Capital Punishment

[quote name='Jabrim']Workers in prison that do work and earn money do have to pay a percentage back, that is why they make miniscual wages.[/QUOTE]

The average inmate costs around 25 grand a year. How much of that is paid back?
 
[quote name='camoor']The average inmate costs around 25 grand a year. How much of that is paid back?[/QUOTE]

I don't know but getting them to pay back anything is better than nothing isn't it?
 
[quote name='nasum']I've always been receptive, I just think your delivery of the message comes off as borderline clocktower sniper sometimes and if you really want to motivate change in society on any scale you have to work on your marketing skills.[/quote]
Should a slave kindly ask the permission of their master to stop beating them? And what happens when the master says no? MLK didn't work because he was "nice." He worked because he had the threat of force on his side through groups like the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. You remember what happened when they were playing nice? Riot police, arrests, beatings, incarceration, fire hoses, and dogs.

Blaming a victim for being angry is a lame is being an apologist for an oppressive system. My "marketing skills" isn't the problem; you being an apologist for the inherently unjust system is.

When I've tried to point that out before you misinterpreted it that I didn't like to hear that white people are racist.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because you have a marketing problem.;)

I mean, our society has decided that racism and being racist is a bad thing. So if you're going to point a finger and say "That Steve is one hell of a racist asshole", you've got to have more than "nothing" as a response to "what did he do that's so racist?", because that tacit approval isn't enough.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I already went over this. Tacit approval is active participation to perpetuate the system/institutions. How do you promote the status quo? Just keep doing what you're doing as if everything is ok. I never said that Steve does "nothing" to be racist. Manslaughter still leads to someone's death whether there was malice or premeditation. Steve might not knowingly hate anyone because of their race, but if he's still saying/doing racist things and perpetuating institutional racism, does that not make him a de facto racist? Ignorance is not a valid excuse, especially since it's mostly feigned when it comes to white people and race.

No one is saying that you have to compete to be the most vocal and active participant in the world, even learning and spreading knowledge on the issues is important work.
 
[quote name='Clak']Just to be clear, MLK and Malcolm X had drastically different opinions on how to approach civil rights, and honestly didn't like each others approach. Maybe MLK indirectly had force on his side, but I seriously doubt he would have approved of it being used.[/QUOTE]
This is very true, but towards the end, they were softening a bit on their stances on each others methods. MLK understood that force has a place in the struggle and Malcom X realized that racial superiority and killing whitey wasn't the only way for equality.

edit: I think Macolm X in that clip makes a very valid point about being defenseless, but misinterprets the ultimate goal of MLK. I think the problem with MLK is incrementalism while the very violent acts being perpetrated on black people were happening all around him. Whereas Malcolm X was advocating that violence as a form of defense against violence is acceptable. I'm just comparing the two clips though. I'm know there's a lot more out there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you have to understand their inspiration. I don't know who inspired Malcolm X, but King was inspired by the likes of Gandhi, and his trip to India to visit Gandhi's birthplace had a real effect on him. So he and Malcolm X were never going going to see eye to eye on things due simply to their mindsets. Honestly I think Malcolm X's violent streak did more harm than good because it played into the angry black man stereotype. King had his critics, but you can't say he was out calling for violence against anyone.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well you have to understand their inspiration. I don't know who inspired Malcolm X, but King was inspired by the likes of Gandhi, and his trip to India to visit Gandhi's birthplace had a real effect on him. So he and Malcolm X were never going going to see eye to eye on things due simply to their mindsets. Honestly I think Malcolm X's violent streak did more harm than good because it played into the angry black man stereotype. King had his critics, but you can't say he was out calling for violence against anyone.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if it was "angry black man" syndrome. Maybe more of a fear of their slaves rising up against them in arms...because they were being violently oppressed...but that's a secret...shhhhh

This is a case of where I think that while Malcolm X might've had a strong message, his ability to gather enough people to burn this motherfucker down was probably exaggerated. It's racism after all.;)
 
That's true too, I wouldn't be surprised to find that media reports of Malcolm X's exploits tended to skew towards exaggerating any violence that occurred.
 
