|
|
Originally Posted by olderguy
(Post 1449351)
Maybe we should deport the entire chain migration and families of those convicted of acting on behalf of, or convicted of terrorism. Send the whole lot of them back to the shit hole they came from a few times and see how that works as a deterrent.
But I get your point. |
I love punishing innocent people for someone else's crime. I also enjoy physically mutilating people. Especially when every now and then you throw an innocent one in there.
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1449354)
Or even the families/heirs of people who decide to fill a truck with chemicals and blow up a federal building or shoot 600 people or....
But I get your point. |
.
|
.
|
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1449355)
I love punishing innocent people for someone else's crime.
His legend was constructed with a considerable basis in reality. Among certain organizations, it is in fact commonplace to punish disloyalty / disobedience / criminal behavior not by directly punishing the malefactor, but rather by causing great harm to their families and loved ones. For some, the thought that your wife / children / etc. might be put to death as a punishment for one's own criminal behavior is much more highly disincentivizing than the threat of punishment or harm to one's self. |
Originally Posted by Art
(Post 1449359)
The story above about the brother and sister just sounds like Jerry Springer but how is it about liberals?
they've published stories just recently, telling us white children cannot not to dress as Disney’s Moana, calling women’s orgasms sexist because men can also be pleasured by them, and actual sadness that Texas women were having babies instead of abortions. Their goal is to desensitize and normalize this sort of crap. In the article, they don't even call the relationship incestuous, since that has a negative cogitation. but instead, they created a term of consanguineous couples, in order to PC it. Normalize pedophilia, normalize transgender kindergartners, normalize incest, normalize polyigomy, etc. that's the liberal agenda right now -- right after punching "nazis" |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1449363)
Consider the case of the fictional Keyser Söze.
His legend was constructed with a considerable basis in reality. Among certain organizations, it is in fact commonplace to punish disloyalty / disobedience / criminal behavior not by directly punishing the malefactor, but rather by causing great harm to their families and loved ones. For some, the thought that your wife / children / etc. might be put to death as a punishment for one's own criminal behavior is much more highly disincentivizing than the threat of punishment or harm to one's self. |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1449368)
I understand the concept and why it "works". But it's widely considered immoral since you are now involving innocent parties.
Guilty by association is a great way to get back to the good ole McCarthy days. The first is that the concepts of "accessory after the fact" and "aiding and abetting" are largely compatible with the notion of "guilt by association." People are routinely convicted and imprisoned on these charges. The second is that no one in this scenario is accusing the family of any guilt per se. We are merely using that which a potential criminal may value more than their own liberty as a means of deterrence. One extension of the "widely considered immoral" argument would be that it is also immoral to imprison anyone who is the sole or principal provider for a family. Or anyone who is a parent and actively involved in the upbringing of their children, for that matter. But we don't typically object to this except in rare and extreme cases. Typically, we simply assure ourselves that the criminal should have thought about the consequences of their actions upon their family. In some societies, it is considered immoral to deprive a person of their life via capital punishment. In others, it is considered unconscionable to allow those to remain alive who have committed certain crimes. |
Art, I don't feel like sitting down and going through all your points at the moment, but I will address the first one.
If someone is guilty of a crime, then they should be fully prepared to suffer the consequences. I'll give you a very personal example. My little brother is currently incarcerated for battering his pregnant wife. Now a battery charge is surprisingly easy to get (as an average scumbag), and calling it such in this particular instance is a bit extreme. The fact is, that he did it, and he is currently suffering the consequences. He also has a history of other criminal behavior, and has gotten off very with very lenient sentences in the past. Am I bothered that he is a dumbass? Yes. Do I wish he would fix his self? Absolutely. Am I bothered that he is reaping the rewards of his dumbfuckery? Nope. In fact, he should still be in jail for previous offenses. If you think rules shouldn't apply equally to everyone based on how much you like them, then you simply don't believe in justice. |
This forum seriously needs a [sarcasm]font[/sarcasm] tag...
|
.
