Re: Peterson's Death Sentence
Aunty Kreist
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:9g1uu0hq4ct1nhms5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:37:02 GMT, "Pip" <Ae...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Hunh. I don't care if he lives or dies. He is guilty. Then again lots
of
> >guilty people go free, and then, lots of innocent people go to the chair.
> >The only way you can cure that is to abolish the death penalty.
> >I oppose the death penalty because of its varying application from state
to
> >state and judge to judge.
>
> ---
> If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
> it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
> you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
> ---
Why John, how very white of you to inform Pip what her reasons and emotions
should be.
> >The law declaring the fetus a legal person disturbs me a great deal.
>
> ---
> It shouldn't. From the moment of conception, when the two foreign
> strands of DNA wrap around each other and form something that was
> never there before, given time and lack of hate, a new human will join
> us.
> ---
Sure it isn't a malignant tumor? And still being so considerate, telling
people what should and shouldn't disturb them. That's quite an ego you have
there! I'm sure people will be polite, and not laugh at you *too* loudly.
> >Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.
>
> ---
> Abortion _is_ murder.
That is opinion, not fact.
It's the taking of a life which, had it not
> been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
> ---
Proof? I expect you to give cites.
> >To me, this is the issue that deserves national attention.
>
> ---
> No, it deserves individual attention. Unfortunately, many of the
> sexual encounters which result in progeny are entered into with
> ignorance of the consequences of those encounters, with the result
> that the offspring of those unions will be unwanted, will be uncared
> for, and will become dregs upon society, with the intelligent ones
> planning and successfully executing payback for their misery.
> ---
Wow, someone sure has sour grapes.
> >Is there anymore evidence to convict Hatching in Utah of murder? No?
> >Another thing that should rightly piss you off, is that the Peterson case
> >has been used to distract the nation from important political events,
like
> >what fucking Bush is up to.
>
> ---
> You can't chew gum and walk at the same time, can you?
> ---
You can't stay on your geek group without coming here to spout off fundie
brainwashed garbage, can you?
> >Peterson's case is more a diversion and an
> >appeal to the soap operatic interests of the country than it is an
"unjust"
> >conviction.
> >I care about abortion rights and what is going on in Iraq. Peterson can
rot
> >in jail or fry, I don't give a damn which.
>
> ---
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, fucking blah...
> Just another plea for attention, just like Peterson's.
IOW, you have nothing intelligent to add. No surprise there.
> What you losers both have in common is that neither of you knows that
> you have nothing to say which hasn't been said thousands of times
> before and that few of us, up 'til now, has had the interest to step
> up and peg you both as inconsequential influences in the long term.
>
> Death, yeah, that's the way to go...
In your case, it would certainly be beneficial to us all. Now don't you have
some calculus or something to do?
> --
> John Fields
uvc...@juno.com
>That is opinion, not fact.
> It's the taking of a life which, had it not
>> been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
>> ---
>Proof? I expect you to give cites.
Hey there. Take a look at the subject line of this thread for the answer
to your need for proof.
The only reason old scotty there got the death penalty was because he
killed his unborn son, aka, the fetus (as referred to by the other
murderers)
If killing an unborn child is not murder, how come scotty boy is gonna die
for doing it?
Kevin Aylward
I can't see the original post, but what the hell...
> "John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> news:9g1uu0hq4ct1nhms5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:37:02 GMT, "Pip" <Ae...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hunh. I don't care if he lives or dies. He is guilty. Then again
>>> lots of guilty people go free, and then, lots of innocent people go
>>> to the chair. The only way you can cure that is to abolish the
>>> death penalty. I oppose the death penalty because of its varying
>>> application from state to state and judge to judge.
>>
>> ---
>> If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
>> it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
>> you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
Ahmmm. Someone who unjustifiable takes a life should have his life
taken, imo. This is because life is *so* precious, it should never be
taken without good reason. Good reasons are to prevent or punish someone
from taking a life unjustifiable. The *only* reason I am against the
death penalty is because one must have absolute proof that the person
executed is guilty. Killing an innocent person is not an option in this
type of situation imo.
So, I absolutely believe that cold blooded killers should be executed in
principle, but must not be, due the lack of absolute proof of guilt.
>> ---
>
> Why John, how very white of you to inform Pip what her reasons and
> emotions should be.
>
>
>>> The law declaring the fetus a legal person disturbs me a great deal.
>>
>> ---
>> It shouldn't. From the moment of conception, when the two foreign
>> strands of DNA wrap around each other and form something that was
>> never there before, given time and lack of hate, a new human will
>> join us.
Complete nonsense. We only need you be concerned about a "life" after it
has first become *conscious*. Before something becomes conscious it is
no more then a carrot. What *makes* a life, that needs consideration for
its *own* sake, is a brain. Period.
>> ---
>
> Sure it isn't a malignant tumor? And still being so considerate,
> telling people what should and shouldn't disturb them. That's quite
> an ego you have there! I'm sure people will be polite, and not laugh
> at you *too* loudly.
>
>
>>> Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.
>>
>> ---
>> Abortion _is_ murder.
>
> That is opinion, not fact.
I suppose this depends on the definition of "murder". Is it a legal one,
or one what we personally consider is murder. For me, certainly before
about 3 months there are simply no significant neuron connections in a
brain to make a conscious mind, so until that time, the foetus is no
more than a carrot.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Aunty Kreist
<uvc...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:41ef49f3$2$woehfu$mr2...@news.aros.net...
Um....because he also killed the human the fetus was attached to.
But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
Parse Tree
It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
Paul Burke
> Someone who unjustifiable takes a life should have his life
> taken, imo.
> So, I absolutely believe that cold blooded killers should be executed in
> principle, but must not be, due the lack of absolute proof of guilt.
Everybody who supports the death penalty should be shot.
Paul Burke
Marco Dieckhoff
> Aunty Kreist wrote:
>> Um....because he also killed the human the fetus was attached to.
>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>
> It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
Ah, "host". That's where comp.os.linux.networking comes in play, hm?
OK, I kill child processes every day on my host, hoping they don't
become zombies. And I don't feel guilty about that.
Sorry, but I can't see any reason why comp.os.linux.networking is
in the list of newsgroups to this topic.
Can anyone enlighten me? Otherwise please take care not to post
this thread to comp.os.linux.networking anymore. Thanks.
--
Marco Dieckhoff
Reg Edwards
> >
How can cites provide proofs?
They are merely yet more opinions, no more reliable than the person who
didn't quote one.
Often more unreliable because of being taken out of context or misquoted.
Either you accept a statement or you dont accept it.
Reg Edwards
>
By who ?
Andy
Having raised 2 girls and a boy , I know from personal
experience that a fetus does not take on human characteristics
until approximately 20 years after birth...
Up until that time, abortions should be legalized....
Andy :>))))
Paul Burke
paul Burke
richard mullens
Someone else who supports the death penalty.
It would solve a lot of problems and diminish support for the death penalty in one go.
Jim Thompson
Sno-o-o-o-o-ort!
I raised 2+2. Now I watch my 6 grandchildren, and wonder how **I**
survived ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Rhyanon
"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
news:3595jsF...@individual.net...
Very gray area, but it would seem to me that it's when the fetus can survive
outside the womb. Given med. technology, that's around the middle of the
second trimester....
>
>
John Fields
<Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:9g1uu0hq4ct1nhms5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:37:02 GMT, "Pip" <Ae...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hunh. I don't care if he lives or dies. He is guilty. Then again lots
>of
>> >guilty people go free, and then, lots of innocent people go to the chair.
>> >The only way you can cure that is to abolish the death penalty.
>> >I oppose the death penalty because of its varying application from state
>to
>> >state and judge to judge.
>>
>> ---
>> If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
>> it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
>> you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
>> ---
>
>Why John, how very white of you to inform Pip what her reasons and emotions
>should be.
---
And how very presumptuous of you to inform me that that's not what I
should be doing?
---
>> >The law declaring the fetus a legal person disturbs me a great deal.
>>
>> ---
>> It shouldn't. From the moment of conception, when the two foreign
>> strands of DNA wrap around each other and form something that was
>> never there before, given time and lack of hate, a new human will join
>> us.
>> ---
>
>Sure it isn't a malignant tumor?
---
Unfortunately, sometimes they are. Like Peterson. And, perhaps, you?
---
>And still being so considerate, telling people what should and shouldn't disturb them.
---
Didn't your mommy ever tell you that there's no boogey man?
---
>That's quite an ego you have there! I'm sure people will be polite,
>and not laugh at you *too* loudly.
---
Laugh away, if you choose. It's all just my opinion, and if you want
to kill your kids, then go for it!
---
>> >Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.
>>
>> ---
>> Abortion _is_ murder.
>
>That is opinion, not fact.
---
It doesn't matter how thin you slice it, when you're done the fact
still remains that had that embryo not been killed it might have made
it to term.
---
> It's the taking of a life which, had it not
>> been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
>> ---
>
>Proof? I expect you to give cites.
---
Reducto ad absurdium, look around you. See all the people that
_weren't_ murdered before they were born?
---
>> >To me, this is the issue that deserves national attention.
>>
>> ---
>> No, it deserves individual attention. Unfortunately, many of the
>> sexual encounters which result in progeny are entered into with
>> ignorance of the consequences of those encounters, with the result
>> that the offspring of those unions will be unwanted, will be uncared
>> for, and will become dregs upon society, with the intelligent ones
>> planning and successfully executing payback for their misery.
>> ---
>
>Wow, someone sure has sour grapes.
---
The connotation of "sour grapes" is generally that of grudging envy or
jealousy, but you seem to be driving at something else. Care to
expound on what you mean?
---
>> >Is there anymore evidence to convict Hatching in Utah of murder? No?
>> >Another thing that should rightly piss you off, is that the Peterson case
>> >has been used to distract the nation from important political events,
>like
>> >what fucking Bush is up to.
>>
>> ---
>> You can't chew gum and walk at the same time, can you?
>> ---
>
>You can't stay on your geek group without coming here to spout off fundie
>brainwashed garbage, can you?
---
Hey, asshole, I have as much right to be here and to voice my opinions
as anyone does. If you don't like it, then plonk me or go kill a
baby, if that'll make you feel better.
---
>> >Peterson's case is more a diversion and an
>> >appeal to the soap operatic interests of the country than it is an
>"unjust"
>> >conviction.
>> >I care about abortion rights and what is going on in Iraq. Peterson can
>rot
>> >in jail or fry, I don't give a damn which.
>>
>> ---
>> Blah, blah, blah, blah, fucking blah...
>
>> Just another plea for attention, just like Peterson's.
>
>IOW, you have nothing intelligent to add. No surprise there.
---
LOL! Look at what _you've_ written so far; a bunch of emotionally
generated half-baked accusations backed up with a little vitriol.
PKB?
---
>> What you losers both have in common is that neither of you knows that
>> you have nothing to say which hasn't been said thousands of times
>> before and that few of us, up 'til now, has had the interest to step
>> up and peg you both as inconsequential influences in the long term.
>>
>> Death, yeah, that's the way to go...
>
>In your case, it would certainly be beneficial to us all.
---
So now _you're_ speaking for everyone?
---
>Now don't you have some calculus or something to do?
---
Not at the moment. I'm between projects right now, and this group
looked like it might be an interesting way to while away some time, so
here I am!
--
John Fields
John Fields
<Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
---
That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
strand of DNA is assembled.
--
John Fields
John Fields
<salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>Ahmmm. Someone who unjustifiable takes a life should have his life
>taken, imo. This is because life is *so* precious, it should never be
>taken without good reason. Good reasons are to prevent or punish someone
>from taking a life unjustifiable. The *only* reason I am against the
>death penalty is because one must have absolute proof that the person
>executed is guilty. Killing an innocent person is not an option in this
>type of situation imo.
>
>So, I absolutely believe that cold blooded killers should be executed in
>principle, but must not be, due the lack of absolute proof of guilt.
---
So it would be OK to blow away confessed killers?
---
>>>> The law declaring the fetus a legal person disturbs me a great deal.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> It shouldn't. From the moment of conception, when the two foreign
>>> strands of DNA wrap around each other and form something that was
>>> never there before, given time and lack of hate, a new human will
>>> join us.
>
>Complete nonsense. We only need you be concerned about a "life" after it
>has first become *conscious*. Before something becomes conscious it is
>no more then a carrot. What *makes* a life, that needs consideration for
>its *own* sake, is a brain. Period.
---
Utter hogwash. Killing a live, growing organism which will eventually
become sentient for no other reason than to prevent it from becoming
sentient is murder, pure and simple.
---
>I suppose this depends on the definition of "murder". Is it a legal one,
>or one what we personally consider is murder. For me, certainly before
>about 3 months there are simply no significant neuron connections in a
>brain to make a conscious mind, so until that time, the foetus is no
>more than a carrot.
---
While for me, it's important to let the carrot _become_ a carrot
before it's yanked out of the ground.
--
John Fields
John Fields
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>Aunty Kreist wrote:
>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>
>It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
---
Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?
Unfortunately in some cases, leaving the host doesn't guarantee that
the parasitic behavior will end.
--
John Fields
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
When the nervous system has the complexity of a mouse brain then it's on a par
with a mouse. Ditto for every other stage of development.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
John Fields
wrote:
---
Like the form of those tiles on the space shuttle?^)
--
John Fields
Kevin Aylward
But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe for no
good reason.
Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious is
almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
certainly after a few months minimum though.
And, sure, current science alone, is not enough to dictate all moral
issues like this, but its a no brainer for the first months of
conception. A foetus is just an amorphous blob of chemicals, and that's
all the respect it deservers. Where is the dividing line between 9
months and 2 months? I don't know, and it doesn't matter if one wants to
restrict to prior to two months.
If you can give an actual *argument* as to why a non conscious amorphous
blob of chemicals should be given rights that a conscious blob of
chemicals is given, lets hear it. Hint: I don't take kindly to "gods
divine will" bullshit.
David
>>>If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
>>>it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
>>>you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
>
A question to ponder!
Is it not murder to kill the one who murdered? Wait it must not be
because some judge or jury said he was guilty. If I remember the good book
says "Thou shall not kill" But than again I do not have to answer to his
murder in the long run
John Fields
wrote:
>
>"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
>news:3595jsF...@individual.net...
>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>
>Very gray area, but it would seem to me that it's when the fetus can survive
>outside the womb. Given med. technology, that's around the middle of the
>second trimester....
---
Then, with the inevitable advances in medical technology one would
expect, that "time of survival" will be pushed closer and closer to
the time of conception until it will be possible to bring a fertilized
egg to term out of the womb. If such is the case, then you argue that
life begins at conception but that we can't currently support it
ex-utero that early?
--
John Fields
John Fields
<di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>
>>
>> ---
>> That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
>> strand of DNA is assembled.
>
>When the nervous system has the complexity of a mouse brain then it's on a par
>with a mouse. Ditto for every other stage of development.
---
I agree, but for it to develop it must be alive. And if it's alive...
--
John Fields
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:29:09 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
>
>>John Fields wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>><Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
>>>strand of DNA is assembled.
>>
>>When the nervous system has the complexity of a mouse brain then it's on a par
>>with a mouse. Ditto for every other stage of development.
>
>
> ---
> I agree, but for it to develop it must be alive. And if it's alive...
That's not really the question.
It is 'when is it a human life'.
My view is when it exceeds the neural complexity of the smatest ape.
John Fields
<salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>
>> ---
>> That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
>> strand of DNA is assembled.
>
>But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
>scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe for no
>good reason.
---
The point is not whether it's conscious or not, (although it could be
argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
accurate) it's that it's alive and has a goal, that goal being to
become what we call conscious.
---
>Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious is
>almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
>certainly after a few months minimum though.
---
If you don't know when, you can't say not when.\
---
>And, sure, current science alone, is not enough to dictate all moral
>issues like this, but its a no brainer for the first months of
>conception. A foetus is just an amorphous blob of chemicals, and that's
>all the respect it deservers.
---
Well, Kevin, it _is_ alive, so killing it's a _little_ different than
throwing your chemistry set away.
---
>Where is the dividing line between 9
>months and 2 months? I don't know, and it doesn't matter if one wants to
>restrict to prior to two months.
---
For me, there _is_ no dividing line. If it's alive it won't die by
_my_ hand; YMMV
---
>If you can give an actual *argument* as to why a non conscious amorphous
>blob of chemicals should be given rights that a conscious blob of
>chemicals is given, lets hear it.
---
Because it's as helpless as a new-born baby?
See argument, above, about consciousness.
---
> Hint: I don't take kindly to "gods divine will" bullshit.
---
Nor do they take kindly to yours, I'm sure!
Remeber this oldie? :
Kevin: God is dead.
God: Kevin is dead.
:-)
--
John Fields
Keith Williams
says...
>
> >>>If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
> >>>it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
> >>>you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
> >
>
>
> A question to ponder!
>
> Is it not murder to kill the one who murdered?
Given that the definition of "murder" is the unlawful taking of
life....
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=murder&x=0&y=0
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
aforethought
> Wait it must not be because some judge or jury said he was guilty.
Right, because that is, by definition, lawful.
> If I remember the good book says "Thou shall not kill"
Actually, that's a translation error. It's closer to "thou shalt not
murder".
> But than again I do not have to answer to his murder in the long run
Once you get your English straight, perhaps you might want to try
logic.
--
Keith
John Woodgate
ents.com> wrote (in <1bjvu0pc3k9s8105f...@4ax.com>) about
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
food) and that, if you are lucky, is succeeded by the symbiotic stage
(living together for mutual advantage).
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>Then, with the inevitable advances in medical technology one would
>expect, that "time of survival" will be pushed closer and closer to the
>time of conception until it will be possible to bring a fertilized egg
>to term out of the womb.
Given enough money, this could probably be done now.
>If such is the case, then you argue that life
>begins at conception but that we can't currently support it ex-utero
>that early?
LIFE begins at conception. That isn't the point, IMHO. It's difficult to
argue that an unimplanted foetus has the full panoply of human rights.
'Human rights' is not a concept within science, so science (rational
deduction) can't provide a solution.
It's a 'line-drawing' situation, and people can NEVER agree where to
draw the line. One might be bitterly opposed to abortion on demand until
a daughter is pregnant.
John Woodgate
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>So it would be OK to blow away confessed killers?
Some people will confess to anything, even without the bright lights and
rubber hoses. IMHO, anyone who kills a human is insane at that time, and
does not have the same sort of 'mens rea' as a robber or other criminal.
John Fields
<di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>> ---
>> I agree, but for it to develop it must be alive. And if it's alive...
>
>That's not really the question.
>It is 'when is it a human life'.
>My view is when it exceeds the neural complexity of the smatest ape.
---
If the fertilized egg will develop into a monkey, then it's a monkey
life pushing it.
If the fertilized egg will develop into a human, then it's a human
life pushing it.
--
John Fields
John Woodgate
(in <2Kmdneg1jox...@megapath.net>) about 'Peterson's Death
Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>If I remember the good
>book says "Thou shall not kill"
So it does, but it also has lots of casualty lists.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
So? Potential is not actuality.
Additionally, Rights are social construct
http://www.theconsensus.org/uk/principia/judicial/index.html
Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
And for some guys even more... :-)
--
Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jker...@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA
The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"
Aunty Kreist
"Marco Dieckhoff" <di...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:0264c2...@hamlet.frbr.etc.tu-bs.de...
> On 2005-01-20, Parse Tree <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> > Aunty Kreist wrote:
>
> >
> > It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
>
>
> OK, I kill child processes every day on my host, hoping they don't
> become zombies. And I don't feel guilty about that.
>
>
> Sorry, but I can't see any reason why comp.os.linux.networking is
> in the list of newsgroups to this topic.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me? Otherwise please take care not to post
> this thread to comp.os.linux.networking anymore. Thanks.
>
> --
> Marco Dieckhoff
It's crossposted because John Fields is trolling our group with preachy
Christian rants. Then, when he's posting from your group, he states the
opposite of what he's claimed here, so you guys won't think he's nuts. We're
just doing you the service of showing you all what a nutjob Fields is.
Aunty Kreist
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:7wJHd.1075171$lR6.1...@news.easynews.com...
> Aunty Kreist wrote:
> > <uvc...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:41ef49f3$2$woehfu$mr2...@news.aros.net...
> >
> >>In <358ri3F...@individual.net>, on 01/19/05
> >> at 11:49 PM, "Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> said:
>>
> >>
> >>>>Abortion _is_ murder.
> >>
> >>>That is opinion, not fact.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
> >>>>---
> >>
> >>>Proof? I expect you to give cites.
> >>
> >>to your need for proof.
> >>
> >>The only reason old scotty there got the death penalty was because he
> >>killed his unborn son, aka, the fetus (as referred to by the other
> >>murderers)
> >>
> >>If killing an unborn child is not murder, how come scotty boy is gonna
die
> >>for doing it?
> >
> >
> >
> > But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>
> It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
Agreed. :)
Aunty Kreist
No kidding, look at you.
Are you gonna preach about how God is the creator of the Universe again?
> --
> John Fields
Aunty Kreist
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq...@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csnt0v$d8h$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > >Proof? I expect you to give cites.
> > >
>
> How can cites provide proofs?
>
> They are merely yet more opinions, no more reliable than the person who
> didn't quote one.
>
> Often more unreliable because of being taken out of context or misquoted.
>
> Either you accept a statement or you dont accept it.
>
John has this habit of informing people what they believe. It's very kind of
him.
Aunty Kreist
"Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vcQHd.180974$48.9...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> John Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> > <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
> >
> > ---
> > That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
> > strand of DNA is assembled.
>
> But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
> scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe for no
> good reason.
>
> Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious is
> almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
> certainly after a few months minimum though.
>
> And, sure, current science alone, is not enough to dictate all moral
> issues like this, but its a no brainer for the first months of
> conception. A foetus is just an amorphous blob of chemicals, and that's
> all the respect it deservers. Where is the dividing line between 9
> months and 2 months? I don't know, and it doesn't matter if one wants to
> restrict to prior to two months.
>
> If you can give an actual *argument* as to why a non conscious amorphous
> blob of chemicals should be given rights that a conscious blob of
> chemicals is given, lets hear it. Hint: I don't take kindly to "gods
> divine will" bullshit.
The only feasable thing I can come up with is that the fetus is given rights
( as in the Peterson case) when the parent's choice of whether or not to
have the child is forcibly taken away from them. If Lacy had chosen to
abort, the fetus wouldn't have any rights. Since that decision was forcibly
taken from her, the fetus qualifies as having rights.
Randy McLaughlin
Everyone knows what a nutjob he is. The question is what does your adding
more cross-posting do to help?
Randy
Aunty Kreist
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:49:06 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:37:02 GMT, "Pip" <Ae...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hunh. I don't care if he lives or dies. He is guilty. Then again
lots
> >of
> >> >guilty people go free, and then, lots of innocent people go to the
chair.
> >> >The only way you can cure that is to abolish the death penalty.
> >> >I oppose the death penalty because of its varying application from
state
> >to
> >> >state and judge to judge.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
> >> it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
> >> you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
> >
> >Why John, how very white of you to inform Pip what her reasons and
emotions
> >should be.
>
> ---
> And how very presumptuous of you to inform me that that's not what I
> should be doing?
> ---
And what gives a religious zealot like yourself the right to speak for
anyone else? Your opinion is your own, not everyone else's as well.
> >> >The law declaring the fetus a legal person disturbs me a great deal.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> It shouldn't. From the moment of conception, when the two foreign
> >> strands of DNA wrap around each other and form something that was
> >> never there before, given time and lack of hate, a new human will join
> >> us.
> >> ---
> >
> >Sure it isn't a malignant tumor?
>
> ---
> Unfortunately, sometimes they are. Like Peterson. And, perhaps, you?
> ---
Perhaps Peterson's momma should have aborted him, no?
> >And still being so considerate, telling people what should and shouldn't
disturb them.
>
> ---
> Didn't your mommy ever tell you that there's no boogey man?
> ---
What?
> >That's quite an ego you have there! I'm sure people will be polite,
> >and not laugh at you *too* loudly.
>
> ---
> Laugh away, if you choose.
I am.
It's all just my opinion, and if you want
> to kill your kids, then go for it!
> ---
Niiice. Nothing like a little fundamentalism in the morning. Did you read
your buy-bull today?
> >> >Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Abortion _is_ murder.
> >
> >That is opinion, not fact.
>
> ---
> It doesn't matter how thin you slice it, when you're done the fact
> still remains that had that embryo not been killed it might have made
> it to term.
> ---
Key word....MIGHT. An embryo is a parasitic blob of tissue and cells. It
does not think. It does not feel. It is not aware. It is the equivalent of a
tapeworm. At that stage, I can hardly afford it the same rights as a human
being....because it isn't one.
> > It's the taking of a life which, had it not
> >> been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
> >> ---
> >
> >Proof? I expect you to give cites.
>
> ---
> Reducto ad absurdium, look around you. See all the people that
> _weren't_ murdered before they were born?
> ---
Your reasoning is stupid. You can't give any eveidence why you feel that
your opinion should be forced on everyone else. Think for yourself, but
don't ever think that you can decide the opinions of others.
> >> >To me, this is the issue that deserves national attention.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> No, it deserves individual attention. Unfortunately, many of the
> >> sexual encounters which result in progeny are entered into with
> >> ignorance of the consequences of those encounters, with the result
> >> that the offspring of those unions will be unwanted, will be uncared
> >> for, and will become dregs upon society, with the intelligent ones
> >> planning and successfully executing payback for their misery.
> >> ---
> >
> >Wow, someone sure has sour grapes.
>
> ---
> The connotation of "sour grapes" is generally that of grudging envy or
> jealousy, but you seem to be driving at something else. Care to
> expound on what you mean?
> ---
You seem to be bitter by insinuating that your creators were not very good
parents.
> >> >Is there anymore evidence to convict Hatching in Utah of murder? No?
> >> >Another thing that should rightly piss you off, is that the Peterson
case
> >> >has been used to distract the nation from important political events,
> >like
> >> >what fucking Bush is up to.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You can't chew gum and walk at the same time, can you?
> >> ---
> >
> >You can't stay on your geek group without coming here to spout off fundie
> >brainwashed garbage, can you?
>
> ---
> Hey, asshole, I have as much right to be here and to voice my opinions
> as anyone does. If you don't like it, then plonk me or go kill a
> baby, if that'll make you feel better.
> ---
Oh, no Johnny boi. I intend to point out your bullshit as I see fit.
> >> >Peterson's case is more a diversion and an
> >> >appeal to the soap operatic interests of the country than it is an
> >"unjust"
> >> >conviction.
> >> >I care about abortion rights and what is going on in Iraq. Peterson
can
> >rot
> >> >in jail or fry, I don't give a damn which.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Blah, blah, blah, blah, fucking blah...
> >
> >> Just another plea for attention, just like Peterson's.
> >
> >IOW, you have nothing intelligent to add. No surprise there.
>
> ---
> LOL! Look at what _you've_ written so far; a bunch of emotionally
> generated half-baked accusations backed up with a little vitriol.
Seems what "I've written so far" has gotten you in such an angry tizzy that
you are now spamming this newsgroup with your lame trolling attempts.
> PKB?
> ---
>
> >> What you losers both have in common is that neither of you knows that
> >> you have nothing to say which hasn't been said thousands of times
> >> before and that few of us, up 'til now, has had the interest to step
> >> up and peg you both as inconsequential influences in the long term.
> >>
> >> Death, yeah, that's the way to go...
> >
> >In your case, it would certainly be beneficial to us all.
>
> ---
> So now _you're_ speaking for everyone?
> ---
Yep.
> >Now don't you have some calculus or something to do?
>
> ---
> Not at the moment. I'm between projects right now, and this group
> looked like it might be an interesting way to while away some time, so
> here I am!
Why don't you go into another fundie rant about God like you did here
yesterday? That was rather amusing.
> --
> John Fields
Kevin Aylward
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:40:53 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Ahmmm. Someone who unjustifiable takes a life should have his life
>> taken, imo. This is because life is *so* precious, it should never be
>> taken without good reason. Good reasons are to prevent or punish
>> someone from taking a life unjustifiable. The *only* reason I am
>> against the death penalty is because one must have absolute proof
>> that the person executed is guilty. Killing an innocent person is
>> not an option in this type of situation imo.