[quote name='Jabrim']I don't know but getting them to pay back anything is better than nothing isn't it?[/QUOTE]

Who cares - if any of these programs make any money - it's so little money to be worth caring about. This is really an arguement over the principle of the matter (IE the types of arguements that hard-nosed cons love to get distracted with)
 
[quote name='camoor']Who cares - if any of these programs make any money - it's so little money to be worth caring about. This is really an arguement over the principle of the matter (IE the types of arguements that hard-nosed cons love to get distracted with)[/QUOTE]

Who is a hard-nosed con in this situation?
 
Just outta curiosity, who hates blacks more, David Duke or Star Parker? That could be tricky...

dohdough - To use your analogy, bin Laden's marketing was effective because knocking down buildings got attention. Instead of seeking any kind of peaceful solution through diplomacy. In the end though, look where the attention got him. It's easy to be loud and obnoxious, but when being so don't be surprised by a limited and uninterested audience.
To further the point, 40 some odd years later, is MLK or MX considered a better advocate of racial harmony?
 
[quote name='nasum']dohdough - To use your analogy, bin Laden's marketing was effective because knocking down buildings got attention. Instead of seeking any kind of peaceful solution through diplomacy. In the end though, look where the attention got him. It's easy to be loud and obnoxious, but when being so don't be surprised by a limited and uninterested audience.[/quote]
Are you referring to my internet etiquette?

To further the point, 40 some odd years later, is MLK or MX considered a better advocate of racial harmony?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by racial harmony. Also, given the traction that the teabaggers have (and I'd even go as far to say the American colonialists[yes, colonialists; not colonists]), I'd say it's a good argument that Malcolm X would've been far more effective. And lets not forget that it took an assasination of a president to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through. Hell, just look at the conservatives that have tried to co-opt MLK's legacy. It's simply mind-boggling.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well you have to understand their inspiration. I don't know who inspired Malcolm X, but King was inspired by the likes of Gandhi, and his trip to India to visit Gandhi's birthplace had a real effect on him. So he and Malcolm X were never going going to see eye to eye on things due simply to their mindsets. Honestly I think Malcolm X's violent streak did more harm than good because it played into the angry black man stereotype. King had his critics, but you can't say he was out calling for violence against anyone.[/QUOTE]

Wholeheartedly disagree. I think part of Malcolm's (post-NOI days) message was that it's not just OK to be black, but that a person should be proud of it. He didn't measure success based on his kids playing with white kids on rolling hills. He based it on an end to overt racism and violence against mostly black people. One could say King's self-serving, and infidelity did much to damage his message. People may have disagreed with some of Malcolm's tactics, and most people should disagree with his early positions, but the man was honest, sincere, and lived a noble life.

The biggest thing they had in common was the fact that they died for the message they delivered. IMO Malcolm was more important to the civil rights movement than MLK, because Malcolm empowered black people, and got many of them to quit turning the other cheek. MLK had a ton of white support, which was needed, but he chose to be more palatable to garner support of whites. Different approaches, both had their merits, but to say that Malcolm's "violent streak did more harm than good" I think is absolutely incorrect. What violence did post-prison Malcolm ever committ?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Wholeheartedly disagree. I think part of Malcolm's (post-NOI days) message was that it's not just OK to be black, but that a person should be proud of it. He didn't measure success based on his kids playing with white kids on rolling hills. He based it on an end to overt racism and violence against mostly black people. One could say King's self-serving, and infidelity did much to damage his message. People may have disagreed with some of Malcolm's tactics, and most people should disagree with his early positions, but the man was honest, sincere, and lived a noble life.

