Poor old God
Euro
Bin Ladin says he does (or he did). So does Bush, and so does Blair. Hussein
also believes God is supporting him. And the Pope argues he represents God.
It's likely God doesn't exist at all, which would side with all of them. But
if he does exist, would he like to have to choose his speaker between
(respectively) a fanatic, a lunatic, a crank, an unscrupulous dictator and a
clueless senile.
Poor old God. After so many centuries of fruitless invocations, it is high
time the human kind let God enjoy a well-deserved retirement.
Euro
Howard Aubrey
"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e5f7d00$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
AMEN to that!! besides the world will be a MUCH better
place when all of the weak minded imbeciles that believe in god
have evolved out of existence. There is certainly ample proof
that religious individuals are considerably less intelligent
than atheists...\\
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
cheers...
HJA
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Rennie
"Howard Aubrey" <howard...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Ua8a.8812$hj.21...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
snip
> >
> > Poor old God. After so many centuries of fruitless invocations, it is
high
> > time the human kind let God enjoy a well-deserved retirement.
> >
> > Euro
>
> AMEN to that!! besides the world will be a MUCH better
> place when all of the weak minded imbeciles that believe in god
> have evolved out of existence. There is certainly ample proof
> that religious individuals are considerably less intelligent
> than atheists...\\
>
> http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
>
As an atheist I don't happen to think that the world would be
a better place if those who believed in religion disappeared.
Nationalism or racialism would merely take the place of
religion - it's been man's natural inclination to find reasons
for despising that which is foreign to him. Your above
comment proves that in spades.
A Planet Visitor
Quite true... IMHO... Man needs BOTH a reason to hope and a reason
to hate. Both because he is usually never satisfied with his general lot. I
find that atheists are usually different, because they are satisfied with
their general lot, as much as can be expected, and don't believe
they need a reason to hope for something better in the end. Although
I disagree with the atheists view, I have the opinion that such is the
reason, even though I am personally extremely satisfied with my
general lot. I hold a view as a deist.
While those without hope, find a reason to hold on to religion as
a crutch that much more tightly, and need a focus to hate, however
irrational that focus is, for their poverty and despair. And many
organized religions foster such hate, perhaps not openly, but if one
looks beneath the surface. Of course, at higher levels of government
everywhere, the officials espousing religion generally do so for
public image more than anything else. Very few (I know of none
lately), who would renounce a belief in God, taking a total public
atheist view, and still expect to have a political power base.
PV
Euro
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
??????:d8d8a.307$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
The world would certainly be better if religion was kept in the private
sphere and not continuously mixed with political motivations.
Euro
John Rennie
You may well have missed my point, Euro.. If religion was kept
private, nationalism and racialism might well be more open. It
isn't what man believes in that corrupts him, it is that what
motivates his beliefs.
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7yk8a.93$ne2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
oooohhh! should be 'it is that WHICH motivates his beliefs'.
JIGSAW1695
From: "Euro" vs...@hotmail.com
Date: 3/2/2003 4:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3e61c91d$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
Euro
===============================
Yes!
These pesky religious nuts keep trying to interfere with American jurisprudence
in the administration of the death penalty.
Earl, Euro, Dezi, I am glad to see that we finally agree on something.
Euro
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
??????:7yk8a.93$ne2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
I don't agree with you here, John. In many cases, religion has been an
important factor to boast nationalisms - good examples being Bin Ladin and
Bush, both convinced they act on behalf of God. The values vehicled by
religions can be positive for the functionning of society, but religions as
such should remain in the private sphere. What I point at, here, is the
(antique and, unfortunately, still very frequent) trend to use religion to
justify political acts.
Euro
Euro
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com>
??????:20030302055029...@mb-fu.aol.com...
The abolition of the death penalty is a matter of human rights, Jigsaw.
Religious arguments have long been used (and are sometimes still used) to
justify it. Religions can vehicle values that are useful for the
functionning of society, but they should as such remain in the private
sphere and not be used to justify political acts.
Euro
Euro
STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER 4 PEACE
>>------STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>-----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>---STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>--STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>-STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>>STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>>PLEASE STOP HOLOCAUST OF IRAQI BABIES, CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN BY NAZIS.
The Dirty War against Iraq Depleted Uranium Facts for All the World to See.
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
>-------STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>------STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>-----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>----STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>---STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>--STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>-STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
>>>>>>>>STOP NAZI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER FOR WORLD PEACE-----STOP RELIGIOUS WAR----
A Planet Visitor
No... it's NOT! It's no more a matter of 'human rights,' than it is a matter of
'murderer's rights.' The fact is society can well determine what RIGHTS
members have within their respective societies. And there is CERTAINLY
no 'right' to murder. I found a most interesting analysis by Lord Clane when
looking at some past posts here -- One I agree with. And certainly agree
with his point, which I will take the liberty of repeating --
"I would be utterly delighted if the only times criminals committed homicide they
followed the same procedures used by the state. This would require a formal
accusation of homicide in violation of statutory law on the part of the victim, for
which execution was an already prescribed punishment (no ex post facto
determinations!); public trial of the victim by jury in accordance with due process
and with access to legal representation; a requirement that the crimes of the victim
be proven beyond reasonable doubt; similar opportunities for appeal by higher courts;
and, in the actual homicide, limitation to use of the humane methods embodied in
current law. If potential murderers are truly ready to follow that example, by all
means... more power to them!"
If we presume to give all these legal remedies to murderers... why do their VICTIMS
not enjoy those same legal remedies in their BEING murdered? if you expect to
apply 'human rights' to murderers... why do their victims not enjoy those same
rights?
>Religious arguments have long been used (and are sometimes still used) to
>justify it.
Inasmuch as it is a SECULAR PENALTY for a SECULAR CRIME... any
argument which religion interposes is simply irrelevant. I have said here, that
I am a theist. I certainly believe in a soul, and a creator. But, IMHO, that
creator certainly doesn't concern Himself, given the shear immensity of our universe,
with something as trivial as a certain species having a 'right to life,' or 'human
rights.' Certainly not, given the infinitesimally small amount of time each of us
spend in this framework. Further, looking about me, at the abuses of what is
argued to be the existence of something which is implied as _universal_ and
_timeless_, it is rather obvious that no such thing as 'human rights' can POSSIBLY
exist, except through ---
1) An idiotic (IMHO) belief offered solely in FAITH that this _right_ exists through
some _force_ which is usually presumed as not even needing to be defined as to the
source of that _force_. In spite of all the obvious counter-examples to such
FAITH.
2) Often confusing what is recognized as a biological _urge_ to survive, which
exists with ALL biological life forms as an evolutionary process, with a presumption
that this means a _right_ to survive as well. Your _urge_ to survive keeps you
from stepping in front of an oncoming freight train. But trust me... all the _right
to life_ in the world, that you presume you have, will not protect you if you DO
stand in front of that oncoming freight train.
3) The most common -- the creation of those rights by societies who provide those
rights to their individual members, using the minds of men to fashion what specific
_rights_ are being given. This cannot possibly be presumed to extend those rights to
domains outside of their own sovereignty, without presuming to impose their will, by
force if necessary (which seems to be a moral oxymoron of some form), on those not
under the same domain.
> Religions can vehicle values that are useful for the
>functionning of society, but they should as such remain in the private
>sphere and not be used to justify political acts.
>
Well.. there you go... The LAW is a political act... created in a democratic society
through a legislative process. Thus, the creation of the DP, or the abolition of the
DP, cannot be a subject of a religious argument. Nor can it be the subject of
presuming it is _unlawful_, by the very definition of the word _lawful_.
Now... one may hold a PERSONAL view that their PERSONAL morality finds
the DPimmoral... but please... if doing so, argue for the RIGHT reasons... on a
personal level of your own morality, and not presuming it is some UNIVERSAL
force of nature. Not in the belief that there is something supernatural, perhaps
provided by pixies, about 'human rights,' or 'the right to life.' BOTH are
inventions of Men, through intercourse with establishing societies and the laws of
those societies. Meant to insure a better CHANCE of survival, which cannot
presume some UNIVERSAL plan which protects survival or protects life.
PV
>Euro
>
John Rennie
Well religion has been a factor in boosting nationalisms and as religion
has been an important part of man's evolution, it has also been a factor
in the civilising of man. It is inconceivable to think that man's
development
could have proceeded without the guidance and/or constraints of
religion and it still provides a constraint for many. As with all 'isms'
it
has been used by the rulers to suit their own purposes just as H****r
and Stalin used Fascism and Communism for their purposes. Personally
I think an atheist and/or agnostic is better off enjoying his/her own
freedom
of thought than attacking or disparaging the beliefs of others.
amanda
> Who is speaking for God?
>
> Bin Ladin says he does (or he did). So does Bush, and so does Blair. Hussein
> also believes God is supporting him. And the Pope argues he represents God.
>
> It's likely God doesn't exist at all, which would side with all of them. But
> if he does exist, would he like to have to choose his speaker between
> (respectively) a fanatic, a lunatic, a crank, an unscrupulous dictator and a
> clueless senile.
>
Among all these positions, being a lunatic is the worst. Sad that he
is the president of the United States.
amanda
very religious people and some were even religious leaders.
> http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
>
> cheers...
>
>
> HJA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
John Rennie
"amanda" <amand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bbea23b7.03030...@posting.google.com...
snip
> >
> Most of the scientists with great discoveries BEFORE modern time were
> very religious people and some were even religious leaders.
Examples please, Amanda.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 3/3/2003 5:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <HxG8a.127$wC6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
snip
Examples please, Amanda.
===============================
For one thing John, in the olden days of yore, only the clergy, along with a
few select nobels, could read and write. Without them we would have no
documented history.
When the printing press was invented, it lead to an opportunity for the masses
to learn to read, write and communicate.
Euro
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
??????:EJx8a.351$ne2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
You're right. Likewise, a statesman is better off enjoying his freedom to
believe in a religion by not invoking it continuously to justify his policy.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:j6456v07thb98spf2...@4ax.com...(snipped)
> >
> >The abolition of the death penalty is a matter of human rights, Jigsaw.
>
> No... it's NOT! It's no more a matter of 'human rights,' than it is a
matter of
> 'murderer's rights.' The fact is society can well determine what RIGHTS
> members have within their respective societies. And there is CERTAINLY
> no 'right' to murder.
There is no right to murder a convicted criminal either.
> If we presume to give all these legal remedies to murderers... why do
their VICTIMS
> not enjoy those same legal remedies in their BEING murdered? if you
expect to
> apply 'human rights' to murderers... why do their victims not enjoy those
same
> rights?
Interesting reflexions, certainly. But it leads you nowhere (victims of
murders by nature, are just victim and in no way will you be able to
guarantee them "a fair murder"), and it certainly doesn't justify the
imposition of the death penalty.
Since the death penalty is an infringement on human rights, its abolition is
a universal necessity - just like the respect of human rights. I don't need
to invoke any religious belief to support this view, and, besides, I don't
see why my religious beliefs (if I ever had any) would have to be imposed to
the society.
Euro
>
> >Euro
> >
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
amand...@yahoo.com (amanda) wrote:
> Most of the scientists with great discoveries BEFORE modern time were
> very religious people and some were even religious leaders.
A great many of them also believed in astrology.
Your point was _what_, precisely?
Cretin.
[followups to alt.flame]
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Err...
Sir Isaac Newton was, IIRC, a Sandemanian Elder. A loopier bunch you'll
never encounter, mark my words.
However, see my other post to this thread for my opinion of "Amanda's"
observation.
Roger
I would say that religion has no more to do with god than polictics
does. If I believe in god, it doesn't mean I subscribe to religion,
and I certainly wouldn't expect that anyone who believes in politics
would ascribe to god, by politics, would they? Maybe they would. Its
man that drags god into either though, and I see you doing it as well
as accusing others of it. So what is your excuse?
Rog
Roger
And who's doing that besides bin laden and hussien? Not that either
one of
them are statesmen, but which statesmen can you specify? Or are you
talking
about a different age?
Rog
Roger
Not speaking for amanda, but einstein would be one.
Rog
Roger
> Who is speaking for God?
Depending on which scripture you reference it would be those not
normally paid attention to, (as in authority figures or religious
leaders, or men of power or vanity), but often persons who were
adjudged to be crazy or socially misfit in someway.
You see religion is an invention of man, not god, and I believe god
abhors it as much as many people do. Because its invented by men, it
can also be manipulated by them.
>
> Bin Ladin says he does (or he did). So does Bush, and so does Blair.
Can you point to any link or source that quotes either Bush or Blair
as saying they speak for god?
Hussein
> also believes God is supporting him. And the Pope argues he
represents God.
Hussein has chosen his god, just like I have. And if you want a god,
you should chose one that works for you. If it turns out not to work
for you, get a different one. Use your own conception, and stop
presuming what other's conceptions might be. If you aren't presuming
what they might be then quote them as necessary. The pope claims to
be the representative; christ on earth, therefore he is the most
insidious in all these, IMO.
>
> It's likely God doesn't exist at all, which would side with all of
them.
Why? Because he doesn't act like Santy Claus?
>But
> if he does exist, would he like to have to choose his speaker
between
> (respectively) a fanatic, a lunatic, a crank, an unscrupulous
dictator and a
> clueless senile.
Any one of these who might sincerely be after his will, to be used in
leading, or warning, or even in edification. God's will is not
subject to what either you or I, or any of the above would deem it to
be for any of our human purposes, unless we would apply some godly
characteristics in ourselves. If we choose to do that, then I suppose
we'd have to establish what those characteristics might be.
If you could chose a character, (as speaker for god), outside of one
of the five you've judged above, what character, besides those, would
he have?
>
> Poor old God. After so many centuries of fruitless invocations, it
is high
> time the human kind let God enjoy a well-deserved retirement.
>
> Euro
>
Fruitless invocations?
Rog
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:j6456v07thb98spf2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:24:52 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>(snipped)
>> >
>> >The abolition of the death penalty is a matter of human rights, Jigsaw.
>>
>> No... it's NOT! It's no more a matter of 'human rights,' than it is a
>matter of
>> 'murderer's rights.' The fact is society can well determine what RIGHTS
>> members have within their respective societies. And there is CERTAINLY
>> no 'right' to murder.
>
>There is no right to murder a convicted criminal either.
>
Lawful execution and unlawful murder are as different as night and day. Do you think
the victims of MURDER have the same protections that their murderers have? Stop
being so naive. Try to understand the difference.
>
>> If we presume to give all these legal remedies to murderers... why do
>their VICTIMS
>> not enjoy those same legal remedies in their BEING murdered? if you
>expect to
>> apply 'human rights' to murderers... why do their victims not enjoy those
>same
>> rights?
>
>Interesting reflexions, certainly. But it leads you nowhere (victims of
>murders by nature, are just victim and in no way will you be able to
>guarantee them "a fair murder"), and it certainly doesn't justify the
>imposition of the death penalty.
>
Hello... you are POINTING OUT the fallacy in your own argument.
You have called lawful execution -- murder, and now point out that it
CAN'T BE, because victims of murder are NOT provided the same
protection as those who murder. What that comparison does -- is
lead YOU nowhere, in your claim. It is a clear counter-example of
a fundamental difference which prevents you from claiming any lawful
DP is murder. In so many ways.
>> the DP immoral... but please... if doing so, argue for the RIGHT reasons...