>>
>> So, I absolutely believe that cold blooded killers should be
>> executed in principle, but must not be, due the lack of absolute
>> proof of guilt.
>
> ---
> So it would be OK to blow away confessed killers?
Assuming that they are mentally sound and not lying, in principle yes,
in practise no, because of this doubt factor.
To repeat, my *only* moral objection is that it is unacceptable to kill
any innocent person, as life is truly unique, and can never be replaced.
In the real world, for me morally, the risk is always unacceptable to
execute killers.
Again, I have no moral qualms against killing unjust killers. The reason
is *because* I place life as paramount. Its only the practicalities that
force my objection to the death penalty.
> ---
>
>
>>>>> The law declaring the fetus a legal person disturbs me a great
>>>>> deal.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> It shouldn't. From the moment of conception, when the two foreign
>>>> strands of DNA wrap around each other and form something that was
>>>> never there before, given time and lack of hate, a new human will
>>>> join us.
>>
>> Complete nonsense. We only need you be concerned about a "life"
>> after it has first become *conscious*. Before something becomes
>> conscious it is no more then a carrot. What *makes* a life, that
>> needs consideration for its *own* sake, is a brain. Period.
>
> ---
> Utter hogwash.
In your misinformed opinion.
>Killing a live, growing organism which will eventually
> become sentient for no other reason than to prevent it from becoming
> sentient is murder, pure and simple.
Nope. If is has never become conscious, it has no feelings to care
about. Things without feelings don't matter. Its that simple.
How can one possibly give empathy to something that can't and has never
felt? It makes no ratonal sense. Its daft.
Think about it some more.
> ---
>
>> I suppose this depends on the definition of "murder". Is it a legal
>> one, or one what we personally consider is murder. For me, certainly
>> before about 3 months there are simply no significant neuron
>> connections in a brain to make a conscious mind, so until that time,
>> the foetus is no more than a carrot.
>
> ---
> While for me, it's important to let the carrot _become_ a carrot
> before it's yanked out of the ground.
As I said, "for its own sake". That's why I used the phrase. Sure, we
worry about global warming and all that, but its for our sake, not the
trees.
Kevin Aylward
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:34:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Fields wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human
>>>> life?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the
>>> new strand of DNA is assembled.
>>
>> But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
>> scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe
>> for no good reason.
>
> ---
> The point is not whether it's conscious or not,
Absolutely it is. That's *all* that matters. Its what *determines*
whether "life" should be respected for its *own* sake. For example, a
carrot may be considered "life", but to respect it for itself is daft.
> (although it could be
> argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
> accurate)
I agree definition on consciousness is difficult, but what ever it is,
that's the axiom I use.
>it's that it's alive and has a goal, that goal being to
> become what we call conscious.
Non conscious goals, in this context, are irrelevant by my book.
Explain why a carrot, with is "alive", should be respected. Until you
can do this, you don't have an argument to respect a similar status
"life".
> ---
>
>> Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious is
>> almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
>> certainly after a few months minimum though.
>
> ---
> If you don't know when, you can't say not when.\
Yep you can. Its not a line, there is a *region* where we can say
absolutely that it is not conscious from before one line and conscious
from another line after it. Only the region in-between the time is there
uncertainty. I gave a conservative figure of two months. The figure I
got this from was Carl Sagan noting that it is at least 3 months before
there is enough neural connections to form a brain as we know it.
So, drawing the line at say, 2 months, means that we just let some non
conscious blobs of chemicals be accorded the status of conscious blobs.
So what. The error is on the side of the pro-lifers. I can live with
that:-)
> ---
>
>> And, sure, current science alone, is not enough to dictate all moral
>> issues like this, but its a no brainer for the first months of
>> conception. A foetus is just an amorphous blob of chemicals, and
>> that's all the respect it deservers.
>
> ---
> Well, Kevin, it _is_ alive, so killing it's a _little_ different than
> throwing your chemistry set away.
Nope. Sure its alive, but its just as alive as a carrot.
The concept of using "alive" as the decider is fundamentally flawed, and
missed by most. What truly matters is whether or not the object has ever
been conscious.
To repeat:
"Consciousness should be the deciding issue on moral issues"
IMO!
>
>> Where is the dividing line between 9
>> months and 2 months? I don't know, and it doesn't matter if one
>> wants to restrict to prior to two months.
>
> ---
> For me, there _is_ no dividing line. If it's alive it won't die by
> _my_ hand; YMMV
You must have some religious bent.
There is simply no good reason, imo, that an arbitrary definition of
"life" be used for such a decision.
If you were never conscious, you would never have known anything.
Consciousness is key, not life.
> ---
>
>> If you can give an actual *argument* as to why a non conscious
>> amorphous blob of chemicals should be given rights that a conscious
>> blob of chemicals is given, lets hear it.
>
> ---
> Because it's as helpless as a new-born baby?
So is a carrot.
> See argument, above, about consciousness.
> ---
Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
no morals.
Aunty Kreist
"Randy McLaughlin" <ra...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qbTHd.6098$8W4....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Oh my god, you actually talk????
I thought you were a bot.
uvc...@juno.com
>Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
>no morals.
So.... ipso facto....., all Liberals are unconscious?
Kevin Aylward
But it still makes little real sense. "Rights" can really only make
logical sense when referred to a consciousness. This argument is just a
legal definition one. There is still no logic as to why the Rights, only
a, well its just what we do.
The real issue is that the legal position is fundamentally based on god
ideas. That is, there is some sort of soul to make a foetus, despite the
staggering amount of evidence in support of the fact that the mind
(consciousness) is the sole result of the physical brain.
Its all academic anyway, we are all going to cease to exist. So, shag as
many birds as you can before you go.
John Fields
<Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:9tfvu09nv4larivb7...@4ax.com...
>> ---
>> And how very presumptuous of you to inform me that that's not what I
>> should be doing?
>> ---
>
>And what gives a religious zealot like yourself the right to speak for
>anyone else? Your opinion is your own, not everyone else's as well.
---
You're _way_ off the mark on the zealot thing, and I don't see where
you got the part about me speaking for someone else, but you're right
about my opinion, and what I did earlier was state it. And I'll
continue to, thank you very much, and If I see something I don't like
I'll damn sure be critical about it, same as you're doing right now.
---
>> ---
>> Unfortunately, sometimes they are. Like Peterson. And, perhaps, you?
>> ---
>
>Perhaps Peterson's momma should have aborted him, no?
---
That was her choice to make, and she chose not to. Perhaps if she'd
taken a little better care of him, though, things might have been
different. And perhaps not. The reality is "shit happens".
---
>> >And still being so considerate, telling people what should and shouldn't
>disturb them.
>>
>> ---
>> Didn't your mommy ever tell you that there's no boogey man?
>> ---
>
>What?
---
She didn't?
---
>> ---
>> Laugh away, if you choose.
>
>I am.
>
> It's all just my opinion, and if you want
>> to kill your kids, then go for it!
>> ---
>
>Niiice. Nothing like a little fundamentalism in the morning. Did you read
>your buy-bull today?
---
Nope, and I don't buy-bullshit either, so get your facts straight
before you start assuming you know what you're talking about.
---
>> >> >Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Abortion _is_ murder.
>> >
>> >That is opinion, not fact.
>>
>> ---
>> It doesn't matter how thin you slice it, when you're done the fact
>> still remains that had that embryo not been killed it might have made
>> it to term.
>> ---
>
>Key word....MIGHT. An embryo is a parasitic blob of tissue and cells. It
>does not think. It does not feel. It is not aware. It is the equivalent of a
>tapeworm. At that stage, I can hardly afford it the same rights as a human
>being....because it isn't one.
---
It's alive and it's the precursor to a human being, but if you want to
dehumanize it and treat it like a tapeworm, then do it. That's one of
the differences between us it seems; I happen to believe that life is
precious and to snuff it out for convenience is wrong, while you seem
to think that it's just a fine and dandy thing to do.
---
>> > It's the taking of a life which, had it not
>> >> been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
>> >> ---
>> >
>> >Proof? I expect you to give cites.
>>
>> ---
>> Reducto ad absurdium, look around you. See all the people that
>> _weren't_ murdered before they were born?
>> ---
>
>Your reasoning is stupid.
---
No, your capability for perception is flawed.
---
>You can't give any eveidence why you feel that your opinion should be
>forced on everyone else.
---
LOL! Evidence about _feelings_?
In fact, I _don't_ believe that _anyone's_ opinion should be forced on
anyone else, including your opinion that I should stop expressing my
opinions in the way I choose to.
---
>Think for yourself, but don't ever think that you can decide the opinions of others.
---
Oh, gawd!!! Platitudes, now?
---
>
>
>> >> >To me, this is the issue that deserves national attention.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> No, it deserves individual attention. Unfortunately, many of the
>> >> sexual encounters which result in progeny are entered into with
>> >> ignorance of the consequences of those encounters, with the result
>> >> that the offspring of those unions will be unwanted, will be uncared
>> >> for, and will become dregs upon society, with the intelligent ones
>> >> planning and successfully executing payback for their misery.
>> >> ---
>> >
>> >Wow, someone sure has sour grapes.
>>
>> ---
>> The connotation of "sour grapes" is generally that of grudging envy or
>> jealousy, but you seem to be driving at something else. Care to
>> expound on what you mean?
>> ---
>
>You seem to be bitter by insinuating that your creators were not very good
>parents.
---
I was disagreeing with the poster, and to make my point I presented a
set of circumstances designed to show that responsibility lies with
the individual and should be taken care of at that level, not at a
national one.
