 2011, 04:13:21 pm »

It's like watching a train wreck. The GOP candidates just keep trying to commit political suicide. It's like they're competing to get as little support as possible.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7422 on: November 23, 2011, 04:32:13 pm »

Which is why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. He's one more in a line of "State's Rights" enthusiasts. And it so happens that the states have a tendency to be short-sighted and discriminatory if not reigned in by the federal government.

The problem is that people look at his quasi-libertarian views and "outsider" status and think the guy would be really good for individual rights. He wouldn't be. He's opposed to the federal government exercising control/regulation over your life, but only because he'd rather your state/local government be allowed to get away with far, far worse (which is also more likely in state/local governments, where highly provincial/regional attitudes exist at large which tend to be more "fringe" than any consensus by the federal government/entire nation would be).
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • City streets ain't got much pity
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7423 on: November 23, 2011, 05:25:56 pm »

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is just... I have no words beyond what the fuck? A kid got murdered, for fucks sake!


Quote
"Voluntary manslaughter" is traditionally just murder with "adequate provocation," to reduce the charge

...This sounds very strange. How could manslaughter possibly be "volountary"? Isn't the whole point of separating manslaughter from murder that there needs to be a different charge for when a murder wasn't supposed to be a murder but ended up killing anyway? Could you give me an example of a situation that "volountary manslaughter" is supposed to cover, that isn't just weasling bullshit like this one?
Logged
Love, scriver~

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #7424 on: November 23, 2011, 05:33:21 pm »

...This sounds very strange. How could manslaughter possibly be "volountary"? Isn't the whole point of separating manslaughter from murder that there needs to be a different charge for when a murder wasn't supposed to be a murder but ended up killing anyway? Could you give me an example of a situation that "volountary manslaughter" is supposed to cover, that isn't just weasling bullshit like this one?

I'm not by any means a legal expert, but I'll take a stab at it.  I think manslaughter is when you kill someone through sheer recklessness.  Voluntary manslaughter is when you were legitimately provoked into action by self-defense or simply being pissed off beyond proper judgment (say someone murders your child before your eyes), but not to the point that deadly force was justified.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.
Pages: 1 ... 493 494 [495] 496 497 ... 852