>> on a
>> personal level of your own morality, and not presuming it is some
>> UNIVERSAL
>> force of nature. Not in the belief that there is something supernatural,
>> perhaps
>> provided by pixies, about 'human rights,' or 'the right to life.' BOTH
>> are
>> inventions of Men, through intercourse with establishing societies and the
>> laws of
>> those societies. Meant to insure a better CHANCE of survival, which
>> cannot
>> presume some UNIVERSAL plan which protects survival or protects life.
>>
>
>Since the death penalty is an infringement on human rights,
You obviously did not even READ what I have written. Please don't presume
to speak of things that are imaginary, since you cannot even define _human
rights_ in an universal sense. They are only those _rights_ that a specific
society might grant. Some societies presume that what is not prohibited is
permitted, but there is NOTHING UNIVERSAL about such a perfectly
ridiculous claim about an imaginary entity called _human rights_. When
abolitionists start defending abolition because of something called
_human rights_, I bust out laughing. What about the _human rights_ of the
victim? In point of fact, if they were UNIVERSAL, than a murderer could
not take them away. And if a murderer CAN take them away... why
can't society? You see it in writing, and you presume that God has written
it... when it is only Man, presuming he is God. In the very limited sense of
those he controls.
>its abolition is
>a universal necessity - just like the respect of human rights. I don't need
>to invoke any religious belief to support this view, and, besides, I don't
>see why my religious beliefs (if I ever had any) would have to be imposed to
>the society.
>
Of course you need to invoke a religious belief. In fact, you are DOING so
as you write. A religious belief that some supernatural and mysterious
pixie-driven thing called _human rights_ protects ALL humans. You dream
up this _buzz word_ and believe it justifies your view. But it is no different
than believing that some divine presence has granted that thing you call a
_human right_. What is it??? Where does it come from?? Who provided
it??? Exactly WHO does it apply to??? Where does the biological line
exist that distinguishes what life forms have it, and what life forms do not?
Who established that line?? If not all biological life forms, then why does
a certain level in the taxonomy classifications have it, while one level deeper
does not? If our species -- homo sapiens have it, then why not all order of
primates? Why not all in the Animal kingdom? Who MAKES that distinction
for us? If it is presumed because we can cogitate it... then haven't WE
actually invented it?
PV
>Euro
>>
>> >Euro
>> >
>>
>
John Rennie
"Roger" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:2sWcnRB-Rqk...@giganews.com...
George W Bush and Anthony Blair.
Euro
"Roger" <no...@none.com> ??????:_2CdnYC698O...@giganews.com...
My "excuse" (I guess you want to know what is my motive under this word) is
that statesmen in particular, and everyone in general, should not invoke
religion as a means of justifying a policy.
As regards statesmen, it happens that Hussein, Blair and Bush all invoke
religion.
Euro
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:qdd86vgrrj2r2408u...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:06:15 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:j6456v07thb98spf2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:24:52 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >(snipped)
> >> >
> >> >The abolition of the death penalty is a matter of human rights,
Jigsaw.
> >>
> >> No... it's NOT! It's no more a matter of 'human rights,' than it is a
> >matter of
> >> 'murderer's rights.' The fact is society can well determine what
RIGHTS
> >> members have within their respective societies. And there is CERTAINLY
> >> no 'right' to murder.
> >
> >There is no right to murder a convicted criminal either.
> >
> Lawful execution and unlawful murder are as different as night and day.
Do you think
> the victims of MURDER have the same protections that their murderers have?
Stop
> being so naive. Try to understand the difference.
I understand very well the difference, but your comparison between the
murderers and their victims is pointless. It leads you nowhere but to the
dead end of wishing a trial for the victim in order to prove, with due
process of law, the crimes the victim could have made to deserve his/her
fate (Lord Clane's quotation). That's a nice thought, but that's utopic and
leads you nowhere. It is sterile wishful thinking.
I take it that the act of killing is, in all cases, a violation of the human
right to life and pursuit of happiness. That is true when someone gets
murdered: the human right of the victim has been violated by an individual,
and no one could prevent this from happening. Individual violations of human
rights happen every day, though not necessarily under the tragic form of a
homicide.
On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of killing and,
as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable as it is
state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state institutions), in
contrats to the first violation which is an individual, non-systemic,
isolated one.
Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights legitimize
the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
> >
> >> If we presume to give all these legal remedies to murderers... why do
> >their VICTIMS
> >> not enjoy those same legal remedies in their BEING murdered? if you
> >expect to
> >> apply 'human rights' to murderers... why do their victims not enjoy
those
> >same
> >> rights?
> >
> >Interesting reflexions, certainly. But it leads you nowhere (victims of
> >murders by nature, are just victim and in no way will you be able to
> >guarantee them "a fair murder"), and it certainly doesn't justify the
> >imposition of the death penalty.
> >
> Hello... you are POINTING OUT the fallacy in your own argument.
> You have called lawful execution -- murder, and now point out that it
> CAN'T BE, because victims of murder are NOT provided the same
> protection as those who murder. What that comparison does -- is
> lead YOU nowhere, in your claim. It is a clear counter-example of
> a fundamental difference which prevents you from claiming any lawful
> DP is murder. In so many ways.
What I said is perfectly logical, and explicited just above.
I did, though quickly. First, because reading long sentences with WORDS
WRITTEN LIKE THIS is quite unpleasant, and second, because most of what you
write, even though it can be interesting, doesn't reply to what I write but
to what you imagine (or believe) I could have written.
Please don't presume
> to speak of things that are imaginary, since you cannot even define _human
> rights_ in an universal sense. They are only those _rights_ that a
specific
> society might grant. Some societies presume that what is not prohibited
is
> permitted, but there is NOTHING UNIVERSAL about such a perfectly
> ridiculous claim about an imaginary entity called _human rights_. When
> abolitionists start defending abolition because of something called
> _human rights_, I bust out laughing. What about the _human rights_ of the
> victim? In point of fact, if they were UNIVERSAL, than a murderer could
> not take them away. And if a murderer CAN take them away... why
> can't society? You see it in writing, and you presume that God has
written
> it... when it is only Man, presuming he is God. In the very limited sense
of
> those he controls.
>
I replied to all this above. An isolated violation of human rights can't be
compared (and certainly doesn't legitimize) a systemic violatio of human
rights.
> >its abolition is
> >a universal necessity - just like the respect of human rights. I don't
need
> >to invoke any religious belief to support this view, and, besides, I
don't
> >see why my religious beliefs (if I ever had any) would have to be imposed
to
> >the society.
> >
> Of course you need to invoke a religious belief. In fact, you are DOING
so
> as you write. A religious belief that some supernatural and mysterious
> pixie-driven thing called _human rights_ protects ALL humans.
Contrary to what you say, the concept of human rights is philosophical and
not religious. It doesn't presuppose, or refer to, the existence of a
supreme being. It refers to a number of rights all humans have because they
are humans.
Euro
Euro
"Roger" <no...@none.com> ??????:b-OcnfgLpf-...@giganews.com...
>
> "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3e5f7d00$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
> > Who is speaking for God?
>
> Depending on which scripture you reference it would be those not
> normally paid attention to, (as in authority figures or religious
> leaders, or men of power or vanity), but often persons who were
> adjudged to be crazy or socially misfit in someway.
>
> You see religion is an invention of man, not god, and I believe god
> abhors it as much as many people do. Because its invented by men, it
> can also be manipulated by them.
That's exactly what I point. The world would be much better if religion
wasn't manipulated for political purposes.
> >
> > Bin Ladin says he does (or he did). So does Bush, and so does Blair.
>
> Can you point to any link or source that quotes either Bush or Blair
> as saying they speak for god?
While past presidents have invoked the name of God in public remarks,
President Bush has done so, arguably, more than others-and has increasingly
moved beyond broad statements on faith to include overt Christian
references.
An overview:
"An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
"Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know
that God is not neutral between them."
"We are in a conflict between good and evil , and America will call evil by
its name."
Bush's references to "good" and "evil," on the upswing since 9-11, imply the
Biblical clash between Christ and Satan.
"And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome
it."
A reference from the Book of John (appropriated from the Hebrew Scriptures)
to the coming of Christ.
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift
to humanity."
The words "safely home" are commonly used in homilies delivered at Christian
funerals to mean that those who've died are now with Jesus.
"There's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith
of the American people."
One more example: "the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship
Almighty God the way we see fit, and that America was called to bring God’s
gift of liberty to every human being in the world.” (Nashville, March 9th,
2002).
As regards Blair, you can find examples at the website of 10, Downing Street
(http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp), point to some of his
speeches. This one, for instance:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3014.asp
> Hussein
> > also believes God is supporting him. And the Pope argues he
> represents God.
>
> Hussein has chosen his god, just like I have. And if you want a god,
> you should chose one that works for you. If it turns out not to work
> for you, get a different one.
I let you observe that Muslims and Christians (and Jews) have actually the
same god.
> Use your own conception, and stop
> presuming what other's conceptions might be. If you aren't presuming
> what they might be then quote them as necessary. The pope claims to
> be the representative; christ on earth, therefore he is the most
> insidious in all these, IMO.
> >
> > It's likely God doesn't exist at all, which would side with all of
> them.
>
> Why? Because he doesn't act like Santy Claus?
For instance.
> >But
> > if he does exist, would he like to have to choose his speaker
> between
> > (respectively) a fanatic, a lunatic, a crank, an unscrupulous
> dictator and a
> > clueless senile.
>
> Any one of these who might sincerely be after his will, to be used in
> leading, or warning, or even in edification. God's will is not
> subject to what either you or I, or any of the above would deem it to
> be for any of our human purposes, unless we would apply some godly
> characteristics in ourselves. If we choose to do that, then I suppose
> we'd have to establish what those characteristics might be.
> If you could chose a character, (as speaker for god), outside of one
> of the five you've judged above, what character, besides those, would
> he have?
Your question presupposes the existence of god. Answering it is beyond of
reach for me, as I'm not sure god exists.
Euro
Roger
I wasn't there when the USA was founded, but it seems to be the common
belief that the nation prospered because it applied spiritual
principles to the foundation. In as much as decrees like the
Constitution are a part of that. I know
that we could argue, how spiritual was what was done to the indians
and africans? And to
that, all I could say also, because I wasn't there, was that it was
wrong. People err,
I don't know anyone who's life hasn't been touched or suffered from
some err, whether small
or great, but also under this umbrella, efforts always seem to be
taken to right the error, and
we have a system of checks and balances that allow us to do that
fortunately.
>
> As regards statesmen, it happens that Hussein, Blair and Bush all
invoke
> religion.
>
> Euro
>
Actually, I think what you might recognize is that these mens
politics, may be, or are, their religion. As some other mens religion
might be their intellectualism. You seem to suggest though that if
they, (the statesmen), invoke
religion, they invoke also invoke god.
Rog
Roger
>
> "Roger" <no...@none.com>
??????:b-OcnfgLpf-...@giganews.com...
> >
> > "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e5f7d00$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
> > > Who is speaking for God?
> >
> > Depending on which scripture you reference it would be those not
> > normally paid attention to, (as in authority figures or religious
> > leaders, or men of power or vanity), but often persons who were
> > adjudged to be crazy or socially misfit in someway.
> >
> > You see religion is an invention of man, not god, and I believe
god
> > abhors it as much as many people do. Because its invented by men,
it
> > can also be manipulated by them.
>
> That's exactly what I point. The world would be much better if
religion
> wasn't manipulated for political purposes.
>
Its not my belief that because a man quotes the writings of another
man, even
if those writings were inspired by diety, he is using religion, or
speaking "for" god.
I think god could speak for himself good enough if he wanted to, and
quite possibly
he does, if men would take the time to listen for it?
> > >
> > > Bin Ladin says he does (or he did). So does Bush, and so does
Blair.
> >
> > Can you point to any link or source that quotes either Bush or
Blair
> > as saying they speak for god?
>
> While past presidents have invoked the name of God in public
remarks,
The name of "god," being god?
> President Bush has done so, arguably, more than others-and has
I don't know, everytime I read something Hussien has supposedly said,
and
I mean "everytime," he uses the term "god," several times.
> increasingly
> moved beyond broad statements on faith to include overt Christian
> references.
As opposed to covertly then, and so you are saying he used the term
"jesus" then
in these references?
> An overview:
> "An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
Whether this is new testement scripture or not, I don't know, but its
sounds as
though it could easily be Thoreau.
> "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and
we know
> that God is not neutral between them."
Same here, except it sounds like Abraham Lincoln.
> "We are in a conflict between good and evil , and America will call
evil by
> its name."
> Bush's references to "good" and "evil," on the upswing since 9-11,
imply the
> Biblical clash between Christ and Satan.
This could be, I'll leave it to your determination, but the
implication should be
your own, unless you can site where it was said.
> "And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not
overcome
> it."
I believe that is indeed a part of scripture.
>
> A reference from the Book of John (appropriated from the Hebrew
Scriptures)
> to the coming of Christ.
> "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is
God's gift
> to humanity."
>
> The words "safely home" are commonly used in homilies delivered at
Christian
> funerals to mean that those who've died are now with Jesus.
> "There's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism
and faith
> of the American people."
>
> One more example: "the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can
worship
> Almighty God the way we see fit, and that America was called to
bring God’s
> gift of liberty to every human being in the world.” (Nashville,
March 9th,
> 2002).
That last statement, I agree, could support your arguement to a
degree, although
I would like to see the actual source.
>
> As regards Blair, you can find examples at the website of 10,
Downing Street
> (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp), point to some of his
> speeches. This one, for instance:
> http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3014.asp
>
>
>
> > Hussein
> > > also believes God is supporting him. And the Pope argues he
> > represents God.
> >
> > Hussein has chosen his god, just like I have. And if you want a
god,
> > you should chose one that works for you. If it turns out not to
work
> > for you, get a different one.
>
> I let you observe that Muslims and Christians (and Jews) have
actually the
> same god.
I can't speak for Muslims because I know nothing about their beliefs,
but Christians
consider the "son," being god, (as one of a trinity), and Jews do not,
erstwhile they do I suppose refer
to the same "father," god however.
>
> > Use your own conception, and stop
> > presuming what other's conceptions might be. If you aren't
presuming
> > what they might be then quote them as necessary. The pope claims
to
> > be the representative; christ on earth, therefore he is the most
> > insidious in all these, IMO.
> > >
> > > It's likely God doesn't exist at all, which would side with all
of
> > them.
> >
> > Why? Because he doesn't act like Santy Claus?
>
> For instance.
?
>
>
> > >But
> > > if he does exist, would he like to have to choose his speaker
> > between
> > > (respectively) a fanatic, a lunatic, a crank, an unscrupulous
> > dictator and a
> > > clueless senile.
> >
> > Any one of these who might sincerely be after his will, to be used
in
> > leading, or warning, or even in edification. God's will is not
> > subject to what either you or I, or any of the above would deem it
to
> > be for any of our human purposes, unless we would apply some godly
> > characteristics in ourselves. If we choose to do that, then I
suppose
> > we'd have to establish what those characteristics might be.
> > If you could chose a character, (as speaker for god), outside of
one
> > of the five you've judged above, what character, besides those,
would
> > he have?
>
> Your question presupposes the existence of god. Answering it is
beyond of
> reach for me, as I'm not sure god exists.