Interesting, though, that you should read what you did into it.
Perhaps a little trouble at home when _you_ were younger? Or,
perhaps, now?
---
>Oh, no Johnny boi. I intend to point out your bullshit as I see fit.
---
Point away, small fry!
---
>> ---
>> LOL! Look at what _you've_ written so far; a bunch of emotionally
>> generated half-baked accusations backed up with a little vitriol.
>
>Seems what "I've written so far" has gotten you in such an angry tizzy that
>you are now spamming this newsgroup with your lame trolling attempts.
---
Naa... just pricking a few balloons. About time, too.
---
>> ---
>> So now _you're_ speaking for everyone?
>> ---
>
>Yep.
---
According to you, you shouldn't!
---
>Why don't you go into another fundie rant about God like you did here
>yesterday? That was rather amusing.
---
What is it that so rankles you about the belief in a form of life
higher than our own that it causes you to bellow epithets?
--
John Fields
DeathWish
Heh.
Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
> Andy wrote:
>
>> Andy replies:
>>
>> Having raised 2 girls and a boy , I know from personal
>> experience that a fetus does not take on human characteristics
>> until approximately 20 years after birth...
>>
>> Up until that time, abortions should be legalized....
>> Andy :>))))
>
>
> And for some guys even more... :-)
Talking seriously, death penalty makes USA a third-world country.
Until you stop *murdering* people that way no one will consider
USA a civilizated country.
John Woodgate
<41f00cda$1$woehfu$mr2...@news.aros.net>) about 'Peterson's Death
Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>
>>no morals.
>
>
>So.... ipso facto....., all Liberals are unconscious?
Or unconscionable? (;-)
Electric dabbler
right-wing claptrap. I always find it amusing how the same bunch of people
can get so worked up about such a technical issue yet there are real people
dying all the time in the world from hunger and disease - if you didn't have
your heads so far up your own arseholes you might have noticed this.
Philip
John Fields
<j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>ents.com> wrote (in <qdmvu0locfpur7kth...@4ax.com>) about
>'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>
>>Then, with the inevitable advances in medical technology one would
>>expect, that "time of survival" will be pushed closer and closer to the
>>time of conception until it will be possible to bring a fertilized egg
>>to term out of the womb.
>
>Given enough money, this could probably be done now.
>
>>If such is the case, then you argue that life
>>begins at conception but that we can't currently support it ex-utero
>>that early?
>
>LIFE begins at conception. That isn't the point, IMHO. It's difficult to
>argue that an unimplanted foetus has the full panoply of human rights.
>
>'Human rights' is not a concept within science, so science (rational
>deduction) can't provide a solution.
>
>It's a 'line-drawing' situation, and people can NEVER agree where to
>draw the line. One might be bitterly opposed to abortion on demand until
>a daughter is pregnant.
---
Ahhhhh... a rational voice...
Agreed.
--
John Fields
uvc...@juno.com
>Its all academic anyway, we are all going to cease to exist. So, shag as
>many birds as you can before you go.
If you are going to cease to exist, why don't you just go now? Its not as
if you will be laying around for eternity wishing you were still alive and
regretting killing yourself. People who say they want to live and enjoy
are not realizing that if you are going to cease to exist, you are wasting
your time here.
uvc...@juno.com
>Talking seriously, death penalty makes USA a third-world country. Until
>you stop *murdering* people that way no one will consider USA a
>civilizated country.
We don't give a crap what you think of our country. We don't need you, but
history has shown that you need us.
John Fields
<Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:1bjvu0pc3k9s8105f...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:55 GMT, Parse Tree
>> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>>
>> >Aunty Kreist wrote:
>>
>> >> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>> >
>> >It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
>>
>> ---
>> Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?
>>
>> Unfortunately in some cases, leaving the host doesn't guarantee that
>> the parasitic behavior will end.
>
>No kidding, look at you.
---
IKYABWAI? How juvenile.
---
>Are you gonna preach about how God is the creator of the Universe again?
---
Nah, sounds like you got it the first time around.
BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
--
John Fields
John Fields
---
Yes, tell me what you believe and I'll inform you that that's what you
believe. Boy, it's not hard to get you cretins riled up to the point
where you'll just fire anything off, is it?
--
John Fields
John Fields
<jker...@bgsec.com> wrote:
>Talking seriously, death penalty makes USA a third-world country.
>Until you stop *murdering* people that way no one will consider
>USA a civilizated country.
---
Well, OK then, what way _should_ we murderize them?
--
John Fields
John Woodgate
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
It's at the point (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0).
John Woodgate
<41f0185b$2$woehfu$mr2...@news.aros.net>) about 'Peterson's Death
Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
idyllic after-life. If there is only oblivion, now is the time to enjoy
what you can.
John Fields
<salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>John Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:34:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>> <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>>> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human
>>>>> life?
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the
>>>> new strand of DNA is assembled.
>>>
>>> But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
>>> scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe
>>> for no good reason.
>>
>> ---
>> The point is not whether it's conscious or not,
>
>Absolutely it is. That's *all* that matters. Its what *determines*
>whether "life" should be respected for its *own* sake. For example, a
>carrot may be considered "life", but to respect it for itself is daft.
---
I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food for
us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides some of
the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient human would
respect another, of course, but in its own way.
---
>> (although it could be
>> argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
>> accurate)
>
>I agree definition on consciousness is difficult, but what ever it is,
>that's the axiom I use.
>
>>it's that it's alive and has a goal, that goal being to
>> become what we call conscious.
>
>Non conscious goals, in this context, are irrelevant by my book.
---
But quite relevant in mine. Without that unconscious goal, we would
not be sitting here having this discussion.
---
>Explain why a carrot, with is "alive", should be respected. Until you
>can do this, you don't have an argument to respect a similar status
>"life".
---
See earlier explanation.
---
>>
>>> Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious is
>>> almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
>>> certainly after a few months minimum though.
>>
>> ---
>> If you don't know when, you can't say not when.\
>
>Yep you can. Its not a line, there is a *region* where we can say
>absolutely that it is not conscious from before one line and conscious
>from another line after it. Only the region in-between the time is there
>uncertainty. I gave a conservative figure of two months. The figure I
>got this from was Carl Sagan noting that it is at least 3 months before
>there is enough neural connections to form a brain as we know it.
---
Yes, and that phrase, "as we know it", is what enables the
dehumanization of a fetus and the cheapening of life.
---
>So, drawing the line at say, 2 months, means that we just let some non
>conscious blobs of chemicals be accorded the status of conscious blobs.
>So what. The error is on the side of the pro-lifers. I can live with
>that:-)
---
So if it's two months old it's OK to kill it, but if it's three months
old It's not? As John Woodgate said, this is a question of drawing
lines, and mine is drawn with affording the fetus protection from the
instant of conception. Period.
---
>The concept of using "alive" as the decider is fundamentally flawed, and
>missed by most. What truly matters is whether or not the object has ever
>been conscious.
---
That's your _opinion_, Kevin, and no matter how you try to make it
sound like fact, it remains an opinion.
---
>
>"Consciousness should be the deciding issue on moral issues"
>
>IMO!
---
Gibberish... IMO.
---
>> ---
>> For me, there _is_ no dividing line. If it's alive it won't die by
>> _my_ hand; YMMV
>
>You must have some religious bent.
---
I just believe that a life which I didn't give isn't mine to take.
---
>There is simply no good reason, imo, that an arbitrary definition of
>"life" be used for such a decision.
---
The definition isn't arbitrary, a life begins when the new strand of
DNA is assembled.
---
>If you were never conscious, you would never have known anything.
>Consciousness is key, not life.
---
Consciousness is a _consequence_ of life.
If you were never alive you could not have become conscious, so life
is the precursor to consciousness; the key.
---
>Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
>no morals.
---
It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.
--
John Fields
John Fields
---
Philip - Go fuck yourself, and then tell me what, exactly _you're_
doing to alleviate the plight of those real people dying all the time
in the world from hunger and disease.
--
John Fields
John Woodgate
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food for
>us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides some of
>the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient human would
>respect another, of course, but in its own way.
How do you feel about intestinal bacteria? (;-)
Terry Given
> Reg Edwards wrote:
>
>>> Everybody who supports the death penalty should be shot.
>>>
>>
>> ======================
>>
>> By who ?
>>
>>
> By people who can use the correct form for the ablative.
>
> paul Burke
mmmm
Cheers
Terry
John Fields
<j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>ents.com> wrote (in <ik60v05pjc0hs834a...@4ax.com>) about
>'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>
>>BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
>
>It's at the point (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0).
---
<G>
The plot thickens?^)
--
John Fields
John Fields
<j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>ents.com> wrote (in <1280v0lhgmj40p29l...@4ax.com>) about
>'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>
>>I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food for
>>us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides some of
>>the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient human would
>>respect another, of course, but in its own way.
>
>How do you feel about intestinal bacteria? (;-)
---
"Feel about"? With great caution!
--
John Fields
Aunty Kreist
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:43:08 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >news:1bjvu0pc3k9s8105f...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:55 GMT, Parse Tree
> >> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Aunty Kreist wrote:
> >>
> >> >> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?
> >>
> >> Unfortunately in some cases, leaving the host doesn't guarantee that
> >> the parasitic behavior will end.
> >
> >No kidding, look at you.
>
> ---
> IKYABWAI? How juvenile.
> ---
Ok, Peewee.
> >Are you gonna preach about how God is the creator of the Universe again?
>
> ---
> Nah, sounds like you got it the first time around.
>
> BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
Have you, or are you gonna go on another religious zealot-like rant?