The biggest thing they had in common was the fact that they died for the message they delivered. IMO Malcolm was more important to the civil rights movement than MLK, because Malcolm empowered black people, and got many of them to quit turning the other cheek. MLK had a ton of white support, which was needed, but he chose to be more palatable to garner support of whites. Different approaches, both had their merits, but to say that Malcolm's "violent streak did more harm than good" I think is absolutely incorrect. What violence did post-prison Malcolm ever committ?[/QUOTE]

Drawing a line in the sand and saying "nothing past this counts" doesn't really work all that well. Look at it as an issue of escalation, you up the ante and the opposition is going to do the same. Maybe it's simply because I'm more like King myself, maybe it's because I understand his reasons better, but violence never solves anything, it's only going to make a bad situation worse. Trying to empower black people was fine, no problem with that, but not so they can go and basically drop to the level of those they're fighting against. Also, King's personal issues, like anyone's, were his business. If anyone felt less of him afterward than that's their problem, not his. I didn't think any less of Clinton after it came out that hew was getting head from Lewinsky, I don't think any less of JFK for his infidelities, because they have nothing to do with what they were trying to accomplish and I can understand that.


edit- now can we please return this thread to it's regularly scheduled topic?
 
JFK bagged Marilyn Monroe, if anything I feel better about him as a person due to that bit of infidelity...
 
[quote name='Clak']Drawing a line in the sand and saying "nothing past this counts" doesn't really work all that well. Look at it as an issue of escalation, you up the ante and the opposition is going to do the same. Maybe it's simply because I'm more like King myself, maybe it's because I understand his reasons better, but violence never solves anything, it's only going to make a bad situation worse. Trying to empower black people was fine, no problem with that, but not so they can go and basically drop to the level of those they're fighting against. Also, King's personal issues, like anyone's, were his business. If anyone felt less of him afterward than that's their problem, not his. I didn't think any less of Clinton after it came out that hew was getting head from Lewinsky, I don't think any less of JFK for his infidelities, because they have nothing to do with what they were trying to accomplish and I can understand that.


edit- now can we please return this thread to it's regularly scheduled topic?[/QUOTE]

Hey, you can't help hijack the thread then plead with us to be back on topic! :p

My last comment on it. Malcolm wasn't saying, go out there and kill whitey. He was saying be willing to defend yourself, famously, by any means necessary. He didn't say violence was the answer, but he didn't think being a doormat was either. Again, his words were in regards to self-defense, not instigating violence.

The only reason I bring up the character of MLK in comparison to Malcolm is because one was true to his words and message, and the other was a bit of a hypocrite. Big holy roller preacher guy, who's porking chicks on the side. That's why I've always appreciated what MLK did, but always admired Malcolm much, much more. But then again, I've always been a little more like Malcolm myself ;)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I am against capital punishment. The whole take another humans life idea doesn't sit well with me.[/QUOTE]

I love this lazy and simple thinking always coming from the right.

So what about war? Do you support the second amendment? Let's see how logically consistent you are.
 
^^ So against capital punishment but ok with perdition (i take it from your username)? that doesn't seem to be consistent....

Also, for all the people that point to the cost of incarceration as reason to reduce jail time, you should compare it to something. i.e. look at the cost criminals have against society. Example: UK and France spend less on prison but more on cleaning up crimes - crimes that would not happen if those people were behind bars.
 
I am 100% against war. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that killing a bunch of pawns doesn't solve problems.

I support the second amendment. Gun ownership does not equal taking someones life.

Tivo, it's an old username (from some random game) based off of the movie Road to Perdition. Regardless, what isn't consistent? I am against taking someone's life, and perdition's definition is "A state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death." There isn't really anything to tie the two together.
 
[quote name='camoor']I love this lazy and simple thinking always coming from the right.

So what about war? Do you support the second amendment? Let's see how logically consistent you are.[/QUOTE]

Abortion anyone? Oh wait we are still pretending they don't exist yet. Must be a beachball or something until we have visual proof.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I am 100% against war. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that killing a bunch of pawns doesn't solve problems. [/QUOTE]

Are you 100% for rainbows and kittens?

[quote name='Knoell']Abortion anyone? Oh wait we are still pretending they don't exist yet. Must be a beachball or something until we have visual proof.[/QUOTE]

Don't get it twisted, I'm pro-death. I eat meat, support the second amendment, wear leather, support euthanasia, and support a woman's right to choose. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy of others.
 