>
> Euro
>
And such is what the nature of faith and hope in "good," prevailing is
based upon; the intangible, until it become tangible. Persons will
never use god to make this so, but god may well use people to make it
so.
amanda
I'll give you just one because I am so depressed that you are not
aware of this fact: Loius Pastor
amanda
> In article <bbea23b7.03030...@posting.google.com>,
> amand...@yahoo.com (amanda) wrote:
>
> > Most of the scientists with great discoveries BEFORE modern time were
> > very religious people and some were even religious leaders.
>
> A great many of them also believed in astrology.
>
> Your point was _what_, precisely?
>
> Cretin.
>
> [followups to alt.flame]
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
You too are ignorant too, obviously.
amanda
My spelling for "Loius Pastor" was wrong. Sorry..it should be
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895).
Pasteurization (of milk, etc.) was named after him.
Articles about him as a scientist (and other scientists) who were
religious also would not mention about that part of their lives. It's
a shame to talk about religion in scientific area.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:qdd86vgrrj2r2408u...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:06:15 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:j6456v07thb98spf2...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:24:52 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >(snipped)
>> >> >
>> >> >The abolition of the death penalty is a matter of human rights,
>Jigsaw.
>> >>
>> >> No... it's NOT! It's no more a matter of 'human rights,' than it is a
>> >matter of
>> >> 'murderer's rights.' The fact is society can well determine what
>RIGHTS
>> >> members have within their respective societies. And there is CERTAINLY
>> >> no 'right' to murder.
>> >
>> >There is no right to murder a convicted criminal either.
>> >
>> Lawful execution and unlawful murder are as different as night and day.
>Do you think
>> the victims of MURDER have the same protections that their murderers have?
>Stop
>> being so naive. Try to understand the difference.
>
>I understand very well the difference,
No... you obviously don't. Why can't you understand THAT? You
don't because of your words that "There is no right to murder a convicted
criminal." Until you admit that was NOT what you meant... then it
is painfully clear that you don't know the difference..
> but your comparison between the
>murderers and their victims is pointless.
WHAT!!! There is NO DIFFERENCE between the victim and his MURDERER!!!
Come on, euro... you can do better than that.
> It leads you nowhere but to the
>dead end of wishing a trial for the victim in order to prove, with due
>process of law, the crimes the victim could have made to deserve his/her
>fate (Lord Clane's quotation). That's a nice thought, but that's utopic and
>leads you nowhere. It is sterile wishful thinking.
>
Rubbish... it points out the very clear DIFFERENCE between murder
and a lawful execution. Which was the PRECISE point.
>I take it that the act of killing is, in all cases, a violation of the human
>right to life and pursuit of happiness.
You may take it as such... but it has no meaning other than your opinion,
and empty blabbering. Since there is no such thing as a _right to life_, and
even when society grants such, it recognizes that one may kill in self-defense.
> That is true when someone gets
>murdered: the human right of the victim has been violated by an individual,
>and no one could prevent this from happening. Individual violations of human
>rights happen every day, though not necessarily under the tragic form of a
>homicide.
You keep talking about _human rights_ yet you cannot even DEFINE it.
>
>On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of killing and,
>as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable as it is
>state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state institutions), in
>contrats to the first violation which is an individual, non-systemic,
>isolated one.
Since society is the ONLY entity that can grant human rights, it certainly
can take them away. Clearly, a police sharpshooter can kill a hostage taker
at the direction of society, and there is no violation of ANYTHING.
>
>Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights legitimize
>the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
>
Rubbish.. You have drawn an axiomatic rule from an OPINION you hold.
Quite illogical, and quite wrong.
>> >
>> >> If we presume to give all these legal remedies to murderers... why do
>> >their VICTIMS
>> >> not enjoy those same legal remedies in their BEING murdered? if you
>> >expect to
>> >> apply 'human rights' to murderers... why do their victims not enjoy
>those
>> >same
>> >> rights?
>> >
>> >Interesting reflexions, certainly. But it leads you nowhere (victims of
>> >murders by nature, are just victim and in no way will you be able to
>> >guarantee them "a fair murder"), and it certainly doesn't justify the
>> >imposition of the death penalty.
>> >
>> Hello... you are POINTING OUT the fallacy in your own argument.
>> You have called lawful execution -- murder, and now point out that it
>> CAN'T BE, because victims of murder are NOT provided the same
>> protection as those who murder. What that comparison does -- is
>> lead YOU nowhere, in your claim. It is a clear counter-example of
>> a fundamental difference which prevents you from claiming any lawful
>> DP is murder. In so many ways.
>
>What I said is perfectly logical, and explicited just above.
>
You _explained_ NOTHING above... except repeating what you cannot
even define -- _human rights_.
Oh... LARGE WORDS confuse you??
> and second, because most of what you
>write, even though it can be interesting, doesn't reply to what I write but
>to what you imagine (or believe) I could have written.
>
Actually, YOU haven't replied to ANYTHING that I've written. You just
keep repeating something called _human rights_, that you refuse to define,
or even presume to argue where such an imaginary right comes from.
>Please don't presume
>> to speak of things that are imaginary, since you cannot even define _human
>> rights_ in an universal sense. They are only those _rights_ that a
>specific
>> society might grant. Some societies presume that what is not prohibited
>is
>> permitted, but there is NOTHING UNIVERSAL about such a perfectly
>> ridiculous claim about an imaginary entity called _human rights_. When
>> abolitionists start defending abolition because of something called
>> _human rights_, I bust out laughing. What about the _human rights_ of the
>> victim? In point of fact, if they were UNIVERSAL, than a murderer could
>> not take them away. And if a murderer CAN take them away... why
>> can't society? You see it in writing, and you presume that God has
>written
>> it... when it is only Man, presuming he is God. In the very limited sense
>of
>> those he controls.
>>
>
>I replied to all this above. An isolated violation of human rights can't be
>compared (and certainly doesn't legitimize) a systemic violatio of human
>rights.
>
Again... WHAT IS a _human right_? WHO has provided such an entity?
Can you possibly address this issue, instead of simply repeating it over and
over as YOUR ARGUMENT. Which is obviously an argument now proven
to be based on FAITH... your faith that something such as that is UNIVERSAL...
AND TIMELESS. Rather than something based on SUBSTANCE.
>
>> >its abolition is
>> >a universal necessity - just like the respect of human rights. I don't
>need
>> >to invoke any religious belief to support this view, and, besides, I
>don't
>> >see why my religious beliefs (if I ever had any) would have to be imposed
>to
>> >the society.
>> >
>> Of course you need to invoke a religious belief. In fact, you are DOING
>so
>> as you write. A religious belief that some supernatural and mysterious
>> pixie-driven thing called _human rights_ protects ALL humans.
>
>Contrary to what you say, the concept of human rights is philosophical and
>not religious. It doesn't presuppose, or refer to, the existence of a
>supreme being. It refers to a number of rights all humans have because they
>are humans.
>
Contrary to what you say... a philosophical concept does not EXIST. It
is simply something that comes from the mind of man... and CANNOT be
presumed as anything other than a SUBJECTIVE thought, rather than
an OBJECTIVE existence fact. You certainly do not presume that ALL
MEN think the SAME, do you? Thus, it cannot be UNIVERSAL and
TIMELESS.
PV
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:uj6b6vgdsm8garn57...@4ax.com...
I confirm you I exactly meant that: "There is no right to murder a convicted
criminal."
> > but your comparison between the
> >murderers and their victims is pointless.
>
> WHAT!!! There is NO DIFFERENCE between the victim and his MURDERER!!!
> Come on, euro... you can do better than that.
Of course there is a difference. This is why it is stupid to compare. Can
you understand what you read?
> > It leads you nowhere but to the
> >dead end of wishing a trial for the victim in order to prove, with due
> >process of law, the crimes the victim could have made to deserve his/her
> >fate (Lord Clane's quotation). That's a nice thought, but that's utopic
and
> >leads you nowhere. It is sterile wishful thinking.
> >
> Rubbish... it points out the very clear DIFFERENCE between murder
> and a lawful execution. Which was the PRECISE point.
We all know the difference, but just the fact there is a difference does not
justify one more than another. Which is the *precise* point I try to make
you understand. I repeat my question: can you understand what you read?
> >I take it that the act of killing is, in all cases, a violation of the
human
> >right to life and pursuit of happiness.
>
> You may take it as such... but it has no meaning other than your opinion,
> and empty blabbering. Since there is no such thing as a _right to life_,
and
> even when society grants such, it recognizes that one may kill in
self-defense.
Self-defense is justified when it enables to save life in an emergency
situation, and only in that meaning. It is not a valid approach to justify
an execution of a murderer several years after a murder took place, and is
then directly linked to a right to life. This right exists so much that it
is explicitly recognised in article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
> > That is true when someone gets
> >murdered: the human right of the victim has been violated by an
individual,
> >and no one could prevent this from happening. Individual violations of
human
> >rights happen every day, though not necessarily under the tragic form of
a
> >homicide.
>
> You keep talking about _human rights_ yet you cannot even DEFINE it.
Are you backward to the point of not knowing what human rights are? Come on,
PV, at your age...
> >
> >On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of killing
and,
> >as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable as it
is
> >state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state institutions),
in
> >contrats to the first violation which is an individual, non-systemic,
> >isolated one.
>
> Since society is the ONLY entity that can grant human rights, it certainly
> can take them away.
No.
> Clearly, a police sharpshooter can kill a hostage taker
> at the direction of society, and there is no violation of ANYTHING.
A policeman can do that only in a case of self-defense in emergency
situation, if there is no other alternative. Else, it is murder.
> >
> >Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights
legitimize
> >the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
> >
> Rubbish.. You have drawn an axiomatic rule from an OPINION you hold.
> Quite illogical, and quite wrong.
Very logical and true, on the contrary.
Yes, I explained even much more than you could ever do, as what you can do
just seems to be labelling sentences as "illogical" and "wrong" without even
add any argument to it.
They show the lack of self-confidence of the one who wrote them, and don't
help being more convincing.
> > and second, because most of what you
> >write, even though it can be interesting, doesn't reply to what I write
but
> >to what you imagine (or believe) I could have written.
> >
> Actually, YOU haven't replied to ANYTHING that I've written. You just
> keep repeating something called _human rights_, that you refuse to define,
> or even presume to argue where such an imaginary right comes from.
I had the weakness to believe you would know what "human rights" is about. I
didn't think I had to give a definition... You might check in a dictionary
for that, anyway. I don't have time to lose giving definition of so widely
recognised concepts.
Refer to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The list is there, and it's
very secular.
Once again, human rights are universal and have been universally declared in
a UN text of 1948. And that has nothing to do with religion.
Euro
Mad Jack
"Roger" <no...@none.com> schrieb:
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > "amanda" <amand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Most of the scientists with great discoveries BEFORE
> > > modern time were very religious people and some were
> > > even religious leaders.
> >
> > Examples please, Amanda.
> >
> Not speaking for amanda, but einstein would be one.
You mean Albert "I do not believe in a personal God and I have
never denied this but have expressed it clearly" Einstein?
--
Cheers and all,
Hardy G.
"Mein Herz brennt"
http://madjack.diaryland.com
http://www.madjack.online.de
A Planet Visitor
Of course there is not. There is no right to MURDER anyone. But your
presumption implied to me that you were calling a lawful execution murder.
Now if that was NOT your presumption than I apologize for presuming it was.
If you look above, you will see that I said " there is CERTAINLY no 'right'
to murder." Which is a rather inclusive statement concerning ALL humans.
You then replied to THAT by saying "There is no right to murder a convicted
criminal either." Needless repetition of my own statement, if you REALLY
mean "MURDER" of criminals... such as those committed by MURDERERS
in prison, or outside of prison. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MURDER. That
is an absolute. But you seemed to imply there was something WRONG with
my all inclusive statement, which I took to mean that you were saying _there
_is _no right_ to_EXECUTE_murderers. Which you would refer to as "murder a
convicted criminal either." Now... perhaps you can clarify EXACTLY what
you meant by your words.
1) There is no right to murder anyone.
2) Lawful execution is NOT MURDER.
Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with your words.
>> > but your comparison between the
>> >murderers and their victims is pointless.
>>
>> WHAT!!! There is NO DIFFERENCE between the victim and his MURDERER!!!
>> Come on, euro... you can do better than that.
>
>Of course there is a difference. This is why it is stupid to compare. Can
>you understand what you read?
>
Not when you write in such a convoluted manner.
1) There is no right to murder anyone.
2) Lawful execution is NOT MURDER.
Now if you agree with those two statements, we have no problem. If you don't,
then we certainly do.
>
>> > It leads you nowhere but to the
>> >dead end of wishing a trial for the victim in order to prove, with due
>> >process of law, the crimes the victim could have made to deserve his/her
>> >fate (Lord Clane's quotation). That's a nice thought, but that's utopic
>and
>> >leads you nowhere. It is sterile wishful thinking.
>> >
>> Rubbish... it points out the very clear DIFFERENCE between murder
>> and a lawful execution. Which was the PRECISE point.
>
>We all know the difference, but just the fact there is a difference does not
>justify one more than another. Which is the *precise* point I try to make
>you understand. I repeat my question: can you understand what you read?
>
Of course it does justify one more than the other. The justification is IN THE
LAW. You cannot place yourself above the LAW. You may hold the opinion
that the DP is unjustified... but that is simply YOUR OPINION, and has no
legal significance. Only your SUBJECTIVE moral view, which is counterbalanced
by the SUBJECTIVE moral view of any other who feels the DP IS justified.
You simply CANNOT presume that your opinion can decide issues. It can
only decide your opinion... and not the opinion of any other person. Nor can
it decide a TRUE or FALSE answer to any question. It is simply YOUR
opinion. I has no value in an absolute or universal sense.
>> >I take it that the act of killing is, in all cases, a violation of the
>> >human
>> >right to life and pursuit of happiness.
>>
>> You may take it as such... but it has no meaning other than your opinion,
>> and empty blabbering. Since there is no such thing as a _right to life_,
>> and
>> even when society grants such, it recognizes that one may kill in
>self-defense.
>
>Self-defense is justified when it enables to save life in an emergency
>situation, and only in that meaning.
Do you make the RULES as you go along? You cannot determine when
it is justified in ANY CASE. Even in individual immediate self-defense. Society
determines that IN EACH AND EVERY case. You are BEHOLDEN to
society examining your act and CONFIRMING that it WAS self-defense.
You cannot make such a decision without society examining your act after
the fact. In the end... it is SOCIETY that determines any definition of
self-defense... and society can well incorporate it into the justice system as a
means of society self-protection through the instruments of laws which insure the
public safety.
> It is not a valid approach to justify
>an execution of a murderer several years after a murder took place, and is
>then directly linked to a right to life. This right exists so much that it
>is explicitly recognised in article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of
>Human Rights.
>
Rubbish. The 'right' of ANY SOVEREIGN nation to enforce its laws as it
sees fit is the underlying principle of all societies.
>> > That is true when someone gets
>> >murdered: the human right of the victim has been violated by an
>individual,
>> >and no one could prevent this from happening. Individual violations of
>human
>> >rights happen every day, though not necessarily under the tragic form of
>a
>> >homicide.
>>
>> You keep talking about _human rights_ yet you cannot even DEFINE it.
>
>Are you backward to the point of not knowing what human rights are? Come on,
>PV, at your age...
>
You STILL haven't defined it. I well know that Men have defined it... in many
different ways. But that doesn't make YOUR way applicable to ALL ways
of defining it. There are human rights considerations for the VICTIMS as
well. And most certainly the possibility of FUTURE victims. You seem
to ignore them.
>> >
>> >On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of killing
>and,
>> >as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable as it
>is
>> >state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state institutions),
>in
>> >contrats to the first violation which is an individual, non-systemic,
>> >isolated one.
>>
>> Since society is the ONLY entity that can grant human rights, it certainly
>> can take them away.
>
>No.
>
Yes.
>> Clearly, a police sharpshooter can kill a hostage taker
>> at the direction of society, and there is no violation of ANYTHING.
>
>A policeman can do that only in a case of self-defense in emergency
>situation, if there is no other alternative. Else, it is murder.
>
What? The policeman is NOT being threatened. SOCIETY IS. Held
hostage by the hostage taker. And society makes the DECISION to
take that action.
>> >
>> >Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights
>legitimize
>> >the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
>> >
>> Rubbish.. You have drawn an axiomatic rule from an OPINION you hold.
>> Quite illogical, and quite wrong.
>
>Very logical and true, on the contrary.
>
You do not get to decide based on your OPINION.
I have been over and over the argument of _right to life_. And you have ignored
every example I have provided and just blindly continue to pronounce it in some
religious fervor. In fact, such behavior strikes me as the most illogical approach
I have ever seen to an argument on a _right to life_. Have you considered a
career in organizing and running a Fundamentalist Religious Revival group?
No.. they're used for emphasis.... since without it, I just can't seem to get through
that thick skull of yours.
>
>> > and second, because most of what you
>> >write, even though it can be interesting, doesn't reply to what I write
>but
>> >to what you imagine (or believe) I could have written.
>> >
>> Actually, YOU haven't replied to ANYTHING that I've written. You just
>> keep repeating something called _human rights_, that you refuse to define,
>> or even presume to argue where such an imaginary right comes from.
>
>I had the weakness to believe you would know what "human rights" is about. I
>didn't think I had to give a definition... You might check in a dictionary
>for that, anyway. I don't have time to lose giving definition of so widely
>recognised concepts.
>
Of course they are recognized CONCEPTS. But none of those concepts
presume that murderers cannot be executed if society determines it is
necessary. Why??? Because society itself determines what _human rights_
ARE. Can you possibly absorb that grain of truth? You do not determine
what they are... Society does. Each society does. There is no UNIVERSAL
_human rights_, or _right to life_.
Refer to the criminal statutes that provide for the execution of certain murderers,
when the LAW provides for it.
Once again... see the starving child, and explain how HIS rights are UNIVERSAL.
See --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the background.
There on the left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes of the 'provider of the
Universal Right to Life,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed that
'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right that all 'life' possesses? Too bad that
the U.N. missed that one.
PV
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:ch0e6v4cglsusokbf...@4ax.com...
Unfortunately enough, there are many laws in the world that infringe on
human rights. Being lawful, execution murder is not more justified with
regard to human rights.
> Now if that was NOT your presumption than I apologize for presuming it
was.
> If you look above, you will see that I said " there is CERTAINLY no
'right'
> to murder." Which is a rather inclusive statement concerning ALL humans.
> You then replied to THAT by saying "There is no right to murder a
convicted
> criminal either." Needless repetition of my own statement, if you REALLY
> mean "MURDER" of criminals... such as those committed by MURDERERS
> in prison, or outside of prison. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MURDER. That
> is an absolute. But you seemed to imply there was something WRONG with
> my all inclusive statement, which I took to mean that you were saying
_there
> _is _no right_ to_EXECUTE_murderers. Which you would refer to as "murder
a
> convicted criminal either." Now... perhaps you can clarify EXACTLY what
> you meant by your words.
>
> 1) There is no right to murder anyone.
> 2) Lawful execution is NOT MURDER.
I confirm what I wrote. There is no right to murder a convicted criminal.
That also applies for executions.
> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with your
words.
I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my side.
> >> > It leads you nowhere but to the
> >> >dead end of wishing a trial for the victim in order to prove, with due
> >> >process of law, the crimes the victim could have made to deserve
his/her
> >> >fate (Lord Clane's quotation). That's a nice thought, but that's
utopic
> >and
> >> >leads you nowhere. It is sterile wishful thinking.
> >> >
> >> Rubbish... it points out the very clear DIFFERENCE between murder
> >> and a lawful execution. Which was the PRECISE point.
> >
> >We all know the difference, but just the fact there is a difference does
not
> >justify one more than another. Which is the *precise* point I try to make
> >you understand. I repeat my question: can you understand what you read?
> >
> Of course it does justify one more than the other. The justification is
IN THE
> LAW.
Not with regard to human rights which are a universal value.
> You cannot place yourself above the LAW. You may hold the opinion
> that the DP is unjustified... but that is simply YOUR OPINION, and has no
> legal significance.
I never tried to say my position had a legal significance. I know that in
the US the death penalty is legal (please give me that credit), but it is
also an infringement of human rights and this is why I oppose it.
> Only your SUBJECTIVE moral view, which is counterbalanced
> by the SUBJECTIVE moral view of any other who feels the DP IS justified.
> You simply CANNOT presume that your opinion can decide issues. It can
> only decide your opinion... and not the opinion of any other person. Nor
can
> it decide a TRUE or FALSE answer to any question. It is simply YOUR
> opinion. I has no value in an absolute or universal sense.
Human rights are a universally recognised value, and right to life is an
irreductible part of human rights. Right to life also includes the right of
murderers to life.
> >> >I take it that the act of killing is, in all cases, a violation of the
> >> >human
> >> >right to life and pursuit of happiness.
> >>
> >> You may take it as such... but it has no meaning other than your
opinion,
> >> and empty blabbering. Since there is no such thing as a _right to
life_,
> >> and
> >> even when society grants such, it recognizes that one may kill in
> >self-defense.
> >
> >Self-defense is justified when it enables to save life in an emergency
> >situation, and only in that meaning.
>
> Do you make the RULES as you go along? You cannot determine when
> it is justified in ANY CASE. Even in individual immediate self-defense.
Society
> determines that IN EACH AND EVERY case. You are BEHOLDEN to
> society examining your act and CONFIRMING that it WAS self-defense.
> You cannot make such a decision without society examining your act after
> the fact. In the end... it is SOCIETY that determines any definition of
> self-defense... and society can well incorporate it into the justice
system as a
> means of society self-protection through the instruments of laws which
insure the
> public safety.
If society decides that self-defense applies when a policeman comes to your
home and shoots you because you robbed a bank 3 years ago and put others'
lives at stake, I would admit self-defense out of emergency situations.
But what I wrote just above would clearly be illegal. In practice,
self-defense is only justified in emergency situations.
This is why, inter alia, I oppose Bush's theory of preemptive strikes.
> > It is not a valid approach to justify
> >an execution of a murderer several years after a murder took place, and
is
> >then directly linked to a right to life. This right exists so much that
it
> >is explicitly recognised in article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of
> >Human Rights.
> >
> Rubbish. The 'right' of ANY SOVEREIGN nation to enforce its laws as it
> sees fit is the underlying principle of all societies.
The US signed and ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
US constitution also recognizes, I believe, the right to life and pursuit of
happiness.
> >> > That is true when someone gets
> >> >murdered: the human right of the victim has been violated by an
> >individual,
> >> >and no one could prevent this from happening. Individual violations of
> >human
> >> >rights happen every day, though not necessarily under the tragic form
of
> >a
> >> >homicide.
> >>
> >> You keep talking about _human rights_ yet you cannot even DEFINE it.
> >
> >Are you backward to the point of not knowing what human rights are? Come
on,
> >PV, at your age...
> >
> You STILL haven't defined it. I well know that Men have defined it... in
many
> different ways. But that doesn't make YOUR way applicable to ALL ways
> of defining it. There are human rights considerations for the VICTIMS as
> well. And most certainly the possibility of FUTURE victims. You seem
> to ignore them.
Take the definition of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: it was signed and
ratified by more than 190 countries in the world, so this is a good basis to
define what human rights are as a universal value.
> >> >
> >> >On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of
killing
> >and,
> >> >as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable as
it
> >is
> >> >state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state
institutions),
> >in
> >> >contrats to the first violation which is an individual, non-systemic,
> >> >isolated one.
> >>
> >> Since society is the ONLY entity that can grant human rights, it
certainly
> >> can take them away.
> >
> >No.
> >
> Yes.
Then it's a totalitarian society.
> >> Clearly, a police sharpshooter can kill a hostage taker
> >> at the direction of society, and there is no violation of ANYTHING.
> >
> >A policeman can do that only in a case of self-defense in emergency
> >situation, if there is no other alternative. Else, it is murder.
> >
> What? The policeman is NOT being threatened. SOCIETY IS. Held
> hostage by the hostage taker. And society makes the DECISION to
> take that action.
If you like, but society is embodied by a policeman in your example.
> >> >
> >> >Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights
> >legitimize
> >> >the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
> >> >
> >> Rubbish.. You have drawn an axiomatic rule from an OPINION you hold.
> >> Quite illogical, and quite wrong.
> >
> >Very logical and true, on the contrary.
> >
> You do not get to decide based on your OPINION.
That's not an opinion.
Certainly not. I don't believe in God. Right to life is such a broadly
accepted value that I'm surprised you have to faint ignoring what human
rights are to counter this argument. And a bit sorry too.
They show your lack of self-confidence. When I want to put emphasis, I don't
need to use those characters, as they also symbolise you shouting at people.
> >
> >> > and second, because most of what you
> >> >write, even though it can be interesting, doesn't reply to what I
write
> >but
> >> >to what you imagine (or believe) I could have written.
> >> >
> >> Actually, YOU haven't replied to ANYTHING that I've written. You just
> >> keep repeating something called _human rights_, that you refuse to
define,
> >> or even presume to argue where such an imaginary right comes from.
> >
> >I had the weakness to believe you would know what "human rights" is
about. I
> >didn't think I had to give a definition... You might check in a
dictionary
> >for that, anyway. I don't have time to lose giving definition of so
widely
> >recognised concepts.
> >
> Of course they are recognized CONCEPTS. But none of those concepts
> presume that murderers cannot be executed if society determines it is
> necessary. Why??? Because society itself determines what _human rights_
> ARE.
And societies sometimes violate human rights. More often than you could
suppose.
> Can you possibly absorb that grain of truth? You do not determine
> what they are... Society does. Each society does. There is no UNIVERSAL
> _human rights_, or _right to life_.
Yes, there is. See the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Laws sometimes violate human rights. More often than you could suppose. Just
the fact that a law stipulates something doesn't mean what it stipulates is
justified from a human rights approach.
The fact richer countries give official development assistance and
humanitarian aid is the proof they recognise the human rights of starving
children. That being said, I'd also be grateful, on behalf of all those
starving children, if the US administration decided to finally dedicate 0.7%
of its GDP to official development assistance, instead of stagnating at
0.15%.
That's another example of how societies can violate basic human rights.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Execution murder is that done by MURDERERS, outside of any law... such
as the _execution style_ murder of five teenagers in a tasty-freeze robbery to
prevent any witnesses. I see again that you are being deceptive, since the DP
IS NOT MURDER. Are we clear on that? If not, you should be more
precise in your words, and not try to twist them into what they cannot
represent. Further... again... there is NO SUCH THING as _human rights_,
as some universal function across our planet. This will be discussed as we
go along here.
>> Now if that was NOT your presumption than I apologize for presuming it
>was.
>> If you look above, you will see that I said " there is CERTAINLY no
>'right'
>> to murder." Which is a rather inclusive statement concerning ALL humans.
>> You then replied to THAT by saying "There is no right to murder a
>convicted
>> criminal either." Needless repetition of my own statement, if you REALLY
>> mean "MURDER" of criminals... such as those committed by MURDERERS
>> in prison, or outside of prison. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO MURDER. That
>> is an absolute. But you seemed to imply there was something WRONG with
>> my all inclusive statement, which I took to mean that you were saying
>_there
>> _is _no right_ to_EXECUTE_murderers. Which you would refer to as "murder
>a
>> convicted criminal either." Now... perhaps you can clarify EXACTLY what
>> you meant by your words.
>>
>> 1) There is no right to murder anyone.
>> 2) Lawful execution is NOT MURDER.
>
>I confirm what I wrote. There is no right to murder a convicted criminal.
>That also applies for executions.
>
Lawful executions are NOT murder. You really need a dictionary.
Society determines _rights_, in respect to the members of that particular
society. And if society determines that it should execute a convicted
murderer, society has the _right_ to do so. However, that _right_ is
NEVER granted to an individual in democratic societies.
>> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with your
>words.
>
>I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my side.
>
Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the only result is
that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT unlawful
murder. Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
While execution is ALWAYS performed under the color of the LAW,
and is defined as lawful. Something lawful cannot be unlawful, and something
unlawful cannot be lawful. Thus the DP can NEVER be murder. Even
in the possible execution of an innocent, it is not murder, but an unfortunate
accident, since there was no INTENTION to execute an innocent. It
is no different than operating a motor vehicle, which the state grants
PERMISSION to do. Realizing that accidents which will kill innocents
WILL happen. And are certainly not called murder. While also realizing
those certain deaths are accepted as a necessary evil to increase mobility
of all citizens. With always an eye on REDUCING those possibilities as
much as possible. Just as the U.S. DP should ALWAYS examine every
facet of the application of the DP to reduce the possibility of the accidental
execution of an innocent. You can no more justify abolishing the DP on
the principle of preventing the possible killing of an innocent in the DP, than
you can justify the elimination of all vehicle operation on the principle of
preventing the possible accidental killing of an innocent in a vehicle accident.
I understand you have not invoked that particular argument... I was just
making a point.
>> >> > It leads you nowhere but to the
>> >> >dead end of wishing a trial for the victim in order to prove, with due
>> >> >process of law, the crimes the victim could have made to deserve
>his/her
>> >> >fate (Lord Clane's quotation). That's a nice thought, but that's
>utopic
>> >and
>> >> >leads you nowhere. It is sterile wishful thinking.
>> >> >
>> >> Rubbish... it points out the very clear DIFFERENCE between murder
>> >> and a lawful execution. Which was the PRECISE point.
>> >
>> >We all know the difference, but just the fact there is a difference does
>not
>> >justify one more than another. Which is the *precise* point I try to make
>> >you understand. I repeat my question: can you understand what you read?
>> >
>> Of course it does justify one more than the other. The justification is
>IN THE
>> LAW.
>
>Not with regard to human rights which are a universal value.
>
Damn... you are hard-headed. Quite clearly it is NOT a _universal value_. You
simply make that up. And you refuse to EXPLAIN it... except in that driveling
pathetic repetitive whine of yours.
>
>> You cannot place yourself above the LAW. You may hold the opinion
>> that the DP is unjustified... but that is simply YOUR OPINION, and has no
>> legal significance.
>
>I never tried to say my position had a legal significance. I know that in
>the US the death penalty is legal (please give me that credit), but it is
>also an infringement of human rights and this is why I oppose it.
>
No, it is not... since you do not have the AUTHORITY to make such
a ruling, nor does any other sovereign entity on another sovereign entity
without presuming it can do so by FORCE OF ARMS. You are not
GOD... do try to get that through your head.
>> Only your SUBJECTIVE moral view, which is counterbalanced
>> by the SUBJECTIVE moral view of any other who feels the DP IS justified.
>> You simply CANNOT presume that your opinion can decide issues. It can
>> only decide your opinion... and not the opinion of any other person. Nor
>can
>> it decide a TRUE or FALSE answer to any question. It is simply YOUR
>> opinion. I has no value in an absolute or universal sense.
>
>Human rights are a universally recognised value,
LOL... I supposed you polled everyone on Alpha Centauri while you
were at it.
> and right to life is an
>irreductible part of human rights.
LOL... One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html Oh... wait a
minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the background. There on the
left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes of the 'provider of the Universal Right
to Life,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal,
beyond everything' right that all 'life' possesses?
> Right to life also includes the right of
>murderers to life.
>
No, it doesn't. It doesn't give murderers any right that does not exist for any
other human. The murderer has only the _rights_ that society might provide him.
In the EU, it is presumed that murderers have such a _right_ (an absurd concept
to me -- but then I don't really CARE what the EU presumes - while you seem
rather obsessive about with other societies presume). But that doesn't give
a _right_ to life to a murderer anywhere else, unless THAT society provides
for it.
Pardon me... but since when do 190 countries constitute the _Universe_???
And where in there does it state that the U.S. cannot executed murderers,
and that the U.S. has agreed that it will not execute murderers?
>> >> >
>> >> >On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of
>killing
>> >and,
>> >> >as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable as
>it
>> >is
>> >> >state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state
>institutions),
>> >in
>> >> >contrats to the first violation which is an individual, non-systemic,
>> >> >isolated one.
>> >>
>> >> Since society is the ONLY entity that can grant human rights, it
>certainly
>> >> can take them away.
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> Yes.
>
>Then it's a totalitarian society.
>
Ah... then you ADMIT that what you call a totalitarian society can exist.
But that makes your view on UNIVERSAL right to life INVALID, since
it can be presumed as not existing in a totalitarian society, and that is
certainly part of the Universe.
>> >> Clearly, a police sharpshooter can kill a hostage taker
>> >> at the direction of society, and there is no violation of ANYTHING.
>> >
>> >A policeman can do that only in a case of self-defense in emergency
>> >situation, if there is no other alternative. Else, it is murder.
>> >
>> What? The policeman is NOT being threatened. SOCIETY IS. Held
>> hostage by the hostage taker. And society makes the DECISION to
>> take that action.
>
>If you like, but society is embodied by a policeman in your example.
>
But that's my POINT. Society CAN make those decisions. If it
feels threatened, in every case. You agree now that society CAN.
Thus, society can ALSO make a decision to execute convicted
murderers, if it feels threatened by them, as well as making a decision
to kill a hostage taker. Society is embodied by the Justice System
when it determines if an execution of a murderer is appropriate.
>> >> >
>> >> >Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights
>> >legitimize
>> >> >the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
>> >> >
>> >> Rubbish.. You have drawn an axiomatic rule from an OPINION you hold.
>> >> Quite illogical, and quite wrong.
>> >
>> >Very logical and true, on the contrary.
>> >
>> You do not get to decide based on your OPINION.
>
>That's not an opinion.
>
Of course it is. YOU have tried to state what is LEGITIMATE, and what is not.
Yet, that power belongs to the state, embodied in the laws which define crimes
that are NOT legitimate. You certainly cannot determine that by yourself, for
everyone else. You can only hold an opinion.
Quatsch!... unless you presume God, or nature or the ether or some supernatural
force has created something UNIVERSAL, you must accept that Man does not
have this CAPACITY. Man cannot modify immutable laws of nature. Thus if
there IS such a thing as a Universal right to life, it has to come from somewhere
OTHER than Man. If it comes from Man... which you now admit, it is
SUBJECTIVE. And has no universal validity, even on our small, insignificant
planet. It only takes ONE man to overturn that entire concept of a presumed
universal meaning. Since I state there is no such thing as a Universal right to
life... it is by that definition PROVEN there is no such thing, unless one presumes
that some entity other than Man has created it. Since I am part of Man, and
thus it precludes any possibility of a Universal meaning, which would be ALL
Men..
LOL... It shows your inability to recognize emphasis. Only when it relates to
a full sentence can it be presumed as shouting, since no other means of
emphasizing WORDS is as clear as capitalization to me, in this particular
forum.
>
>> >
>> >> > and second, because most of what you
>> >> >write, even though it can be interesting, doesn't reply to what I
>write
>> >but
>> >> >to what you imagine (or believe) I could have written.
>> >> >
>> >> Actually, YOU haven't replied to ANYTHING that I've written. You just
>> >> keep repeating something called _human rights_, that you refuse to
>define,
>> >> or even presume to argue where such an imaginary right comes from.
>> >
>> >I had the weakness to believe you would know what "human rights" is
>about. I
>> >didn't think I had to give a definition... You might check in a
>dictionary
>> >for that, anyway. I don't have time to lose giving definition of so
>widely
>> >recognised concepts.
>> >
>> Of course they are recognized CONCEPTS. But none of those concepts
>> presume that murderers cannot be executed if society determines it is
>> necessary. Why??? Because society itself determines what _human rights_
>> ARE.
>
>And societies sometimes violate human rights. More often than you could
>suppose.
>
I don't doubt that for one minute. Which proves that human rights have no
UNIVERSAL applicability. If they did, they COULD NOT be violated by
Man. Man cannot change universal laws. The orbital motions of the planets,
the expansion of the universe, and other basic laws of nature. But Man
violates his own laws with impunity, thus making them not possibly Universal,
but only applicable when they happen to be so. I do not deny that a
society can presume to implement what they call a _right to life_, and
state that principle means that the DP is abolished in that society. But
that has NO MEANING outside of that particular society. That society
presuming such cannot change what another society presumes. Unless
it intends to ENFORCE that principle through _force of arms_. Which is
rather paradoxical to the entire principle that such a society has established.
>
>> Can you possibly absorb that grain of truth? You do not determine
>> what they are... Society does. Each society does. There is no UNIVERSAL
>> _human rights_, or _right to life_.
>
>Yes, there is. See the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
>
LOL. See --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
and see --
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/hydranen_doc.htm
Where is the UN Declaration of Human Rights there?
Just the fact that you presume a particular law violates human rights does NOT
make it so. Once again, you do not have the POWER to decide such issues.
You can only express an opinion, and cannot makes statements in _absolutes_
as you try to do so often. All that is necessary to counter YOUR opinion, is
for one person to say that a particular law does not violate human rights. You
see... you cannot DEFINE _human rights_. No one can... because there is no
such thing, except in the limited sense of being defined through the rules a
society establishes, which you admit are often violated as well.
And yet.... and yet... the children starve. Which proves there is nothing
Universal about it.
> That being said, I'd also be grateful, on behalf of all those
>starving children, if the US administration decided to finally dedicate 0.7%
>of its GDP to official development assistance, instead of stagnating at
>0.15%.
>
LOL... You xenophobic imbecile.
>That's another example of how societies can violate basic human rights.
>
Proving there is nothing Universal about them. Which has been my point all
along. In fact, your argument that the U.S. does so (in your absurd opinion),
demonstrates most vividly that they are NOT Universal.
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:ss2j6vs22n5hkvgl1...@4ax.com...
PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is nothing
else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being. Execution,
being the taking of a life, is a violation of the basic human right to life,
recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, duly ratified by the US
Congress and therefore part of US law.
> Further... again... there is NO SUCH THING as _human rights_,
> as some universal function across our planet. This will be discussed as
we
> go along here.
Oh yes, human rights are universal. They are the universal rights of all
human beings, whatever their race. Saying the contrary would be admitting
that some human beings don't deserve or need the same rights as others and
would be utterly racist.
Taking the life of someone is a murder. Taking the life of a murderer, even
though society has conveniently put a law to allow it, remains a murder.
And, which is more, the second killing can't be justified by the
preexistence of a murder.
> >> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with your
> >words.
> >
> >I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my side.
> >
> Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the only
result is
> that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT unlawful
> murder.
And I never said it was.
> Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
Yes, it can. It is called an execution.
If you look at online dictionaries, you'll find out that murder isn't always
defined according to being lawful or unlawful. For instance, the Cambridge
International Online Dictionary says murder is "the crime of intentionally
killing a person".
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=murder*1+0).
Many other dictionaries that define murder as "the unlawful act of killing"
don't do the same for the verb "to murder", defined as "To kill brutally or
inhumanly."
Many definitions also refer with malice or aforethought to differenciate
murder from manslaughter. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, says
"The most direct case of malicious intent occurs when the killer is known to
have adopted the deliberate intent to commit the homicidal act at some time
before it is actually committed".
(http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=%22murder%22)
I'm not a native English speaker and I realize that English thesauri and
dictionaries don't agree on whether murder is stricly unlawful or not. An
execution is clearly the intentional and planned killing of a person with
aforethought, it is hence normal to name it a murder, albeit lawful. Hence
my formula "legal murder" or "lawful murder". Whether you agree or not
matters few: killing is the final purpose of an execution and I will keep
using that formula.
> While execution is ALWAYS performed under the color of the LAW,
> and is defined as lawful. Something lawful cannot be unlawful, and
something
> unlawful cannot be lawful. Thus the DP can NEVER be murder.
Yes it can, as explicited above.
> Even
> in the possible execution of an innocent, it is not murder, but an
unfortunate
> accident, since there was no INTENTION to execute an innocent.
"Accident"??? What a euphemism! That would be funny if a life weren't at
stake. I do hope such an "accident" doesn't happen to you or to your
children.
> It
> is no different than operating a motor vehicle, which the state grants
> PERMISSION to do. Realizing that accidents which will kill innocents
> WILL happen. And are certainly not called murder. While also realizing
> those certain deaths are accepted as a necessary evil to increase mobility
> of all citizens. With always an eye on REDUCING those possibilities as
> much as possible. Just as the U.S. DP should ALWAYS examine every
> facet of the application of the DP to reduce the possibility of the
accidental
> execution of an innocent. You can no more justify abolishing the DP on
> the principle of preventing the possible killing of an innocent in the DP,
than
> you can justify the elimination of all vehicle operation on the principle
of
> preventing the possible accidental killing of an innocent in a vehicle
accident.
Oh yes, you can. Because the death penalty is not necessary. Life
imprisonment is a very good substitute that gets rid of the possibility of
"accidents". Keeping the death penalty is like keeping a very dangerous road
open to transportation instead of making a new road where there would be
fewer accidents.
Human rights are a universal because all humans needs to have those rights.
I explained it with numerous arguments. You don't agree, it's up to you, but
you haven't presented any argument to support your view.
> >
> >> You cannot place yourself above the LAW. You may hold the opinion
> >> that the DP is unjustified... but that is simply YOUR OPINION, and has
no
> >> legal significance.
> >
> >I never tried to say my position had a legal significance. I know that in
> >the US the death penalty is legal (please give me that credit), but it is
> >also an infringement of human rights and this is why I oppose it.
> >
> No, it is not... since you do not have the AUTHORITY to make such
> a ruling, nor does any other sovereign entity on another sovereign entity
> without presuming it can do so by FORCE OF ARMS. You are not
> GOD... do try to get that through your head.
I'm not God and don't pretend to be. I read article 3 of the UN Declaration
of Human Rights that says that all men and women have the right to life.
Article 2 proclaims the universality of human rights.
The fact some rights are violated doesn't mean they don't remain rights, and
this is why developped nations have the duty to do more in offering official
development aid. They do, though not enough. The US, in particular, does
very little.
> > Right to life also includes the right of
> >murderers to life.
> >
> No, it doesn't. It doesn't give murderers any right that does not exist
for any
> other human. The murderer has only the _rights_ that society might
provide him.
> In the EU, it is presumed that murderers have such a _right_ (an absurd
concept
> to me -- but then I don't really CARE what the EU presumes - while you
seem
> rather obsessive about with other societies presume). But that doesn't
give
> a _right_ to life to a murderer anywhere else, unless THAT society
provides
> for it.
Murderers are human and therefore enjoy the same rights as others. Denying
them those rights is iniquitous and thus unacceptable from a human rights
perspective.
Since it is about the number of independent countries in the world. Hope it
helps...
> And where in there does it state that the U.S. cannot executed murderers,
> and that the U.S. has agreed that it will not execute murderers?
It defines human rights and explicitly includes right to life in it. But it
doesn't explicitly exclude a category of persons (murderers, from instance)
from its scope.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On the other hand, a judiciary execution is a deliberate act of
> >killing
> >> >and,
> >> >> >as such, is a violation of human right - all the more unacceptable
as
> >it
> >> >is
> >> >> >state-sponsored (hence backed by a whole system of state
> >institutions),
> >> >in
> >> >> >contrats to the first violation which is an individual,
non-systemic,
> >> >> >isolated one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since society is the ONLY entity that can grant human rights, it
> >certainly
> >> >> can take them away.
> >> >
> >> >No.
> >> >
> >> Yes.
> >
> >Then it's a totalitarian society.
> >
> Ah... then you ADMIT that what you call a totalitarian society can exist.
> But that makes your view on UNIVERSAL right to life INVALID, since
> it can be presumed as not existing in a totalitarian society, and that is
> certainly part of the Universe.
You didn't understand.
Totalitarian societies are societies in which a group has more rights than,
and have rights on, individuals (refer to Hannah Arendt's analyses of those
societies).
Former communist societies, or the nazi society were examples thereof.
The existence of totalitarian societies doesn't change anything from the
universality of human rights, since this universality comes from the nature
of all human beings.
> >> >> Clearly, a police sharpshooter can kill a hostage taker
> >> >> at the direction of society, and there is no violation of ANYTHING.
> >> >
> >> >A policeman can do that only in a case of self-defense in emergency
> >> >situation, if there is no other alternative. Else, it is murder.
> >> >
> >> What? The policeman is NOT being threatened. SOCIETY IS. Held
> >> hostage by the hostage taker. And society makes the DECISION to
> >> take that action.
> >
> >If you like, but society is embodied by a policeman in your example.
> >
> But that's my POINT. Society CAN make those decisions. If it
> feels threatened, in every case. You agree now that society CAN.
> Thus, society can ALSO make a decision to execute convicted
> murderers, if it feels threatened by them, as well as making a decision
> to kill a hostage taker. Society is embodied by the Justice System
> when it determines if an execution of a murderer is appropriate.
That argument is invalid in the case of an execution, because self-defense
is only valid in case of immediate threat, not of latent, possible or
would-be threat. You're not going to shoot at someone in the street because
you recognised the guy who shot at you 3 years before while he was robbing
your house.
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Besides, in no way could an individual violation of human rights
> >> >legitimize
> >> >> >the deliberate action of killing underlying a judiciary execution.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Rubbish.. You have drawn an axiomatic rule from an OPINION you hold.
> >> >> Quite illogical, and quite wrong.
> >> >
> >> >Very logical and true, on the contrary.
> >> >
> >> You do not get to decide based on your OPINION.
> >
> >That's not an opinion.
> >
> Of course it is. YOU have tried to state what is LEGITIMATE, and what is
not.
> Yet, that power belongs to the state, embodied in the laws which define
crimes
> that are NOT legitimate. You certainly cannot determine that by yourself,
for
> everyone else. You can only hold an opinion.
I draw the consequence of having recognised right to life as a basic human
right. It's hence not an opinion but a logical deduction.
Refer to the Preamble of UN Declaration of Human Rights: it says human
rights are "the common ideal that all people and nations shall strive to
fulfil", so it is actually a universal concept.