|
.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1449371)
The first is that the concepts of "accessory after the fact" and "aiding and abetting" are largely compatible with the notion of "guilt by association." People are routinely convicted and imprisoned on these charges.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1449371)
The second is that no one in this scenario is accusing the family of any guilt per se. We are merely using that which a potential criminal may value more than their own liberty as a means of deterrence.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1449371)
One extension of the "widely considered immoral" argument would be that it is also immoral to imprison anyone who is the sole or principal provider for a family. Or anyone who is a parent and actively involved in the upbringing of their children, for that matter. But we don't typically object to this except in rare and extreme cases. Typically, we simply assure ourselves that the criminal should have thought about the consequences of their actions upon their family.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1449371)
In some societies, it is considered immoral to deprive a person of their life via capital punishment. In others, it is considered unconscionable to allow those to remain alive who have committed certain crimes.
|
Why I Filmed My Abortion
I found out I was pregnant in November. I had been working at the clinic for about a year. It was my first pregnancy, and, full disclosure, I hadn't been using any kind of birth control, which is crazy, I know. I'm a sex educator, and I love talking about birth control. Before this experience, hormonal birth control scared me because of complications I'd heard about from friends — gaining weight, depression, etc. So I tracked my ovulation cycle, and I didn't have any long-term partners. I thought I was OK. But, you know, things happen. I wound up pregnant. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below On a whim, I took a test, and it came up two pink lines. The moment when a woman looks down and sees those two pink lines and she's not expecting to see them, it's like time implodes and explodes simultaneously. You're caught in this tornado that just sucks out all the breath in your lungs. ... Still, every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is. I think that there are just no positive abortion stories on video for everyone to see. But mine is. I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman's process, but what I really wanted to address in my video is guilt. Our society breeds this guilt. We inhale it from all directions. Even women who come to the clinic completely solid in their decision to have an abortion say they feel guilty for not feeling guilty. Even though they know 110 percent that this is the best decision for them, they pressure themselves to feel bad about it. I didn't feel bad. I do feel a little irresponsible and embarrassed about not using birth control. I mean, Emily, wake up! What are you doing? I was going against the advice I give to patients all the time. So I had them put an IUD in after the abortion. I was able to learn and move forward. And I am grateful that I can share my story and inspire other women to stop the guilt. best comment: You have to understand that the Cosmopolitan culture is naturally disposed to hate babies and children. Kids get sick at inconvenient times and force you to you miss awesome parties and work, you have to spend your money on pediatricians and school tuition instead of spa holidays, botox treatments, and the most enviable pocket tech. They cry for you to sit with them late at night when you are trying to ace the amazingly hot tantric sex contortion on this month's Cosmopolitan cover blurb. Worst of all for Cosmo gals, the kiddies step on your $2,000 Manolo stilettos and ~scuff them~ as they draw near to embrace you, and their sticky fingers soil your Armani power suit as they *gasp* reach up to hold your hand. Priorities are everything in life. |
|
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1449436)
:idea: Idea: create and market abortion-porn.
|
Originally Posted by Art
(Post 1449386)
Out of context but having 5 children at 20 vs 1 at 30 can have quite an effect politically/economically as far as education, labor workforce, in addition to population growth. One of those scenarios suits factory/farm work/labor more than the other, perhaps not necessarily.
Democrat shouts down black pro-life woman at House hearing, accuses her of ‘ignorance’ ...Abortion feeds a narrative that women are victims, that they have no control over their sexual impulses. And the result of this narrative being forced down into our hardest-hit communities – we are seeing now recklessness in sexual activity and marriage has collapsed. In the 50s, 70% of black adults were married. Today, that number is 30 percent. This is causing a lot more social pathologies that have to be addressed in different types of legislation, not the Heartbeat Bill. The Heartbeat Bill is to protect the innocent... ... Cohen retorted that he would “like to say that I am not disingenuous about anything I say about Medicaid, or Medicare ... or SNAP programs.” Then, raising his voice, he continued, “And to suggest I’m disingenuous shows your ignorance or your absolute inability to deal with Congresspeople the way they should. I believe in those issues and I think they’re proper, and to say I’m disingenuous is just wrong and I expect an apology.” Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, immediately quipped, “I would ask for an apology from the gentleman from Tennessee (for) calling our witness ignorant when it seems to me she has a whole lot more knowledge and wisdom” than he does. Chairman Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, then ended the hearing, citing the “lack of civility before this committee.” I love using statistics inappropriately to drive your profit agenda. |
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands