|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: WBC started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Dec. 17 2012,06:55
This news came up from the shooting in Newton, < there's a petition to have the WBC classified as a hate group. > Not sure how I feel about that. There's most definitely hate there, and I'm 100% against their funeral protests, but this seems to be an attrack on the first amendment too. Also, < Anonymous declares war on the WBC. > Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,07:23
All people may be born equal, and thus should start out with the same initial rights. However, as they evolve into assholes instead of productive members of society, I have no qualms about taking that shit away.Back when the Greeks had a direct democracy, every time they met they'd each scribble someone's name on a piece of pottery. At the end of the year, they'd total up all the pieces. If someone got their name written enough times, their ass got banished. These are the "fathers of democracy" exercising the "fuck the shithead" option. Maybe every voter gets to do something similar a few times a year for shit like this. Course, then everyone would just write "TSA" and that'd be the end of it because that agency is obviously infallible and never oversteps its authority nor rips the head off and shits down the neck of the Bill of Rights. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,09:12
It' snot government's place to curtail the First Amendment. That's not a step they should ever be encouraged to take.QUOTE Also, Anonymous declares war on the WBC. And there's the right answer. Government should never curtail the First Amendment, but I would have little problem with them choosing to step aside when the vigilantes come for the WBC. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,09:33
You're worried about the semantic difference between them enabling someone else to slam the idiots and doing it themselves? If the right brain of the gov't is to be completely excised, then the gov't itself is useless.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,09:58
It's more than a semantic difference. It's the difference between having the police attack you and having them step aside while someone else you've wronged attacks you. Sure depending on the circumstances that might not be a big difference, but in other circumstances it's all the difference in the world.I guess another way to put it would be that I don't like the death penalty because a government should not be murdering its citizens. But I would have no problem with a government that has a process to judge someone as having taken such extreme actions (like those you'd expect for a capital offense, I'm talking need-to-die sort of people here) that they are no longer covered by our societal contract and no longer subject to protection under our laws. Then hand them off to the families of the victims and whatever happens happens. Posted by Leisher on Dec. 17 2012,09:58
I agree with TPR.I don't want to live in a U.S. where the government keeps folks with crazy ideas in check, even if it's at the request of a majority. I don't agree with everything that Anonymous does at all. I think they lean way too far left. For example, I find it concerning that they don't have the foresight to realize that too much progress too soon is bad, and makes them the same as those they despise for forcing their views upon others. That being said, I love their war on the WBC. Not just because it's something I agree with, but because it is clearly the morally correct thing to do. The government doesn't have the right to stop the WBC, nor should they, but Anonymous can. Now if the WBC was simply protesting gay pride parades and spreading their anti-gay message there, then I'd say Anonymous would be wrong to go after them. Then they'd be infringing upon the WBC's 1st amendment rights. To attack them for protests against gays at the funerals of our military and children? Absolutely the correct thing to do. Because it's a MORAL line, not a legal one. Gay people can handle some protesters, mourning families shouldn't have to... Posted by GORDON on Dec. 17 2012,10:15
I really enjoyed the response they got when WBC picketed Comicon.A counter protest with a bunch of nerds in costumes chanting: What do we want? GAY SEX! When do we want it? NOW! And WBC left. Ha. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,10:31
QUOTE I don't want to live in a U.S. where the government keeps folks with crazy ideas in check, even if it's at the request of a majority. We already do this at an international level. QUOTE I guess another way to put it would be that I don't like the death penalty because a government should not be murdering its citizens. "... by the people, of the people, for the people." The gov't IS the fucking people. Who else, then, has the authority to put one of their own to death? The entrails of a goat, like they did back in the day, or perhaps trial by combat? Placing that authority into the hands of the those directly wronged, who are just a "government of circumstance" in this case, seems like the worst possible choice. Perhaps they get to carry out the sentence, but they don't get to decide on it. QUOTE But I would have no problem with a government that has a process to judge someone as having taken such extreme actions (like those you'd expect for a capital offense, I'm talking need-to-die sort of people here) that they are no longer covered by our societal contract and no longer subject to protection under our laws. Then hand them off to the families of the victims and whatever happens happens. This is not how Lockian philosophy says society works. In exchange for giving up vigilantism, you gain public protection from the dudes in charge. We have certain rights that are "inalienable." It's virtually impossible to surrender them. If you start a religion that believes in weekly human sacrifices, then it's still fucking murder, in spite of the fact "freedom of religion" is covered in the top ten. Somewhere in there, we put "due process" and "trial by jury" and other things. This is partly why John Locke is to Western philosophy what Lao-Tze is to Eastern -- a naive hippie who made the mistake in believing that people are fundamentally good and can and want to coexist peacefully. QUOTE Because it's a MORAL line, not a legal one. Because the fucking gov't doesn't already try to legislate that shit. QUOTE Gay people can handle some protesters, mourning families shouldn't have to... Traffic already stops for funeral processions. How is that not a law based almost entirely in morality? It's due to the practical fact there's a lot of people on the road in a line? I don't see weddings getting police escorts. Posted by GORDON on Dec. 17 2012,10:46
(Malcolm @ Dec. 17 2012,13:31) QUOTE QUOTE I guess another way to put it would be that I don't like the death penalty because a government should not be murdering its citizens. "... by the people, of the people, for the people." The gov't IS the fucking people. Who else, then, has the authority to put one of their own to death? The entrails of a goat, like they did back in the day, or perhaps trial by combat? Placing that authority into the hands of the those directly wronged, who are just a "government of circumstance" in this case, seems like the worst possible choice. Perhaps they get to carry out the sentence, but they don't get to decide on it. Reminds me of the old saw, "How can it be moral for a government to do a thing that would be immoral for an individual person to do?" Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,10:53
QUOTE The gov't IS Fixed. But seriously, the government is not just people. It's people embodied with excess power that regular citizens do not have. That shit has got to be kept in check. Any government that does not fear it's own citizenry will eventually grow to make the citizenry fear it. QUOTE Somewhere in there, we put "due process" and "trial by jury" and other things. I never said anything about removing due process and trial by jury. I specifically said that there would be a process for proper judgement, and while I didn't spell it out in great detail I do believe that there should indeed be a jury and etc. It's after all of that if it results in a guilty verdict and if sentencing determines that capitol punishment would be appropriate that I would rather let vigilantism take over then have the government murdering citizens. Ultimately I'm an Idealistic Anarchist and don't think we need any of that shit, I admit it. But we aren't ready for that yet as a society or as individuals. Not for at least another few centuries if even then. Until then, hell yes jury trials. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,10:57
You know what, I take it back. I guess I did in the specific case of WBC specifically suggest that they could step aside and let some vigilantism take place. You are right.Just not too much vigilantism. I don't mean they should let WBC be killed, just that if they get beat up a bit I wouldn't be upset if the perpetrators "got away." Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,11:14
QUOTE It's after all of that if it results in a guilty verdict and if sentencing determines that capitol punishment would be appropriate that I would rather let vigilantism take over then have the government murdering citizens. You'd rather turn the condemned over to a mob than to the authorities (who probably aren't emotionally affected as much)? If we're talking execution by lethal injection, perhaps the victim gets to push the button that kicks off the chems or something. Any punishment short of death, and the victim's involvement kind of comes into question. If I steal your car from you, do you get to steal mine? It's a piece of shit compared to your Jaguar. But hey, maybe you can seize my house and sell it at auction. But then that makes me homeless and more likely to be a problem to society later on ... I've got no home, a night in a jail cell is at least an enclosed space with food, and I've got nothing to lose otherwise. Maybe I can just pay you for your car over the course of a few years ... unless I've got little to no prospect for gainful employment. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,11:31
Nah, I'm just talking about the equivalent of capitol punishment cases, those cases where if it were a dog that had done whatever the crime was you'd have just shot it.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,12:23
I'm more apt towards leniency for dogs than people. At least dogs, as a species, have proven that they can learn to behave when treated properly.What does a society do with someone who: (a) is likely to cause more trouble than he's worth and (b) demonstrates he's incapable or unwilling that to change that fact? Lock him up? It's expensive and you'd better never let him out or socialize with other criminals inside the jail. Chances are he'll be more trouble when he gets out. Want to kill him? Say hello to the lengthy appeals process, and that's if he's done something kill-worthy. Treat him? If possible, still expensive and some external force has to make sure he's going along with the treatment. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,13:47
Treatment, unless he's a completely hopeless case in which case if he's an extreme danger to others (like murder/rape/etc) then we have to put him down. That's after we streamline that stupid appeals process. There should be an appeals process, but it's completely gotten out of hand.Other than tightening up the processes I wouldn't change much. Just at the end of the process if it's death I'd rather see anyone besides the government do the job. If we need a lesser-yet-still-very-serious punishment, perhaps we should consider reinstating banishment (and good luck to them finding a country that will let them in, depending on their crimes). Well, one other change: life in prison with no chance for parole is stupid. Hell, it's worse than a death sentence. Might as well just kill them rather than torture them with jail for the next however many decades they are going to live. It's inhumane. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,13:58
Who enforces the treatment? You plan to assign a social worker to each of these dudes? Have fun filling that job. While being treated, if they've no source of income, someone else foots the bill for their living expenses and treatment. While there are certainly some folk that legitimately fall into this category, what about the ones that are gaming the system simply draining it of cash and resources instead of putting forth enough personal effort to overcome whatever problem is fucking with them? How do you distinguish between the two?
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,14:32
Okay, not treatment then, do something else.But all of this falls outside the boundaries of my original suggestions and statements which are specifically regarding capitol-level offenses, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,15:03
Let's take the Batman shooter. There's a capitol case if ever the termed needed to be coined. Let's assume the dude is found mentally competent and guilty to the tune of a couple dozen counts of murder in the first. The gov't gets to set the sentence, death. They also get to set the means of death and carefully control the environment. Finally, they perform the deed which directs the actual killing (used to be a few axe swings, then tying a noose, then pulling a trigger, now pushing a button or flipping a switch).I'm interested in giving that third step to the wronged, perhaps. The other two do not belong in the hands of the emotionally volatile. The death is the end result, ideally, of some fucker that wasn't going to make it in this society except in the most violent, parasitic, dangerous ways. It's a cold, calculating, pragmatic decision, and should be made objectively no matter the heuristics. Mobs are not known for to possess such qualities. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,16:25
It doesn't have to be a mob. Once legal protections are taken away from the condemned, the families of the victims could sell off the right to kill him to some rich weirdo and get some compensation out of it. They could do it themselves if the feel the need. They could be magnanimous and give him his life, although he'll need to leave the country before someone else kills him off.I wouldn't want to force the family to take that third step. I'd want to do whatever it is that gives them the best closure possible under the circumstances. But more importantly I just don't want the government to do it. Getting in the habit of killing citizens is a bad idea. Next thing you know they're getting sloppy because killing is no big deal and people are getting shot in their homes "on accident". Oh, wait... Posted by GORDON on Dec. 17 2012,16:29
Lately I have been of the mind that the death penalty lets them off easy.The vulture media will never let his name be forgotten, so people will always figure they can go out in a blaze of glory if they can do something more monstrous than the last guy. So, how do we deter them? When there is NO doubt as to their guilt... Make their lives so agonizing that no one even thinks about doing it. If they screw up their suicide at the end, so much the better. Keep them alive for as long as possible, and make their every waking moment a symphony of every type of torture we can think of, up to and including cutting bits of their body off one inch at a time. Slowly. Stemming blood loss. Letting the would heal. Then take off another inch. Without anesthetic, of course. Feed them their own flesh. No eating, nutrition through tubes. No relief of a good piss... catheter. Initiate tooth rot, one at a time. Give them hemorrhoids. Give them poison ivy. No good night's sleep. No moment without pain. Not an hour goes by without their being verbally assaulted. Anything and everything to make their lives a living hell... and prolong their lives as long as medically possible. Even if they slip into brain death, keep up every torture until their bodies literally fall apart around the tubes keeping them alive. Televise it. Death is light as a feather, pain is as heavy as a mountain. Bury them under it. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 17 2012,17:43