> Man cannot modify immutable laws of nature.
Human rights don't aim at modifying the laws of nature, unless you consider
that slavery (article 4), torture (article 5), unequality of race, sex,
colour, religion and language (article 2), among others, modify the laws of
nature.
> Thus if
> there IS such a thing as a Universal right to life, it has to come from
somewhere
> OTHER than Man. If it comes from Man... which you now admit, it is
> SUBJECTIVE.
No, since it is a universally recognised right through the UN Declaration of
Human Rights. But when *you* say that there is no such thing as a "right to
life", you make a subjective judgement.
> And has no universal validity, even on our small, insignificant
> planet. It only takes ONE man to overturn that entire concept of a
presumed
> universal meaning.
The fact there is one single violation of human rights doesn't undermine the
universal value of human rights.
> Since I state there is no such thing as a Universal right to
> life... it is by that definition PROVEN there is no such thing, unless one
presumes
> that some entity other than Man has created it.
The UN did, through its member states. The UN is not a man or a group of
man, it's a group of legitimate governments supposed to represent their
people. Human rights are a political construction: this is why I said, from
the beginning, that it had nothing to do with religion.
Another rule, much more pleasant for the readers, is to put the word you
want to emphasize between as *this*.
You misunderstood here. Universal is not related with the universe, but
means "existing everywhere or involving everyone". Human rights, defined in
the Preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights as "the common ideal that
all people and nations shall strive to fulfil", is a universal concept
because it aims at involving everyone.
Besides, I don't remember I ever mentionned it as a "universal law". Human
rights are not a law, they are a group of rights recognised universally to
all humans. Their universality isn't put in question by possible violations,
but the fact human rights are universal enables to denounce violations
wherever they happen.
> I do not deny that a
> society can presume to implement what they call a _right to life_, and
> state that principle means that the DP is abolished in that society. But
> that has NO MEANING outside of that particular society. That society
> presuming such cannot change what another society presumes. Unless
> it intends to ENFORCE that principle through _force of arms_. Which is
> rather paradoxical to the entire principle that such a society has
established.
The fact human rights are universal enables to denounce violations wherever
they happen. This is what I do when I denounce the implementation of the
death penalty in the US as a violation of human rights.
> >
> >> Can you possibly absorb that grain of truth? You do not determine
> >> what they are... Society does. Each society does. There is no
UNIVERSAL
> >> _human rights_, or _right to life_.
> >
> >Yes, there is. See the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
> >
> LOL. See --
> url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
> and see --
> http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/hydranen_doc.htm
> Where is the UN Declaration of Human Rights there?
The fact some rights are violated doesn't mean they don't remain rights, and
this is why developped nations have the duty to do more in offering official
development aid. They do, though not enough. The US, in particular, does too
little.
As long as I don't define human rights myself, but refer to a treaty
universally signed and ratified, when a law plans the killing human beings,
it is necessarily contrary to human rights.
> Once again, you do not have the POWER to decide such issues.
I don't decide on anything. I draw logical conclusions from the way the
world is.
> You can only express an opinion, and cannot makes statements in
_absolutes_
> as you try to do so often. All that is necessary to counter YOUR
opinion, is
> for one person to say that a particular law does not violate human rights.
You
> see... you cannot DEFINE _human rights_. No one can... because there is
no
> such thing, except in the limited sense of being defined through the rules
a
> society establishes, which you admit are often violated as well.
I don't try to define human rights. I refer to a universally accepted
definition embodied in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and that has
served as a universally agreed standard for more than 50 years.
Once again, violations don't undermine the universality of human rights. You
have human rights on one side, violations on the other. We should suppress
one of them. I consider we should suppress violations. This is why I
denounce them. Death penalty is one violation, and it is comparatively
easier to suppress than wider problems, that need addressing as well, like
starvation or despotism.
Now, you may think we should discard human rights instead of violations. I
can't argue with that but that's not my position.
Yes it is (article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). Whether
developped countries do or don't do whatever they can to address the issue
doesn't change it: there is a human right and not addressing it is a
violation. Developped countries are also responsible (not entirely in my
view) for the existence of starving children.
> > That being said, I'd also be grateful, on behalf of all those
> >starving children, if the US administration decided to finally dedicate
0.7%
> >of its GDP to official development assistance, instead of stagnating at
> >0.15%.
> >
> LOL... You xenophobic imbecile.
That's a fact and your insults are stupid (all the more since I was aiming
at the US government and not at the US people - I'm not like a certain kind
of press you may read, I don't call people "stinking monkeys" just because I
don't agree with their government).
OECD data are available for you at
http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-notheme-2-no-1-2674-0,00.html
- Refer to Table 4 for Official Development Assistance, or to table 3 for
total net flows of financial resources to developing countries and
multilateral organisations (it's a bit different from what I was referring
but it's interesting as well).
> >That's another example of how societies can violate basic human rights.
> >
> Proving there is nothing Universal about them. Which has been my point
all
> along. In fact, your argument that the U.S. does so (in your absurd
opinion),
> demonstrates most vividly that they are NOT Universal.
>
No. It demonstrates the US violates human rights, a universally recognised
value.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
unlawful. When we know that even for the individual -- what is
NOT prohibited is allowed. So if society does not PROHIBIT
the DP.. through abolishing it... it is ALLOWED whenever society
decides to use it. There is no such thing as _legal murder_. All
murder is ILLEGAL. To presume otherwise is to presume that
YOU can _legally MURDER_. And you cannot, since it has been
determined that MURDER is illegal.
> Execution,
>being the taking of a life, is a violation of the basic human right to life,
>recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, duly ratified by the US
>Congress and therefore part of US law.
Rubbish. total nonsense. See --
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Nowhere is there any agreement that a sovereign state cannot execute
those it finds necessary to do so under the law. Much of the same is
written into the U.S. Constitution... and none of it ABOLISHES the DP.
>
>> Further... again... there is NO SUCH THING as _human rights_,
>> as some universal function across our planet. This will be discussed as
>we
>> go along here.
>
>Oh yes, human rights are universal.
Oh NO.. they are not... and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making these
STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your OPINION
can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And it's disgusting...
since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming opinion
can become fact.
> They are the universal rights of all
>human beings, whatever their race. Saying the contrary would be admitting
>that some human beings don't deserve or need the same rights as others and
>would be utterly racist.
Rubbish... It is simply pointing out REALITY. We may WISH it were so...
but IT IS NOT. When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities around us.
Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce _everything
is all right_. Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
_universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_. Presuming there
IS NO racism, is itself RACISM. It is a sickening idea you propose,
that IGNORES the suffering in the world around you, which is why I posted
that picture of that naked child which STILL has not penetrated that iron-cast
skull of yours. In truth, YOURS is an immoral view that would IGNORE the
misery in the world. By heaping empty platitudes upon yourself, and contending
how _very fine_ you are by pronouncing that _everyone has universal rights_.
An ego-driven piece of crap philosophy, that IGNORES reality. Ignoring the
misery in the world, while, like some Pope, passing your phony benediction on
our species and pronouncing _everything is okay here_. What is the MOST
disgusting idea is that one BELIEVES there is such a thing, because it presumes
that we have nothing to STRIVE for. That all has already been done... and the
world is a serene, placid existence... while that child still starves in Africa...and
RACISM lives on. It is, in fact, racism in the extreme to claim -- there IS NO
RACISM. Your idea of the existence of a _universal right_ which you presume
solves all the ills in the world, is consuming IGNORANCE... It is IMMORAL...
It is ABSOLUTISM (which is akin to despotism).... It is BLINDNESS...
It is HYPOCRISY. And it DOES NOT EXIST. _Universal rights_ implies
_perfect man_... and that is so arrogant and blind a presumption that I want to
vomit.
Jesus... where do you come up with these things. Vehicle accidents are
NOT murder... dying at the hand of a surgeon on the operating table is
not murder. Taking the life of an attacker bent on taking your life
is not murder. A LEO taking the life of a criminal during a robbery,
who has just whirled and turned his weapon on that LEO is not murder.
And society legally executing those who have been sentenced to the DP
is not murder. The taking of a life is defined as HOMICIDE. MURDER
is a SUB-SET of HOMICIDE. Not all homicides are murder. But
all murders are homicides. Homicides can be lawful. Murder cannot
be lawful.
> Taking the life of a murderer, even
>though society has conveniently put a law to allow it, remains a murder.
I love it when you make those absolutely absurd conclusions. They demonstrate
more forcefully than I could, how absolutely clumsy your logic is. You are another
who appears to enjoy _falling on his sword_. Follow along now... no matter
how many times you say it -- the DP is NOT murder. And also --- there is
no such thing as a _universal right to life_. Other than an imaginary concept put
to paper by men, that has no real validity in our existence. Just an empty
platitude... a 'touchy-feely' bunch of words... meant to make us feel good
about ourselves... while REALITY continues to prove us wrong.
>And, which is more, the second killing can't be justified by the
>preexistence of a murder.
>
Of course it can. Society DETERMINES what is justified. You cannot
commit homicide independently. When you kill someone SOCIETY determines
if you did so lawfully, for whatever reason, or if you did so unlawfully but
not at the elevated meaning of murder. You have no control over that
determination. You CANNOT kill independently of society determining
what type of killing it was. Society determines WHAT IS JUSTIFIED,
through its laws. You cannot decide that this second killing cannot be
justified, anymore than you could decide that someone you kill WAS
justified. The _yes_ or _no_ of justified is the decision of Society, not you.
>> >> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with your
>> >words.
>> >
>> >I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my side.
>> >
>> Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the only
>result is
>> that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT unlawful
>> murder.
>
>And I never said it was.
>
Then there is no such thing as "the DP is murder."
>> Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
>
>Yes, it can. It is called an execution.
>
Only when it is a murder committed EXECUTION STYLE by an INDIVIDUAL.
Society cannot commit an unlawful act... since it MAKES THE LAW. You
do not have the power to do so.
>If you look at online dictionaries, you'll find out that murder isn't always
>defined according to being lawful or unlawful. For instance, the Cambridge
>International Online Dictionary says murder is "the crime of intentionally
>killing a person".
> (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=murder*1+0).
>
ROTFLMAO... You do know that a 'crime' is UNLAWFUL, don't you?
url:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crime
You can be hilarious at times. You provide a definition what CALLS it a
"crime" and then contend that doesn't mean it's "unlawful." Hint -- "crimes"
are "unlawful."
>Many other dictionaries that define murder as "the unlawful act of killing"
>don't do the same for the verb "to murder", defined as "To kill brutally or
>inhumanly."
>
Since the DP does neither of those, your _argument_ is simply more
nonsense. The fact that murder committed is brutal and inhumane,
does not make it LAWFUL. I would hope that is not your argument.
>Many definitions also refer with malice or aforethought to differenciate
>murder from manslaughter. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, says
>"The most direct case of malicious intent occurs when the killer is known to
>have adopted the deliberate intent to commit the homicidal act at some time
>before it is actually committed".
>(http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=%22murder%22)
>
yada...yada...yada... meaningless drivel which has nothing to do with a
Lawful execution being "murder," as you contend.
>I'm not a native English speaker and I realize that English thesauri and
>dictionaries don't agree on whether murder is stricly unlawful or not. An
>execution is clearly the intentional and planned killing of a person with
>aforethought, it is hence normal to name it a murder, albeit lawful. Hence
>my formula "legal murder" or "lawful murder". Whether you agree or not
>matters few: killing is the final purpose of an execution and I will keep
>using that formula.
>
>> While execution is ALWAYS performed under the color of the LAW,
>> and is defined as lawful. Something lawful cannot be unlawful, and
>something
>> unlawful cannot be lawful. Thus the DP can NEVER be murder.
>
>Yes it can, as explicited above.
>
Yeah, right... what you've proved is that murder is a CRIME. And ALL
crime is unlawful. Execution is LAWFUL and not a crime.
>> Even
>> in the possible execution of an innocent, it is not murder, but an
>unfortunate
>> accident, since there was no INTENTION to execute an innocent.
>
>"Accident"??? What a euphemism! That would be funny if a life weren't at
>stake. I do hope such an "accident" doesn't happen to you or to your
>children.
>
Hello... are you prepared to relinquish your driver's license because of
accidents which kill innocents? The fact is your operation of that vehicle
is hundred's of thousands of times more responsible for the accidental death of
innocents, than any possible DP execution of an innocent. 40,000 deaths
of those who have not committed murder each year in the U.S. 834 proven
murderers executed in 25 years. At the best, only 1 or 2 being innocent (?).
So (40,000 X 25) = 1 MILLION innocents killed in accidents in 25 year.
Compared to possibly 1 or at most 2 innocents executed among the other
MURDERERS. You do the math. And we have executed MURDERERS.
While those million were not murderers. And those million were killed...
all for the sake of _increased mobility_. How very moral of us!! Can
you ACTUALLY presume to justify THOSE million accidents, while
claiming that the accidental execution of 1 or possibly 2 innocents among
834 proven MURDERERS cannot be justified?
>> It
>> is no different than operating a motor vehicle, which the state grants
>> PERMISSION to do. Realizing that accidents which will kill innocents
>> WILL happen. And are certainly not called murder. While also realizing
>> those certain deaths are accepted as a necessary evil to increase mobility
>> of all citizens. With always an eye on REDUCING those possibilities as
>> much as possible. Just as the U.S. DP should ALWAYS examine every
>> facet of the application of the DP to reduce the possibility of the
>accidental
>> execution of an innocent. You can no more justify abolishing the DP on
>> the principle of preventing the possible killing of an innocent in the DP,
>than
>> you can justify the elimination of all vehicle operation on the principle
>of
>> preventing the possible accidental killing of an innocent in a vehicle
>accident.
>
>Oh yes, you can. Because the death penalty is not necessary.
Ummm... driving a motor vehicle is _not necessary_. In fact it wasn't
even AVAILABLE a short time ago. Motor vehicles are a rather new
invention on the scene. And one could argue that the DP is OFTEN
necessary. Since the object is public safety. While the only purpose
of motor vehicles is _increased mobility_. Society well recognizes the
trade-off it makes in accidental loss of innocent lives, each time it
provides a driver's license. It might as well be providing a lottery
ticket for an executioner. And the reason society does so... is because
the members of those societies ACCEPT that risk to themselves and
others for that trade-off in increased mobility. Just as members of
societies that have the DP ACCEPT that risk to themselves and others
for that trade-off in increased SAFETY.
Having read through the rest of your rubbish... I pronounce it as repetitive
rubbish... rubbish heaped on top of your previous rubbish, which would
only make my replies repeats of what has already been said. What I've
clipped is simply as much rubbish as your presumption that _there is no
racism_. I've grown tired of dealing with your stupidity. It's just repetitive
drivel, that actually makes no sense whatsoever. I presumed that I was a bore.
But working my way through your boring commentaries is TORTURE.
<torturing repetitive rubbish clipped>
Clausewitz described you best -- "There is a point at which perseverance
can only be termed desperate folly." You have a rock-hard head..
which no form of rationality I might provide can penetrate.
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com...(long snipped)
> >PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is
nothing
> >else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being.
>
> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
No, that's a logical deduction. Do you know what a *modifier* is? It's a
word, phrase, or
clause that limits or qualifies the sense of another word or word group. I
will give three simple examples on modifiers and their usage.