[quote name='camoor']Are you 100% for rainbows and kittens?[/QUOTE]

I'm only 50% for rainbows and kittens, but I'd like to state for the record I'm 100% against rape.
 
[quote name='camoor']Are you 100% for rainbows and kittens?



Don't get it twisted, I'm pro-death. I eat meat, support the second amendment, wear leather, support euthanasia, and support a woman's right to choose. I'm just calling out the hypocrisy of others.[/QUOTE]

Polls show democrats favor womens choice, and dislike capital punishment. You brought in how you dislike the hypocrisy of republicans, which I don't disagree with. I was just pointing out that it isnt just a republican thing.

Edit: It is surprising that such high percentage of democrats are for both abortion and capital punishment though.
 
'for abortion' is kind of misleading. The position is 'pro-choice'. Polls consistently show that just because someone says they consider themselves 'pro-life' doesn't mean they would make abortion illegal.

[quote name='Knoell']Abortion anyone? Oh wait we are still pretending they don't exist yet. Must be a beachball or something until we have visual proof.[/QUOTE]

Did you ever read Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Polls show democrats favor womens choice, and dislike capital punishment. You brought in how you dislike the hypocrisy of republicans, which I don't disagree with. I was just pointing out that it isnt just a republican thing.

Edit: It is surprising that such high percentage of democrats are for both abortion and capital punishment though.[/QUOTE]

While I don't personally agree with abortion and would not choose to have anything to do with it myself, I stand that it should be the woman's choice. That being said, I would not have a problem flipping the switch on a person sitting on death row.
 
[quote name='IRHari']'for abortion' is kind of misleading. The position is 'pro-choice'. Polls consistently show that just because someone says they consider themselves 'pro-life' doesn't mean they would make abortion illegal.



Did you ever read Planned Parenthood v. Casey?[/QUOTE]

You can say the same thing about pro choice people. Just because they are pro choice does not mean they would make abortion completely legal.

So you still have a bunch of hypocrites, one side wants women to have the choice but arent afraid of putting conditions on that choice. The other side wants to save lives but isn't willing to ban the thing that is costing the lives.

What is your point about planned parenthood v casey?
 
[quote name='Knoell']You can say the same thing about pro choice people. Just because they are pro choice does not mean they would make abortion completely legal. [/QUOTE]

Exactly; they could personally oppose abortion in every instance. But they wouldn't have the government forcing the woman to have the child.

Go read planned parenthood v. casey, then if you haven't learned anything, make some snarky comment about beach ball resemblance.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Exactly; they could personally oppose abortion in every instance. But they wouldn't have the government forcing the woman to have the child.

Go read planned parenthood v. casey, then if you haven't learned anything, make some snarky comment about beach ball resemblance.[/QUOTE]

The social acceptance of abortion occured because somehow the notion got out that there its up in the air until it takes its first breath.

Are you really going to argue that their isn't a third party involved? It is not just about the woman, and the government.

Women can do whatever the hell they want, and if they get pregnant, they have to take responsibility because that is not a mistake in there, it is a human being.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Women can do whatever the hell they want, and if they get pregnant, they have to take responsibility because that is not a mistake in there, it is a human being.[/QUOTE]

What happens if they can't take care of their little miracle? The kid has to eat...
 
[quote name='camoor']What happens if they can't take care of their little miracle? The kid has to eat...[/QUOTE]

Then the rest of us have to take care of it, but then there's whining about entitlement programs.
 
If they can't take care of the kid they should give it up for adoption, there are plenty of people who want kids and sometimes have to go to other countries to adopt. If a person opposes or supports abortion they shouldn't have to fall into a single option regarding what action should be taken. There are degrees to supporting/opposing things, it's not always all in/all out. For instance I oppose abortion unless the woman was raped. Of course I'd prefer she give it up for adoption if willing.
 