> --
> John Fields
Aunty Kreist
dumped babies? HIV? Any at all? Anything?
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1280v0lhgmj40p29l...@4ax.com...
Aunty Kreist
I couldn't agree with you more on this.
Aunty Kreist
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:05:03 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> >news:9tfvu09nv4larivb7...@4ax.com...
>
> >> ---
> >> And how very presumptuous of you to inform me that that's not what I
> >> should be doing?
> >> ---
> >
> >And what gives a religious zealot like yourself the right to speak for
> >anyone else? Your opinion is your own, not everyone else's as well.
>
> ---
> You're _way_ off the mark on the zealot thing, and I don't see where
> you got the part about me speaking for someone else, but you're right
> about my opinion, and what I did earlier was state it. And I'll
> continue to, thank you very much, and If I see something I don't like
> I'll damn sure be critical about it, same as you're doing right now.
> ---
And that is fine However; it is *not* fine when you _tell_ people what they
believe, like you recently did to our Pip.
>
> >> ---
> >> Unfortunately, sometimes they are. Like Peterson. And, perhaps, you?
> >> ---
> >
> >Perhaps Peterson's momma should have aborted him, no?
>
> ---
> That was her choice to make, and she chose not to. Perhaps if she'd
> taken a little better care of him, though, things might have been
> different. And perhaps not. The reality is "shit happens".
> ---
You are seriously not insinuating that Peterson became a killer because his
Mommy didn't take good care of him, are you?
Oh dear.
> >> >And still being so considerate, telling people what should and
shouldn't
> >disturb them.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Didn't your mommy ever tell you that there's no boogey man?
> >> ---
> >
> >What?
>
> ---
> She didn't?
> ---
Are you OK? Seriously?
>
> >> ---
> >> Laugh away, if you choose.
> >
> >I am.
> >
> > It's all just my opinion, and if you want
> >> to kill your kids, then go for it!
> >> ---
> >
> >Niiice. Nothing like a little fundamentalism in the morning. Did you read
> >your buy-bull today?
>
> ---
> Nope, and I don't buy-bullshit either, so get your facts straight
> before you start assuming you know what you're talking about.
> ---
My facts are straight, Johnny-dear. The fact is that I will believe what I
want, when I want, and there's nothing you nor your anti-choice agenda can
do about it. Whether it be _informing_ me what you feel my opinion should
be, whether it's another bizarre Xian rant by you, whatever. No matter what
tactic you badly try to employ, the fact remains that you simply cannot
control the beliefs, thoughts, and actions of others.
> >> >> >Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Abortion _is_ murder.
> >> >
> >> >That is opinion, not fact.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> It doesn't matter how thin you slice it, when you're done the fact
> >> still remains that had that embryo not been killed it might have made
> >> it to term.
> >> ---
> >
> >Key word....MIGHT. An embryo is a parasitic blob of tissue and cells. It
> >does not think. It does not feel. It is not aware. It is the equivalent
of a
> >tapeworm. At that stage, I can hardly afford it the same rights as a
human
> >being....because it isn't one.
>
> ---
> It's alive and it's the precursor to a human being, but if you want to
> dehumanize it and treat it like a tapeworm, then do it. That's one of
> the differences between us it seems; I happen to believe that life is
> precious and to snuff it out for convenience is wrong, while you seem
> to think that it's just a fine and dandy thing to do.
> ---
Yes, I do. You have a problem with that?
> >> > It's the taking of a life which, had it not
> >> >> been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
> >> >> ---
> >> >
> >> >Proof? I expect you to give cites.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Reducto ad absurdium, look around you. See all the people that
> >> _weren't_ murdered before they were born?
> >> ---
> >
> >Your reasoning is stupid.
>
> ---
> No, your capability for perception is flawed.
> ---
No, your reasoning is stupid.
Well...there's one thing we agree on. If a person decides that they no
longer want to carry a parasite, it's an INDIVIDUAL decision, and no one
elses.
> Interesting, though, that you should read what you did into it.
> Perhaps a little trouble at home when _you_ were younger? Or,
> perhaps, now?
> ---
Oh, the rhetorical armchair psychologist. How witty. If only every other
troll on usenet hadn't already tried this overused tactic.
>
> >Oh, no Johnny boi. I intend to point out your bullshit as I see fit.
>
> ---
> Point away, small fry!
> ---
Look in the mirror; you'll see it on yer head, Big Mac!
>
> >> ---
> >> LOL! Look at what _you've_ written so far; a bunch of emotionally
> >> generated half-baked accusations backed up with a little vitriol.
> >
> >Seems what "I've written so far" has gotten you in such an angry tizzy
that
> >you are now spamming this newsgroup with your lame trolling attempts.
>
> ---
> Naa... just pricking a few balloons. About time, too.
> ---
Are you also one of those weird fetishists? Man, you guys are creepy.
>
> >> ---
> >> So now _you're_ speaking for everyone?
> >> ---
> >
> >Yep.
>
> ---
> According to you, you shouldn't!
> ---
>
> >Why don't you go into another fundie rant about God like you did here
> >yesterday? That was rather amusing.
>
> ---
> What is it that so rankles you about the belief in a form of life
> higher than our own that it causes you to bellow epithets?
Because typically, it's nuts that are doing it.
> --
> John Fields
Aunty Kreist
How many crack babies have you adopted, John?
> --
> John Fields
Aunty Kreist
"Electric dabbler" <no....@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:csp4ab$ok0$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Dying of laughter here!
I'm sorry if I and others have gotten him all worked up! He's just so easy
to rattle...has to respond to every comment. But, he's getting the typical
hazing every fundie that spouts crappola gets. Is this something he does all
the time?
Noah Roberts
Aunty Kreist wrote:
> No matter what
> tactic you badly try to employ, the fact remains that you simply
cannot
> control the beliefs, thoughts, and actions of others.
John Fields
<Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:ik60v05pjc0hs834a...@4ax.com...
>> BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
>
>Have you, or are you gonna go on another religious zealot-like rant?
---
Are you going to answer the question or not?
And, what is it with you and this rant crap?
Here's the sum total of my "rant", a reply to Clint Clark on another
thread:
<QUOTE>
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Clint Clark" <cl...@artdsm.com>
wrote:
>What Is God?
God is the creator of our universe.
<END QUOTE>
other than a few other remarks on that thread, that's it, so what are
you trying to pull?
Does the mere mention of a god upset you so much that you see seven
words as a rant or a threat of some kind?
--
John Fields
Noah Roberts
> "Marco Dieckhoff" <di...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:0264c2...@hamlet.frbr.etc.tu-bs.de...
>>Sorry, but I can't see any reason why comp.os.linux.networking is
>>in the list of newsgroups to this topic.
>>
>>Can anyone enlighten me? Otherwise please take care not to post
>>this thread to comp.os.linux.networking anymore. Thanks.
>>
>>--
>>Marco Dieckhoff
>
>
> It's crossposted because John Fields is trolling our group with preachy
> Christian rants. Then, when he's posting from your group, he states the
> opposite of what he's claimed here, so you guys won't think he's nuts. We're
> just doing you the service of showing you all what a nutjob Fields is.
>
>
And we are indebted to you for your forsight and providing us with such
educational material indeed.
Don Klipstein
>Aunty Kreist wrote:
>> <uvc...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> news:41ef49f3$2$woehfu$mr2...@news.aros.net...
>>
>>>In <358ri3F...@individual.net>, on 01/19/05
>>> at 11:49 PM, "Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> said: >>
>>>---
>>>
>>>>>Abortion _is_ murder.
>>>
>>>>That is opinion, not fact.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
>>>>>---
>>>
>>>>Proof? I expect you to give cites.
>>>
>>>to your need for proof.
>>>
>>>The only reason old scotty there got the death penalty was because he
>>>killed his unborn son, aka, the fetus (as referred to by the other
>>>murderers)
>>>
>>>If killing an unborn child is not murder, how come scotty boy is gonna die
>>>for doing it?
>>
>>
>> Um....because he also killed the human the fetus was attached to.
>>
>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>
I thought that a more recent one of the major religions of the world has
an answer as to when a fetus (or embryo) receives a soul... I have heard
that Islam teaches that the answer is a month after conception.
(Not that I support any activities by some Muslims or opinions arguably by
a larger percentage of Muslims that non-Muslims use to give Islam a bad
name...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this: One tactic of anti-abortionists is targeting those seeking
early abortions to delay their abortions to a time when their fetuses are
more arguably soul-bearing humans or when barriers imposed by law
increase...
How about Operation Rescue having at least one noted sidetrack...
launching a boycott against Disney for being excessively pro-gay... I
remember when Disney went to court to defend a ban on same-gender couples
dancing where couples would be expected to dance!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>John Fields wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:29:09 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>> <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>>><Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>>>
>>>>That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
>>>>strand of DNA is assembled.
>>>
>>>with a mouse. Ditto for every other stage of development.
>>
>> ---
>> I agree, but for it to develop it must be alive. And if it's alive...
>
>That's not really the question.
>It is 'when is it a human life'.
>My view is when it exceeds the neural complexity of the smatest ape.
I, as a pro-choicer, would allow for neural complexity at the 10th
percentile of the stupidest species of primates studied due to having
some mental characteristics like those of humans. Guessing about 4-5
months of gestation, possibly as little as 3.
And permit abortion until birth if abortion is delayed past that point
in whole or in part by any traceable efforts of the pro-lifers, with cost
overruns caused by such a delay to be paid by the taxpayers or better
still if possible by the pro-lifers that delay an abortion to a time that
its cost has increased.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:34:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>
>>John Fields wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
>>> strand of DNA is assembled.