QUOTE I wouldn't want to force the family to take that third step. I'd want to do whatever it is that gives them the best closure possible under the circumstances. But more importantly I just don't want the government to do it. They don't want to? Then the state does it. I'm willing to let them join in the process if they want, in a small but noticeable way.The state sentences and tries him. It should have most of the hand in killing, otherwise there's a disconnect between sending someone off to die versus actually killing him. Whoever determines punishment needs to be aware of the gravity of their decision. Letting someone else zip up the body bag is a cop-out on that end. If the gov't does the catching and trial, they do most of the killing or at least set it up for someone else to spike it home. If the wronged get to do the killing, then they do sentencing and trial. I'd maybe let them out of the "catching" part (I'd actually prefer they didn't do that). This is not a multi-party process in this case; the Batman shooter couldn't help but be brought up on charges even if none of the victims' families pressed them. One group of people in chief make the push and follow through. No disconnect. As much as people get sent to death row, some rightfully don't deserve to be there. You'd need to assume there will be fuck-ups because sometimes previously unknown witnesses keep their mouths shut until their deathbeds or somebody finds a lost evidence bag from an ancient storeroom. Wrongly sending someone off to a mob makes it too easy to wash one's hands after that. "Hey, it's not like I killed him, I just made it possible for some other pissed off person to do so." You make the decision, you live with the consequences, be it the state or the wronged. I submit < human beings are too easily goaded into being overly harsh for no rational reason > to be trusted to dispense punishment in general without an emotional stake in something, let alone under duress. Your brain is not working properly in that state. It's difficult enough to figure out a sane punishment when the convicted dude shot someone you don't know. If you want irrational justice, then fuck jury trials, fuck the state, and fuck the government courts entirely. All in or all out. Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 17 2012,20:30
QUOTE You make the decision, you live with the consequences, be it the state or the wronged. That's the problem, the state never lives with the consequences, at least not in the way you mean it here. At most if some state official loses his stomach for the job, then someone else takes over. At worst the state starts to write off killing citizens as a bureaucratic nuisance and finds more efficient ways to do the paperwork so they can do more of it without bothering about citizen's rights. As you say, leaving the ultimate fate up to someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the matter can be messy. Leaving it up to the wronged (once an impartial jury and judge have ruled guilty and enough severity in the matter to justify it) makes more sense to me. This sounds like something we will not be agreeing on. Posted by Leisher on Dec. 18 2012,10:23
Taking this thread back to the WBC, did you notice that the KKK has been counter-protesting them?How fucked do you have to be when the KKK says, "You fuckers are crazy"? Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 18 2012,10:34
QUOTE That's the problem, the state never lives with the consequences, at least not in the way you mean it here. There's a change that needs to occur. If you're willing to sentence someone to death and finish them off, that means you're willing to put your name on a line that says, "I contributed to ending someone's life." If you're wrong in your findings, and the executed is later proven to be innocent, then you've got the potential to answer for some portion of the murder. If you don't have the balls to state that, then you've got no biz sending someone off to die or killing them. QUOTE As you say, leaving the ultimate fate up to someone who doesn't have a personal stake in the matter can be messy. Proper punishment isn't an easy thing to decide, even when you don't have anything in the game. If you do, you're in an even lesser state of rationality. QUOTE How fucked do you have to be when the KKK says, "You fuckers are crazy"? I'm just going to assume the WBC showed up to a military funeral and tried to start shit. I can't imagine the KKK showing up to a pride parade or something. But that is fucking out there. |