Let's see: Nonexistance > Being poor? Hmmmm

With your logic we should kill all the homeless people, whats the point of them anyway? Amiright? :roll:
 
Capital Punishment = 43rd Trimester Abortion

Cerebral One - usually in the case of pregnancy and then abortion, it's all in and then all out. :rimshot:

My favorite thing of all though is how the pro-lifers portray any abortion as a vanity choice. I mean really, when's the last time you held up your sign outside the clinic and saw some girl/woman come out jumping for joy? It's an incredibly trauamatic experience physically/emotionally/spiritually and is rarely if ever celebrated in hindsight.
 
[quote name='nasum']Capital Punishment = 43rd Trimester Abortion

Cerebral One - usually in the case of pregnancy and then abortion, it's all in and then all out. :rimshot:

My favorite thing of all though is how the pro-lifers portray any abortion as a vanity choice. I mean really, when's the last time you held up your sign outside the clinic and saw some girl/woman come out jumping for joy? It's an incredibly trauamatic experience physically/emotionally/spiritually and is rarely if ever celebrated in hindsight.[/QUOTE]

Because most people jump for joy after they murder someone, so you know murders alright!

People realize it is a difficult time, but if you are going to put yourself in the situation of getting pregnant then you should have to take responsibility for your actions. So should the guy for that matter. If he doesn't help out to a reasonable degree then the government should fast track a way to garnish his wages.

And IRHari I believe all companies are already mandated to give at least some leave for pregnancy already. Are you talking about more time?
 
You may have mentioned it before and I missed it, but what about the case of rape/incest? Do we force the gal to go through the gestation period simply because god loves children and it would be murder?

So if you want to make abortion illegal, would accidental miscarriage be treated like manslaughter? I mean, the mom is responsible for the fetus so if it dies it's her fault right?

This is why abortion can't be a legal issue. You can't narrow down a law that says you can't do this ever, you can do it in these circumstances, but if something happens that wasn't intentional with the same outcome you're ok because that's just a bummer. It's a personal issue that is horrible but has no purpose being asked of any politician whatsoever.
If you Knoell are against abortion, then don't ever have one (or your partner that is since I assume you're male) but don't go getting in other people's business because you have some holier than thou attitude regarding the whole thing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Let's see: Nonexistance > Being poor? Hmmmm

With your logic we should kill all the homeless people, whats the point of them anyway? Amiright? :roll:[/QUOTE]

No.

I asked a question.

What should happen in the case that a very poor mother becomes pregnant and she simply cannot afford to buy food and shelter for both herself a baby?

Just answer the question if you can.

CerebralOne - it's very easy to talk as if the adoption process is a breeze (it isn't), but what if the little miracle is going to be a 'special needs' little miracle?
 
[quote name='nasum']You may have mentioned it before and I missed it, but what about the case of rape/incest? Do we force the gal to go through the gestation period simply because god loves children and it would be murder?

So if you want to make abortion illegal, would accidental miscarriage be treated like manslaughter? I mean, the mom is responsible for the fetus so if it dies it's her fault right?

This is why abortion can't be a legal issue. You can't narrow down a law that says you can't do this ever, you can do it in these circumstances, but if something happens that wasn't intentional with the same outcome you're ok because that's just a bummer. It's a personal issue that is horrible but has no purpose being asked of any politician whatsoever.
If you Knoell are against abortion, then don't ever have one (or your partner that is since I assume you're male) but don't go getting in other people's business because you have some holier than thou attitude regarding the whole thing.[/QUOTE]


Look up why women get abortions. The vast majority of reasons can be solved with adoption.

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

I do agree though, no law would encompass every case. There are too many gray areas. However I think a lot less than 4000 children each day would be aborted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']No.

I asked a question.

What should happen in the case that a very poor mother becomes pregnant and she simply cannot afford to buy food and shelter for both herself a baby?

Just answer the question if you can.

CerebralOne - it's very easy to talk as if the adoption process is a breeze (it isn't), but what if the little miracle is going to be a 'special needs' little miracle?[/QUOTE]

There are many charities, shelters, and government programs that help people.

See you think you are having a "gotcha" moment, but you don't realize I approve of social programs and I think they are necessary.

Again what is your alternative though?
 