>>
>>scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe for no
>>good reason.
>
>The point is not whether it's conscious or not, (although it could be
>argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
>become what we call conscious.
As Mad magazine said it roughly 20 years or maybe a bit more ago, "life
begins when she takes her bra off". (I may not remember exactly
word-for-word for this.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
uvc...@juno.com
at 04:01 PM, John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> said: >---
>It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.
So again.., we agree that liberals are dead......
uvc...@juno.com
>BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
>
Well, for those who do religion, we know that God didn't create the
universe, because the Hebrew text quite clearly says that He ORGANIZED it,
not created it.
For those who get a kick out of the big bang idea, well, if the universe
encompasses everything and yet it is expanding, I can't figure out what it
is supposedly expanding into.
I would say that I have never met or read anyone whom I considered
anywhere near smart enough to come up with the answer to that.
I suppose you will enlighten us, if we want to know, or not?
Don Klipstein
>
>Ahmmm. Someone who unjustifiable takes a life should have his life
>taken, imo.
I oppose - who has heard the saying (give or take a bit
word-for-word) "Why should we kill people who kill people in order to say
that killing people is wrong?"
Better still - how about a fate worse than death!
Life in prison - maybe better still in an adequately strong birdcage in
front of City Hall or the most popular entrance of the nearest shopping
mall! Lunch and dinner for the inmate are spaghetti with tomato sauce, of
the brand "Dave's Gourmet".
As in the most famous tomato sauce of the most famous "Dave's Gourmet"
brand is actually a hot sauce, something like close to 90% maybe
more tomato sauce and a few percent hot pepper extract - to an extent
making that stuff roughly twice as hot as the hottest habanero peppers!
A few percent "oleoresin capsicum" is getting into the league of
self-defense pepper sprays!
Drink an ounce of "Dave's Insanity" sauce (appears to me like roughly
90-95% tomato sauce), and I believe (from experience) that you will think
that you have TWO BIG PROBLEMS!
Problem 1: You're going to die.
Problem 2: Not quickly enough!
(Effects include painful spasms of at least some and maybe most parts of
the digestive system that has muscle tissue!)
Breakfast for the inmate serving the ultimate sentence is worst case
bad coffee, eggs, milk and orange juice and cereal mixed together then
cooked. I do speak from experience that the worst coffee sold by the
greasy spoon with the reputation for worst coffee (even worse than McD's)
can be worsened by cheap strong spicy pepperoni, even if bad enough to be
improved by Mountain Dew, grapefruit juice, ketchup, chocolate milk, or
even adding chocolate milk and grapefruit juice and seeing the resulting
curdling occur!
------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I want to see: A USA Supreme Court decision that punishment
barely severely enough to achieve an "adequate" deterrent is *not*
unconstitutionally cruel/unusual punishment!
How about 2 weeks delivering pizzas by bicycle in northern Minnesota in
January 60 hours per week upon conviction of the pettiest theft that
anyone would bring to court? Or spend Friday evening through Sunday
afternoon in a human-size birdcage in front of the most popular entrance
of ther nearest major shopping mall - maybe even with nothing to eat or
drink but prune juice - "You get to leave 3 hours after drinking a gallon
of prune juice within 2 hours - with no bathroom breaks!"
How much theft of physical property occurs in China, where a second
offense is punishable by surgical removal of one hand? And how much
lower a percentage of their population is currently imprisoned or
otherwise being punished for theft than is the case in the USA?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
>'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>
>
>Some people will confess to anything, even without the bright lights and
>rubber hoses. IMHO, anyone who kills a human is insane at that time, and
>does not have the same sort of 'mens rea' as a robber or other criminal.
I hear of enough robbers who would kill intended victims for resisting
being robbed.
I propose that robbers proven to be posessing a deadly weapon when
committing a robbery suffer the highest sentence that is below that for a
lower degree of murderer. I think one winter of delivering pizzas by
bicycle in Yellowknife (Canada northwest territories) 55 hours per week
may be adequate.
Actually killing someone with a deadly weapon while committing a robbery
I would count as a higher grade of murder. Even if you raised the weapon
deliberately but did the actual killing accidentally or subconsciously!
My proposed sentence: Imprisonment for 20 years with bad food (but make
the food good enough to allow a turn for even worse in the case of bad
inmate behavior in prison), along with restricted visitation and a
specific denial of "conjugal visits" and of any "right" to reproduce!
----------------------
Pennsylvania law says that if someone commits a murder while committing
another felony (such as robbery, rape or kidnapping) then the murder is a
"second degree murder". There is only one sentence in PA for second
degree murder - life without parole! (Exception - when approved by
the "Governor's Board of Pardons" or "commuted" by the governor, which is
very politically incorrect nowadays and happens something like twice a
decade statewide!) Shame that some showboating "law-and-order" DAs and
AGs in PA try to make people think things are more lenient (telling
criminals that punishment is less?), and even push hard for "first degree
murder" charges when the defendant is obviously (to the extent guilty of
any crime) guilty of second degree murder!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Noah Roberts
don't know what it means. Being a liberal is not a bad thing:
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for
progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political
party founded on or associated with principles of social and political
liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
lib·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of
humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and
political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed,
and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market,
and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free
intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of
Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored
political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically
orthodox.
Don Klipstein
Williams wrote:
>In article <2Kmdneg1jox...@megapath.net>, dwm...@findmoore.net
>says...
>>
>> >>>If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
>> >>>it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
>> >>>you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
>> >
>>
>>
>> A question to ponder!
>>
>> Is it not murder to kill the one who murdered?
>
>Given that the definition of "murder" is the unlawful taking of
>life....
>
>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=murder&x=0&y=0
>
>1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
>aforethought
Definition by humans! What is God's definition? And as spoken by God
as opposed to humans who believe they have correctly heard God's word?
And what is said by the human believed by a major religion to be God
temporarily descending to Earth? I believe the bible mentions at least
one incident where he stopped an execution prescribed by at least one
older part of the bible...
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Crs smitty
>uvc...@juno.com wrote:
>> In <1280v0lhgmj40p29l...@4ax.com>, on 01/20/05
>> at 04:01 PM, John Fields <jfi...@austininstruments.com> said: >---
>>
>>>It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.
>>
>>
>>
>> So again.., we agree that liberals are dead......
>>
>>
>The term "liberal" gets thrown around a lot and it seems most people
>don't know what it means. Being a liberal is not a bad thing:
>
>
>adj.
>
> 1.
> 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
>authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
> 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for
>progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
> 3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
> 4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political
>party founded on or associated with principles of social and political
>liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
>
>
>n.
>
> 1. The state or quality of being liberal.
> 2.
> 1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of
>humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and
>political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed,
>and protection from arbitrary authority.
> 2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
> 3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market,
>and the gold standard.
> 4. Liberalism
> 1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free
>intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of
>Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
> 2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored
>political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically
>orthodox.
>
>
Correct -- these so-called "conservatives" are going to find out where
conservatism leads them. I am so glad that I grew up when the atmosphere in
the government towards the economy was "liberal' !! It enabled me to get a
college education become a professional and eventually retire with a decent
pension. I made a decent wage in my life and had healthcare benefits and all!
If anyone cannot see where this is all going today under the so-called
"conservatives" - labor is screwed and that includes anyone who works for
someone else and has no part in determining his pay! this would exclude the
guy who works for his corporation and can set his own salary. You are screwed
in this global climate because you just joined a workforce so much bigger than
the one I competed in! Eventually all salaried workers will be working for
rock-bottom wages and struggling to make mortgage payments. We do not have a
country anymore it is only a "world" out there and a damned tough one!!! The
conservatives saw a way to bust unions and they will very soon do away with
them -- they are all back-pedaling terribly right now!!!! America means
nothing anymore -- we will never be what we once were........ due to the fiscal
policies of neocons (who are not conservatives - by the way) are soon to trash
the dollar !!! We will be a bankrupt nation in short order! AND IT IS THE
FAULT OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR THROWING IN WITH THE NEOCONS! THIS CANNOT BE
BLAMED ON CLINTON WHO -- BY THE WAY-- WAS NO LIBERAL IN FISCAL MATTERS!!!!!
CLINTON WAS A DAMNED SIGHT MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN ANYONE WE HAVE IN CONTROL
TODAY!
BUT THIS IS A PUZZLES NEWSGROUP SO WE BETTER GET ON TOPIC!! I WOULD LIKE FOR
SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME USING SOME MATHEMATICS JUST HOW THEY THINK
GLOBALIZATION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROLS IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO WORK
FOR A LIVING!!!! AT ONE TIME IN ALMOST EVERYBODY'S LIFE THEY MUST WORK FOR A
LIVING!! IN THE FUTURE ANYONE WHO EVER HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING WILL NEVER BE
ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT EVER BE ABLE TO ACCUMULATE ENOUGH
MONEY TO BECOME A CAPITALIST!! I SEE US HEADED FOR A FORM OF CORPORATE
SERFDOM!! WE ARE REGRESSING AND NOT PROGRESSING BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO DO
NOT DO THEIR MATH!!!!!!!
SMITTY
keith
> In article <MPG.1c59ae58f...@news.individual.net>, Keith
> Williams wrote:
>>In article <2Kmdneg1jox...@megapath.net>, dwm...@findmoore.net
>>says...
>>>
>>> >>>If you oppose the death penalty it shouldn't be be because of the way
>>> >>>it's capriciously enforced by man, it should be because a life which
>>> >>>you didn't create shouldn't be yours to take.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> A question to ponder!