Example 1. "Toy gun." "Toy" is a very typical modifier.
A gun is "A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is
fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory."
The modifier replaces some of the characteristics of a gun with others (does
not fire projectiles and is meant for kids to play with, while the look of a
gun is retained.)
Example 2. "Vegetarian hamburger." In this case it is quite obvious how the
modifier changes the definition.
Hamburger = "A sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually in a roll
or bun."
A vegetarian hamburger is then naturally "A sandwich made with a meat-free
patty usually in a roll or bun".
It is *not* "A vegetarian sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually
in a roll or
bun."
Example 3. "Legal murder." Accepting the most commonly given definition,
Murder = "The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."
and then of course
Legal murder = "The legal killing of a human being with malice
aforethought."
> in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
> unlawful.
... which I never actually said, but, as Bertrand Russell said "A stupid
man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he
unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand". You
show once more how true he was.
(snipped)
> > Execution,
> >being the taking of a life, is a violation of the basic human right to
life,
> >recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, duly ratified by the US
> >Congress and therefore part of US law.
>
> Rubbish. total nonsense. See --
> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
(Thanks for the URL, but you can imagine that, since I have been referring
to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'm quite aware of what is in it).
> Nowhere is there any agreement that a sovereign state cannot execute
> those it finds necessary to do so under the law. Much of the same is
> written into the U.S. Constitution... and none of it ABOLISHES the DP.
Recognising "right to life" as a human right is enough to consider
executions as unjustified under a human rights approach. Whether the US
considers right to life and executions as compatible is a contradiction it
will have to overcome in the future.
> >
> >> Further... again... there is NO SUCH THING as _human rights_,
> >> as some universal function across our planet. This will be discussed
as
> >we
> >> go along here.
> >
> >Oh yes, human rights are universal.
>
> Oh NO.. they are not...
The UN Declaration of Human Rights considers human rights as universal, in
the meaning that they are "of worldwide scope or applicability". These
rights are so universal that many people justify attacking Iraq by the fact
that the Iraqi should have these rights (my objection in that case is: "why
Iraq and not North Korea", but I must say it's the most sensitive argument
for me in attacking Iraq).
> and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
> you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making these
> STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your OPINION
> can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And it's
disgusting...
> since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming
opinion
> can become fact.
Claiming human rights are universal is a fact.
> > They are the universal rights of all
> >human beings, whatever their race. Saying the contrary would be admitting
> >that some human beings don't deserve or need the same rights as others
and
> >would be utterly racist.
>
> Rubbish... It is simply pointing out REALITY. We may WISH it were so...
> but IT IS NOT.
The fact it is not like that doesn't bear any prejudice to the fact it
*should* be like that and to the fact that we *should* strive so as it
becomes like that.
> When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
> it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities
around us.
No. Racism is saying that some people shouldn't hope getting basic human
rights under the pretext they don't have them already.
> Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce
_everything
> is all right_.
I never said that. You imagined it.
> Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
> _universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
> DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
> humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_.
Of course it is universal. It is recognised as such by the UN Declaration of
Human Rights: "of worldwide scope or applicability". Whether it is
universally applied in the reality matters few, since the universality of
human rights is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
> Presuming there
> IS NO racism, is itself RACISM. It is a sickening idea you propose,
> that IGNORES the suffering in the world around you, which is why I posted
> that picture of that naked child which STILL has not penetrated that
iron-cast
> skull of yours. In truth, YOURS is an immoral view that would IGNORE the
> misery in the world.
The one who ignores the misery of the world is the one who called me
"xenophobic imbecile" when I referred to the need of increasing flows of
official development aid (ODA). ODA is all the more necessary that the naked
child whose picture you posted has rights and those rights are being held
up, in part by government who do not respect their engagement of dedicating
0.7% of their GDP to ODA. For your memory, the US is below 0.15%, i.e. one
of the least performing donor - refer to
http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-notheme-2-no-1-2674-0,00.html
.
> By heaping empty platitudes upon yourself, and contending
> how _very fine_ you are by pronouncing that _everyone has universal
rights_.
> An ego-driven piece of crap philosophy, that IGNORES reality. Ignoring the
> misery in the world, while, like some Pope, passing your phony benediction
on
> our species and pronouncing _everything is okay here_. What is the MOST
> disgusting idea is that one BELIEVES there is such a thing, because it
presumes
> that we have nothing to STRIVE for. That all has already been done... and
the
> world is a serene, placid existence... while that child still starves in
Africa...and
> RACISM lives on. It is, in fact, racism in the extreme to claim -- there
IS NO
> RACISM. Your idea of the existence of a _universal right_ which you
presume
> solves all the ills in the world,
I never said that. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
never be accurate, because he unconciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand". Your continuously fallacious
misinterpretations of what I wrote show how true Russell was. They also
display a bad faith to a level that has rarely been equated.
> is consuming IGNORANCE... It is IMMORAL...
> It is ABSOLUTISM (which is akin to despotism).... It is BLINDNESS...
> It is HYPOCRISY. And it DOES NOT EXIST. _Universal rights_ implies
> _perfect man_... and that is so arrogant and blind a presumption that I
want to
> vomit.
Universal rights imply nothing but a universal implementation of these
rights, which is a very realistic objective. What appears as immoral to me
and makes me feel vomit, is those one who don't understand the necessity of
granting ODA to developping countries and feel perfectly normal that
hundreds of billions of dollars be spent on military programmes (in order to
later attack developping countries, of course).
Then let me correct: "Taking intentionally the life of someone is a murder".
> And society legally executing those who have been sentenced to the DP
> is not murder. The taking of a life is defined as HOMICIDE. MURDER
> is a SUB-SET of HOMICIDE. Not all homicides are murder. But
> all murders are homicides. Homicides can be lawful. Murder cannot
> be lawful.
Yes, it can, as explicited above.
> > Taking the life of a murderer, even
> >though society has conveniently put a law to allow it, remains a murder.
>
> I love it when you make those absolutely absurd conclusions.
Thank you.
> >And, which is more, the second killing can't be justified by the
> >preexistence of a murder.
> >
> Of course it can.
No, it can't. It's even less forgivable than the first killing in many
cases.
> Society DETERMINES what is justified. You cannot
> commit homicide independently. When you kill someone SOCIETY determines
> if you did so lawfully, for whatever reason, or if you did so unlawfully
but
> not at the elevated meaning of murder. You have no control over that
> determination. You CANNOT kill independently of society determining
> what type of killing it was. Society determines WHAT IS JUSTIFIED,
> through its laws. You cannot decide that this second killing cannot be
> justified, anymore than you could decide that someone you kill WAS
> justified. The _yes_ or _no_ of justified is the decision of Society, not
you.
Then we have an iniquitious law, justifying a violation of human rights.
That is enough to ask for this law to be repelled.
> >> >> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with
your
> >> >words.
> >> >
> >> >I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my
side.
> >> >
> >> Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the only
> >result is
> >> that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT unlawful
> >> murder.
> >
> >And I never said it was.
> >
> Then there is no such thing as "the DP is murder."
No, but there is such thing as "the DP is lawful murder", which, indeed, I
regularly said.
> >> Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
> >
> >Yes, it can. It is called an execution.
> >
> Only when it is a murder committed EXECUTION STYLE by an INDIVIDUAL.
> Society cannot commit an unlawful act... since it MAKES THE LAW. You
> do not have the power to do so.
Society can commit a lawful murder, in which case it violates human rights.
> >If you look at online dictionaries, you'll find out that murder isn't
always
> >defined according to being lawful or unlawful. For instance, the
Cambridge
> >International Online Dictionary says murder is "the crime of
intentionally
> >killing a person".
> > (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=murder*1+0).
> >
> ROTFLMAO... You do know that a 'crime' is UNLAWFUL, don't you?
> url:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crime
>
> You can be hilarious at times. You provide a definition what CALLS it a
> "crime" and then contend that doesn't mean it's "unlawful." Hint --
"crimes"
> are "unlawful."
And legal crimes are lawful. That's logical, though you seem to have
difficulty admitting it.
>
> >Many other dictionaries that define murder as "the unlawful act of
killing"
> >don't do the same for the verb "to murder", defined as "To kill brutally
or
> >inhumanly."
> >
> Since the DP does neither of those, your _argument_ is simply more
> nonsense. The fact that murder committed is brutal and inhumane,
> does not make it LAWFUL. I would hope that is not your argument.
My argument is that executions are legal, or lawful, murder.
> >Many definitions also refer with malice or aforethought to differenciate
> >murder from manslaughter. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, says
> >"The most direct case of malicious intent occurs when the killer is known
to
> >have adopted the deliberate intent to commit the homicidal act at some
time
> >before it is actually committed".
> >(http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=%22murder%22)
> >
> yada...yada...yada... meaningless drivel which has nothing to do with a
> Lawful execution being "murder," as you contend.
Being "lawful murder", indeed.
> >I'm not a native English speaker and I realize that English thesauri and
> >dictionaries don't agree on whether murder is stricly unlawful or not. An
> >execution is clearly the intentional and planned killing of a person with
> >aforethought, it is hence normal to name it a murder, albeit lawful.
Hence
> >my formula "legal murder" or "lawful murder". Whether you agree or not
> >matters few: killing is the final purpose of an execution and I will keep
> >using that formula.
> >
> >> While execution is ALWAYS performed under the color of the LAW,
> >> and is defined as lawful. Something lawful cannot be unlawful, and
> >something
> >> unlawful cannot be lawful. Thus the DP can NEVER be murder.
> >
> >Yes it can, as explicited above.
> >
> Yeah, right... what you've proved is that murder is a CRIME. And ALL
> crime is unlawful. Execution is LAWFUL and not a crime.
Execution is lawful and is consequently a lawful murder.
> >> Even
> >> in the possible execution of an innocent, it is not murder, but an
> >unfortunate
> >> accident, since there was no INTENTION to execute an innocent.
> >
> >"Accident"??? What a euphemism! That would be funny if a life weren't at
> >stake. I do hope such an "accident" doesn't happen to you or to your
> >children.
> >
> Hello... are you prepared to relinquish your driver's license because of
> accidents which kill innocents?
Comparison not legitimate. In many cases, I have no alternative than drive.
In all cases, I have an alternative to death penalty, which is life
imprisonment. Death penalty can in no way be presented as a "necessary
evil".
> >> It
> >> is no different than operating a motor vehicle, which the state grants
> >> PERMISSION to do. Realizing that accidents which will kill innocents
> >> WILL happen. And are certainly not called murder. While also
realizing
> >> those certain deaths are accepted as a necessary evil to increase
mobility
> >> of all citizens. With always an eye on REDUCING those possibilities as
> >> much as possible. Just as the U.S. DP should ALWAYS examine every
> >> facet of the application of the DP to reduce the possibility of the
> >accidental
> >> execution of an innocent. You can no more justify abolishing the DP on
> >> the principle of preventing the possible killing of an innocent in the
DP,
> >than
> >> you can justify the elimination of all vehicle operation on the
principle
> >of
> >> preventing the possible accidental killing of an innocent in a vehicle
> >accident.
> >
> >Oh yes, you can. Because the death penalty is not necessary.
>
> Ummm... driving a motor vehicle is _not necessary_.
In many cases, it is.
> In fact it wasn't
> even AVAILABLE a short time ago. Motor vehicles are a rather new
> invention on the scene.
Before them, there were other means that, though being sometimes dangerous,
were necessary as well.
> And one could argue that the DP is OFTEN
> necessary.
No, because there is an alternative option that, when implemented well,
presents all guarantees of safety + the possibility to prevent irreversible
mistakes.
> Since the object is public safety. While the only purpose
> of motor vehicles is _increased mobility_. Society well recognizes the
> trade-off it makes in accidental loss of innocent lives, each time it
> provides a driver's license. It might as well be providing a lottery
> ticket for an executioner. And the reason society does so... is because
> the members of those societies ACCEPT that risk to themselves and
> others for that trade-off in increased mobility. Just as members of
> societies that have the DP ACCEPT that risk to themselves and others
> for that trade-off in increased SAFETY.
Except that there is no alternative to motor vehicles now, while there
exists an alternative to the death penalty. Except, also, that an execution
is always a (legally) planned murder, while a car accident may only result
in unwanted and unplanned homicides.
Euro
---------------------------------
"Insults reveal usually more on those who say them than on those who receive
them". Catherine Colonna, speaker of President Chirac
Euro
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
??????:fhkuj-...@zeouane.org...
> le Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:26:06 +0800, dans l'article
<3e6c91cd$1...@news.meganetnews.com>, Euro <vs...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
> >> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
>
> > No, that's a logical deduction. Do you know what a *modifier* is? It's a
> > word, phrase, or
> > clause that limits or qualifies the sense of another word or word group.
I
> > will give three simple examples on modifiers and their usage.
> >
> > Example 1. "Toy gun." "Toy" is a very typical modifier.
> > A gun is "A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is
> > fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory."
> >
> > The modifier replaces some of the characteristics of a gun with others
(does
> > not fire projectiles and is meant for kids to play with, while the look
of a
> > gun is retained.)
>
and
> I've promised that when he's mastered them, we can move onto the gerund.
> Talking about 'modifiers' is only going to confuse him. Can we schedule
> this lesson for say, Easter 2007 ? That way, he should have learned that
> 'portentious' isn't a real word, and that 'quote' is only a noun in
> substandard, bastardised English.
>
> { snip one of the most glorious, dignified yet savage spankings that
> _anyone_ has yet delivered to FW }
>
> *applause*
>
Frankly speaking, Desi, when I began posting on the death peenalty, I never
thought it would lead me to teach English to native speakers in order to
make up for the flaws of US schools.
Euro
JIGSAW1695
From: "Euro" vs...@hotmail.com
Date: 3/11/2003 6:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3e6dcbce$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
Euro
===============================
Euro, wasnt it you who commented on PV's use of vulgarity?
Do you, or do you not consider "Fuckwit" to be vulgar?
Is it all right for PV to use that word?
Awaiting your swift reply;
jigsaw
Euro
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com>
??????:20030311100040...@mb-cn.aol.com...
I never called PV the way you do, Jigsaw.
Euro
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <3e6e775b$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
Euro
===============================
Call him? Me??
Hell, I dont even know his name, much less his telephone number.
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:15:49 +0000
>
>le 12 Mar 2003 00:06:47 GMT, dans l'article
><20030311190647...@mb-fu.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> I never called PV the way you do, Jigsaw.
>
>> Call him? Me??
>>
>> Hell, I dont even know his name, much less his telephone number.
>
>Jigsaw's inability to comprehend a single sentence reaches new heights ...
>er ... 'height's' (sic) ... er ... depths ...
>
>--
>Des The Deathie Spanker
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:15:49 +0000
>Lines: 23
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <lqa2k-f...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e6e775b$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><20030311190647...@mb-fu.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047428588 68612301 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr, the legend continues!
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:06:34 +0000
>
>le 11 Mar 2003 15:00:40 GMT, dans l'article
><20030311100040...@mb-cn.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695
><jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip Shit-For-Brains's tiny tears }
>
>> Do you, or do you not consider "Fuckwit" to be vulgar?
>
>I've tried to tell you, SFB, it's not 'fuckwit', but 'FuckWit'. Look at
>the capitals in the word. _You're_ a fuckwit, but necro is FuckWit.
>Clearer, now ?