[quote name='Knoell']There are many charities, shelters, and government programs that help people.

See you think you are having a "gotcha" moment, but you don't realize I approve of social programs and I think they are necessary.

Again what is your alternative though?[/QUOTE]

Me? Like most of the board I am pro-choice, but if the woman decides to keep the kid I would hope that social programs would provide a safety net. I'm not a big fan of Sulemon type moms, but at the same time I wonder how prevelent these serial mommies truly are.

And I am surprised that you support social programs. What you don't realize is that in this one instance I respect you for recognizing the need for social programs instead of responding with some talking points bs.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Are you anti-choicers in favor of legislation that mandates companies give pregnant women maternity leave, yes?[/QUOTE]

Women should have maternity leave. They have this in Europe without any problems.

[quote name='nasum']You may have mentioned it before and I missed it, but what about the case of rape/incest? Do we force the gal to go through the gestation period simply because god loves children and it would be murder?

So if you want to make abortion illegal, would accidental miscarriage be treated like manslaughter? I mean, the mom is responsible for the fetus so if it dies it's her fault right?

This is why abortion can't be a legal issue. You can't narrow down a law that says you can't do this ever, you can do it in these circumstances, but if something happens that wasn't intentional with the same outcome you're ok because that's just a bummer. It's a personal issue that is horrible but has no purpose being asked of any politician whatsoever.
If you Knoell are against abortion, then don't ever have one (or your partner that is since I assume you're male) but don't go getting in other people's business because you have some holier than thou attitude regarding the whole thing.[/QUOTE]
I don't see what the problem would be for making a law where if rape is proven a woman would be allowed to abort. How does that mean accidental miscarriages should also be involved legally?

[quote name='camoor']
CerebralOne - it's very easy to talk as if the adoption process is a breeze (it isn't), but what if the little miracle is going to be a 'special needs' little miracle?[/QUOTE]

That's why many get their kids from outside the US. Maybe we should do something about the process in this country.

Some still want kids even if they're special needs. Some people go for kids solely because they're special needs, like that couple who was murdered a few years back. There's also foster care.
 
[quote name='Cerebral_One']Women I don't see what the problem would be for making a law where if rape is proven a woman would be allowed to abort. How does that mean accidental miscarriages should also be involved legally?[/QUOTE]

That might be the worst policy idea I have ever heard in my entire life.

[quote name='Cerebral_One']That's why many get their kids from outside the US. Maybe we should do something about the process in this country.

Some still want kids even if they're special needs. Some people go for kids solely because they're special needs, like that couple who was murdered a few years back. There's also foster care.[/QUOTE]

Not enough.
 
Yeah a lot of people do adopt kids that have special needs specifically because they have special needs and it get's their lazy ass free money through the government. Why else do you think the same groups of people adopt/take care of special needs kids and have dozens of them at a time? It isn't love, if you think so you are naive to the world.
 
[quote name='camoor']That might be the worst policy idea I have ever heard in my entire life.



Not enough.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with allowing women who are raped to be able to abort their child, if it has been legally proven? What is your answer to that predicament for such women?

Regardless of the abortion issue, the adoption process should be fixed in this country. We shouldn't have families going overseas to adopt instead of getting a child right here in the US.

I think you're overestimating the amount of children, that could go up for adoption instead of abortion, that are special needs. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken you cannot determine if the kid will be special needs while still in the womb. So we're going to allow abortions simply because there's a chance the kid might end up being a special needs child? That's a great policy.

[quote name='Jabrim']Yeah a lot of people do adopt kids that have special needs specifically because they have special needs and it get's their lazy ass free money through the government. Why else do you think the same groups of people adopt/take care of special needs kids and have dozens of them at a time? It isn't love, if you think so you are naive to the world.[/QUOTE]

Well the couple who were murdered did it out of love... Not saying you're wrong but there may be just as many/more doing it for the right reasons as those that are not. This certainly would not be the only type of issue with a negative side to it. You should ask the children would they have preferred to been killed. If our government operated correctly, they would monitor the children while in a family's custody to see that the arrangement was fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top