>>>
>>> Is it not murder to kill the one who murdered?
>>
>>Given that the definition of "murder" is the unlawful taking of
>>life....
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=murder&x=0&y=0
>>
>>1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
>>aforethought
>
> Definition by humans!
Well, fukin' duh! Words *are* sorta "defined" by humans. If you want to
have a rational debate it is helpful not to redefine the words in the
middle of the deebate though.
> What is God's definition? And as spoken by God
> as opposed to humans who believe they have correctly heard God's word?
Irrelevant. Murder <> kill.
> And what is said by the human believed by a major religion to be God
> temporarily descending to Earth? I believe the bible mentions at least
> one incident where he stopped an execution prescribed by at least one
> older part of the bible...
Don't be stupid. The issue is whether capital punishment is murder,
which it obviously is not given the definition of "murder".
--
Keith
keith
> In <9gJHd.7514$vC1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>
>>Ahmmm. Someone who unjustifiable takes a life should have his life
>>taken, imo.
>
> I oppose - who has heard the saying (give or take a bit
> word-for-word) "Why should we kill people who kill people in order to say
> that killing people is wrong?"
>
> Better still - how about a fate worse than death!
Better still; can you name a better solution for recitivism?
<snip>
--
Keith
Parse Tree
> On 2005-01-20, Parse Tree <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
>>Aunty Kreist wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>
>
> OK, I kill child processes every day on my host, hoping they don't
> become zombies. And I don't feel guilty about that.
I hate zombie processes. I remember getting zombie processes a while
back on a Linux box in such a way that it required me to reboot it in
order to get rid of them.
I think NFS was involved somehow.
Anyway, have they fixed it so that zombie processes can always be killed
and whatnot? I've personally never noticed any such thing on Solaris, so
I can't really believe that it's unsolvable.
Parse Tree
>>Everybody who supports the death penalty should be shot.
>>
>
> ======================
>
> By who ?
I'll do it, but it'll have to be done in a sunny place so that it can
double as my vacation.
Parse Tree
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the new
> strand of DNA is assembled.
The definition varies from culture to culture, but it's usually around
age 18 or so.
Parse Tree
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:55 GMT, Parse Tree
> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
>
>>Aunty Kreist wrote:
>
>
>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>
>
>
> Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?
No, I'm arguing that it stops being a biological parasite when it can
survive on its own. The law defines humanity as happening at around 18
or so.
> Unfortunately in some cases, leaving the host doesn't guarantee that
> the parasitic behavior will end.
Indeed!
Parse Tree
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:56:21 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pis...@uberbitch.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Aunty Kreist" <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote in message
>>news:3595jsF...@individual.net...
>
>
>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?
>>
>>outside the womb. Given med. technology, that's around the middle of the
>>second trimester....
>
>
> ---
> Then, with the inevitable advances in medical technology one would
> expect, that "time of survival" will be pushed closer and closer to
> the time of conception until it will be possible to bring a fertilized
> egg to term out of the womb. If such is the case, then you argue that
> life begins at conception but that we can't currently support it
> ex-utero that early?
It would be parasitic on some mechanical device, then.
Parse Tree
>>Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
>>no morals.
>
> So.... ipso facto....., all Liberals are unconscious?
I think Paul Martin is a bit too stupid to merely be unconscious.
Parse Tree
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:43:08 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:55 GMT, Parse Tree
>>><acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Aunty Kreist wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?
>>>
>>>the parasitic behavior will end.
>>
>
>
> ---
> IKYABWAI? How juvenile.
> ---
>
>
>>Are you gonna preach about how God is the creator of the Universe again?
>
>
> ---
> Nah, sounds like you got it the first time around.
>
> BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
Yes, I created it. See, my claim to have created it is stronger than the
claim in favour of God, because at least it can be demonstrated that I
exist.
Parse Tree
> I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
> 'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
>
>
>
>
That would mean that there'd be negative points.
Damn you Descartes!
Parse Tree
Space is constrained to the region inside the universe, just as time is.
That's why there couldn't have been a time before the beginning of the
universe, and why there is nothing outside of the universe. At least in
terms of the universe's dimensions, anyway.
Parse Tree
Aunty Kreist wrote:
> Just curious, John. Exactly how many crack babies have adopted? How about
> dumped babies? HIV? Any at all? Anything?
>
>
> "John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
> news:1280v0lhgmj40p29l...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:08:41 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>><salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:34:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>>><salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>>>>><Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human
>>>>>>>life?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the
>>>>>>new strand of DNA is assembled.
>>>>>
>>>>>But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
>>>>>scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe
>>>>>for no good reason.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>The point is not whether it's conscious or not,
>>>
>>>Absolutely it is. That's *all* that matters. Its what *determines*
>>>whether "life" should be respected for its *own* sake. For example, a
>>>carrot may be considered "life", but to respect it for itself is daft.
>>
>>---
>>I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food for
>>us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides some of
>>the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient human would
>>respect another, of course, but in its own way.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>>(although it could be
>>>>argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
>>>>accurate)
>>>
>>>I agree definition on consciousness is difficult, but what ever it is,
>>>that's the axiom I use.
>>>
>>>
>>>>it's that it's alive and has a goal, that goal being to
>>>>become what we call conscious.
>>>
>>>Non conscious goals, in this context, are irrelevant by my book.
>>
>>---
>>But quite relevant in mine. Without that unconscious goal, we would
>>not be sitting here having this discussion.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>Explain why a carrot, with is "alive", should be respected. Until you
>>>can do this, you don't have an argument to respect a similar status
>>>"life".
>>
>>---
>>See earlier explanation.
>>---
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious is
>>>>>almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
>>>>>certainly after a few months minimum though.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>If you don't know when, you can't say not when.\
>>>
>>>Yep you can. Its not a line, there is a *region* where we can say
>>>absolutely that it is not conscious from before one line and conscious
>>
>>>from another line after it. Only the region in-between the time is there
>>
>>>uncertainty. I gave a conservative figure of two months. The figure I
>>>got this from was Carl Sagan noting that it is at least 3 months before
>>>there is enough neural connections to form a brain as we know it.
>>
>>---
>>Yes, and that phrase, "as we know it", is what enables the
>>dehumanization of a fetus and the cheapening of life.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>So, drawing the line at say, 2 months, means that we just let some non
>>>conscious blobs of chemicals be accorded the status of conscious blobs.
>>>So what. The error is on the side of the pro-lifers. I can live with
>>>that:-)
>>
>>---
>>So if it's two months old it's OK to kill it, but if it's three months
>>old It's not? As John Woodgate said, this is a question of drawing
>>lines, and mine is drawn with affording the fetus protection from the
>>instant of conception. Period.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>The concept of using "alive" as the decider is fundamentally flawed, and
>>>missed by most. What truly matters is whether or not the object has ever
>>>been conscious.
>>
>>---
>>That's your _opinion_, Kevin, and no matter how you try to make it
>>sound like fact, it remains an opinion.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>"Consciousness should be the deciding issue on moral issues"
>>>
>>>IMO!
>>
>>---
>>Gibberish... IMO.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>>---
>>>>For me, there _is_ no dividing line. If it's alive it won't die by
>>>>_my_ hand; YMMV
>>>
>>>You must have some religious bent.
>>
>>---
>>I just believe that a life which I didn't give isn't mine to take.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>There is simply no good reason, imo, that an arbitrary definition of
>>>"life" be used for such a decision.
>>
>>---
>>The definition isn't arbitrary, a life begins when the new strand of
>>DNA is assembled.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>If you were never conscious, you would never have known anything.
>>>Consciousness is key, not life.
>>
>>---
>>Consciousness is a _consequence_ of life.
>>
>>If you were never alive you could not have become conscious, so life
>>is the precursor to consciousness; the key.
>>---
>>
>>
>>>Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
>>>no morals.
>>
>>---
>>It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.
>>
>>--
>>John Fields
>
>
>
Parse Tree
> Aunty Kreist wrote:
>
>>No matter what
>>tactic you badly try to employ, the fact remains that you simply
>
> cannot
>
>>control the beliefs, thoughts, and actions of others.
>
> What if he used an electroprobe mind control device?
Then that would work on most people, but not us because we'd be wearing
our tinfoil hats.
Speaking of the electroprobe mind control device, are there any on
sci.electronics.design that could give us some valuable insight into
defeating this nefarious device?
Aunty Kreist
"Noah Roberts" <nrob...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:10v0nll...@corp.supernews.com...
Hee hee! I aim to please. :)
Aunty Kreist
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:20:51 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
> <Aunty_...@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>
> >> BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?
> >
>
> ---
> Are you going to answer the question or not?
>
> And, what is it with you and this rant crap?
>
> Here's the sum total of my "rant", a reply to Clint Clark on another
> thread:
>
> <QUOTE>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Clint Clark" <cl...@artdsm.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What Is God?
>
> God is the creator of our universe.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> other than a few other remarks on that thread, that's it, so what are
> you trying to pull?
Pull? No thanks, give your finger to yer wife.
> Does the mere mention of a god upset you so much that you see seven
> words as a rant or a threat of some kind?
The rant comment refers to:
1. Your repeated statements about what others should believe
2.You ignorant comments stating that some big sky fairy is the one and only
creator, ruling out scientific fact completely
3. The pro-life dogma and agenda you have continually spouted on a newsgroup
chock full of Pagans, who are mostly quiet independent minded
4. The fact that you will respond to each and every post made to you. I can
just type ooga booga in all my responses to you, and you'll still comment
back.
> --
> John Fields