>
>{ snip some more Shit-For-Brains tiny tears }
>
>--
>Des The Deathie Spanker
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:06:34 +0000
>Lines: 22
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <qka1k-0...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e6dcbce$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><20030311100040...@mb-cn.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047395590 68139619 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:53:21 +0000
>
>le Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:46:32 +0800, dans l'article
><3e6dcbce$1...@news.meganetnews.com>, Euro <vs...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>>> { snip one of the most glorious, dignified yet savage spankings that
>>> _anyone_ has yet delivered to FW }
>>>
>>> *applause*
>
>> Frankly speaking, Desi, when I began posting on the death peenalty, I never
>> thought it would lead me to teach English to native speakers
>
>It hasn't, Euro. FuckWit may not be Russian (I just tweak his nose with
>that, as I know it enrages him), but he most certainly doesn't speak or
>write English as a native speaker.
>
>--
>Des The Deathie Spanker
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:53:21 +0000
>Lines: 25
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <hav0k-4...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e6205a1$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><3e64a...@news.meganetnews.com>
><uj6b6vgdsm8garn57...@4ax.com>
><3e65e72a$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><ch0e6v4cglsusokbf...@4ax.com>
><3e676b83$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><ss2j6vs22n5hkvgl1...@4ax.com>
><3e69d252$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com>
><3e6c91cd$1...@news.meganetnews.com> <fhkuj-...@zeouane.org>
><3e6dcbce$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047383892 68476458 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:24:59 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>(long snipped)
>> >PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is
>nothing
>> >else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being.
>>
>> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
>> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
>
>No, that's a logical deduction.
There is absolutely nothing _logical_ about claiming that murder can be
legal. It is a gross injustice to humanity to presume that an individual
could take the life of another in the most heinous kind of criminal homicide,
and such an act be called "legal." It is unfortunate that one of the most potent
abolitionist arguments --- that all society killing is wrong -- which can be
seen by many to contain a moral and noble purpose - is being hidden
behind your filthy way of offering that argument. Your attempts to define
"murder" as "legal" is just such filth. I don't know if nature or nurture is
responsible for your disgusting argument here... but there is no question that
it offers some rather disgusting attempt to presume that "murder" can be
"legal." And at the risk of violating Godwin's Law... you have presumed that
the holocaust was "legal." Through your _argument_.
We've been down this before, with my posting the thoughts of Lord Clane
which clearly and positively demonstrate the DIFFERENCES between lawful
execution and unlawful murder -- His words --
"I would be utterly delighted if the only times criminals committed homicide they
followed the same procedures used by the state. This would require a formal
accusation of homicide in violation of statutory law on the part of the victim, for
which execution was an already prescribed punishment (no ex post facto
determinations!); public trial of the victim by jury in accordance with due process
and with access to legal representation; a requirement that the crimes of the victim
be proven beyond reasonable doubt; similar opportunities for appeal by higher
courts; and, in the actual homicide, limitation to use of the humane methods
embodied in current law. If potential murderers are truly ready to follow that
example, by all means... more power to them!"
All of those procedures are followed in lawful execution... NONE of them are
followed in murder. Thus... lawful execution cannot be murder. If you presume
that legal executions are "murder," then why are those same procedures not
followed in "murder" that are followed in a lawful execution? Why do the
VICTIMS of TRUE MURDER not receive those same legal remedies in their
BEING murdered, as those murderers receive in lawful execution?
> Do you know what a *modifier* is? It's a
>word, phrase, or
>clause that limits or qualifies the sense of another word or word group. I
>will give three simple examples on modifiers and their usage.
>
>Example 1. "Toy gun." "Toy" is a very typical modifier.
>A gun is "A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is
>fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory."
>
>The modifier replaces some of the characteristics of a gun with others (does
>not fire projectiles and is meant for kids to play with, while the look of a
>gun is retained.)
>
>Example 2. "Vegetarian hamburger." In this case it is quite obvious how the
>modifier changes the definition.
>
>Hamburger = "A sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually in a roll
>or bun."
>
>A vegetarian hamburger is then naturally "A sandwich made with a meat-free
>patty usually in a roll or bun".
>
>It is *not* "A vegetarian sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually
>in a roll or
>bun."
>
>Example 3. "Legal murder." Accepting the most commonly given definition,
>
>Murder = "The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought."
>
>and then of course
>
>Legal murder = "The legal killing of a human being with malice
>aforethought."
Arrrggggg ... you've been reveal as hi1k, posting under another handle!!!
Of all the convoluted, meaningless garbage I've seen... yours is right up there
with any of his posts. Of course you would probably argue that you didn't
mean to DECEIVE.. you would claim you've simply provided a *modifier*,
or what is more commonly referred to as _terminological inexactitude_.
Apparently you are intent on _justifying_ every murder, by presuming it can be
"legal." And I thought that desi was the biggest _murderer lover_ here!!!
You've reduced murder to -
"A modifier"
"A toy gun"
"A hamburger"
"A vegetarian hamburger"
"A sandwich"
"A patty of ground beef"
and "legal"
>> in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
>> unlawful.
>
>... which I never actually said, but, as Bertrand Russell said "A stupid
>man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he
>unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand". You
>show once more how true he was.
>
What you actually said was that "execution is nothing else than legal murder."
But in fact, that admits to the EXISTENCE of "legal murder." Regardless
of the use of "execution," you have said that "LEGAL MURDER" EXISTS.
And, of course, if you claim it does.. that makes "MURDER LEGAL." If
you presume you can say it about executions, that leaves the clear meaning
that other murders must also be LEGAL. You have, in fact, determined that
the LAWS of society are INVALID... and ALL murder is legal. Since
society DETERMINES what is "legal."
>(snipped)
>
>> > Execution,
>> >being the taking of a life, is a violation of the basic human right to
>life,
>> >recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, duly ratified by the US
>> >Congress and therefore part of US law.
>>
>> Rubbish. total nonsense. See --
>> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
>
>(Thanks for the URL, but you can imagine that, since I have been referring
>to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'm quite aware of what is in it).
>
Ah.. but you really don't UNDERSTAND it, little grasshopper. Reading
without comprehending gains no knowledge or understanding. If you presume
that Article 3, provides the support necessary for your _argument_ (sic),
than you obviously expect that if we cannot execute murderers, we also
cannot deprived them of their liberty in any way, and thus must abolish
every form of control on murderers which might limit them from repeating
those murders. They must then have, in your view, the "liberty" to recommit
those murders, as a RIGHT. Further, that article would seem to support
the "right" of every human to possess a firearm, to insure the security of his
person.
>> Nowhere is there any agreement that a sovereign state cannot execute
>> those it finds necessary to do so under the law. Much of the same is
>> written into the U.S. Constitution... and none of it ABOLISHES the DP.
>
>Recognising "right to life" as a human right is enough to consider
>executions as unjustified under a human rights approach. Whether the US
>considers right to life and executions as compatible is a contradiction it
>will have to overcome in the future.
>
No, actually that's only your opinion, since nowhere in that document
does it even speak of executions under the law of any sovereign society.
In effect, you are attempting to perpetrate a LIE, through the distortion
of those words. You are the one attempting to offer a contradiction,
in a rather filthy attempt to call "murder" -- "Legal."
>> >
>> >> Further... again... there is NO SUCH THING as _human rights_,
>> >> as some universal function across our planet. This will be discussed
>as
>> >we
>> >> go along here.
>> >
>> >Oh yes, human rights are universal.
>>
>> Oh NO.. they are not...
>
>The UN Declaration of Human Rights considers human rights as universal, in
>the meaning that they are "of worldwide scope or applicability". These
>rights are so universal that many people justify attacking Iraq by the fact
>that the Iraqi should have these rights (my objection in that case is: "why
>Iraq and not North Korea", but I must say it's the most sensitive argument
>for me in attacking Iraq).
Repeating --
"Copernicus taught us the very sound lesson that we must not assume
gratuitously that we occupy a privileged central position in the Universe."
Brandon Carter -- 'Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic
Principle in Cosmology."
You presume we are in too great a privileged central position in the
Universe... when you presume we have a Universal _right_ of any kind.
They are only WORDS in that Charter, and they IGNORE the clear
counter-examples I've provided that PROVE, that although it is a _lofty_
thought... its EXISTENCE is factually disproved.
>> and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
>> you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making these
>> STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your OPINION
>> can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And it's
>disgusting...
>> since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming
>opinion
>> can become fact.
>
>Claiming human rights are universal is a fact.
>
"Claiming human rights are universal" is an OPINION. You may in FACT
STATE that OPINION... but it cannot CHANGE fantasy into reality.
One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
background. There on the left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes
of the 'provider of the Universal Right to Life,' peering from the brush.
How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right
that all 'life' possesses? Where is your "right" for that child?
>
>> > They are the universal rights of all
>> >human beings, whatever their race. Saying the contrary would be admitting
>> >that some human beings don't deserve or need the same rights as others
>and
>> >would be utterly racist.
>>
>> Rubbish... It is simply pointing out REALITY. We may WISH it were so...
>> but IT IS NOT.
>
>The fact it is not like that doesn't bear any prejudice to the fact it
>*should* be like that and to the fact that we *should* strive so as it
>becomes like that.
>
Well... there you go... FINALLY!!!! You now accept that it
"SHOULD BE" like that... but the FACT is "it is not like that."
Your words -- in humble submission -- that what you claimed exists...
actually doesn't. Which is my point. I've never claimed that
_human rights_ are not a noble and lofty ideal. I have only
claimed that we become arrogant and blind when we
presume it exists. We may SAY it does... but the PROOF
is that it doesn't. And when we presume it does exist, we become
blind to those instances which PROVE it doesn't. And when
we speak of it as _universal_, there is the implication that
_someone_... someone greater than us (since we obviously
have no control over the UNIVERSE)... has provided that to
us... and we need no longer concern ourselves with it... since
it's _just there_. But you cannot even define at what point it
begins. Since I clearly asked you, and it remains unanswered
exactly where in the taxonomy classification of even the animal
kingdom (much less all biological life forms), does such a right
begin? If it's _universal_, why do some in that kingdom have
it, and others don't? Who DECIDED? These are questions
you cannot answer without depending on the cognitive abilities
of Man having decided for HIMSELF what those rights are.
Nothing _universal_ about them at all.
>> When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
>> it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities
>around us.
>
>No. Racism is saying that some people shouldn't hope getting basic human
>rights under the pretext they don't have them already.
>
No.. you have presumed that stating _universal human rights_ somehow
abolishes racism along with it. And you state that we DO have _universal
human rights_, which certainly presumes thusly that racism has been
abolished. You said in respect to your presumed EXISTENCE of _universal
human rights --- "Saying the contrary... would be utterly racist."
And thus, you presume that by saying _universal human rights_ you have
magically made racism disappear. It is the disgusting presumption of
the EXISTENCE of a _universal human right_ that presumes racism
does not exist. But the very fact it DOES... demonstrates that a
_universal human right_ DOES NOT EXIST. I am not arguing that
it wouldn't be _nice_ if it did, nor am I arguing that it is not a lofty concept
that we should strive to achieve. But it certainly doesn't EXIST.
And it's the height of hypocrisy to presume it does... since it implies
_our work is finished here_, simply in the existence of that ideal.
>> Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce
>_everything
>> is all right_.
>
>I never said that. You imagined it.
>
Please.. when you SAY that _universal human rights_ EXIST... you are
STATING that _everything is all right_, and requires no further work to
achieve what has already been achieved. The very fact that many are
DEPRIVED of that concept is PROOF that it does not EXIST. Nothing
to do with a goal. But you presume the journey is ended, and it has hardly
begun. Nor is abolishing the DP for murderers part of that process, since
it presumes we expect to forgive ALL of those who murder. Which can
hardly be seen as a lofty goal, or an expression of _human rights_ for
the victims.
>> Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
>> _universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
>> DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
>> humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_.
>
>Of course it is universal. It is recognised as such by the UN Declaration of
>Human Rights: "of worldwide scope or applicability". Whether it is
>universally applied in the reality matters few, since the universality of
>human rights is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
>
Ah, yes... that document written by God... pardon me for doubting your
pronouncement from FAITH.
>
>> Presuming there
>> IS NO racism, is itself RACISM. It is a sickening idea you propose,
>> that IGNORES the suffering in the world around you, which is why I posted
>> that picture of that naked child which STILL has not penetrated that
>iron-cast
>> skull of yours. In truth, YOURS is an immoral view that would IGNORE the
>> misery in the world.
>
>The one who ignores the misery of the world is the one who called me
>"xenophobic imbecile" when I referred to the need of increasing flows of
>official development aid (ODA). ODA is all the more necessary that the naked
>child whose picture you posted has rights
Of course... let's FORGET all about that naked child... after all... we have
_universal human rights_. You hypocrite.
> and those rights are being held
>up, in part by government who do not respect their engagement of dedicating
>0.7% of their GDP to ODA. For your memory, the US is below 0.15%, i.e. one
>of the least performing donor - refer to
>http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-notheme-2-no-1-2674-0,00.html
>.
It seems like "xenophobic imbecile" was right on point. The fact is we've been
down this before. The U.S. makes most of its contributions through private
sources, because we are a capitalist society. Socialist countries make very
little private contributions, since they depend on their governments to do it
for them, through an elevated tax-structure. In fact, you should examine the
thread "A seasonal message to Jiggy, PV and all those who..." Personal
contributions to charities from U.S. citizens were 194 BILLION dollars in
1999, and 202 BILLION dollars in 2000. That represents over 2% of the
U.S. GDP. Those personal contributions thus being well above the percentage
of GDP which Socialist Governments provide.
But it's typical that you would try to divert an argument regarding your claim
of some imaginary entity called _universal human rights_ into that
Continental European chauvinism we see here so often. You cannot
EXPLAIN AWAY that starving child by arguing who contributes what...
since you've presumed it is _universal_.
>> By heaping empty platitudes upon yourself, and contending
>> how _very fine_ you are by pronouncing that _everyone has universal
>rights_.
>> An ego-driven piece of crap philosophy, that IGNORES reality. Ignoring the
>> misery in the world, while, like some Pope, passing your phony benediction
>on
>> our species and pronouncing _everything is okay here_. What is the MOST
>> disgusting idea is that one BELIEVES there is such a thing, because it
>presumes
>> that we have nothing to STRIVE for. That all has already been done... and
>the
>> world is a serene, placid existence... while that child still starves in
>Africa...and
>> RACISM lives on. It is, in fact, racism in the extreme to claim -- there
>IS NO
>> RACISM. Your idea of the existence of a _universal right_ which you
>presume
>> solves all the ills in the world,
>
>I never said that. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
>never be accurate, because he unconciously translates what he hears into
>something he can understand". Your continuously fallacious
>misinterpretations of what I wrote show how true Russell was. They also
>display a bad faith to a level that has rarely been equated.
>
ROTFLMAO... You find one quotation, and you seem to be stuck on
repeating it... regardless of how arrogantly you presume yourself to be
that _clever man_. You should be warned that self-love... can turn into
self-loathing. In an instant.
>> is consuming IGNORANCE... It is IMMORAL...
>> It is ABSOLUTISM (which is akin to despotism).... It is BLINDNESS...
>> It is HYPOCRISY. And it DOES NOT EXIST. _Universal rights_ implies
>> _perfect man_... and that is so arrogant and blind a presumption that I
>want to
>> vomit.
>
>Universal rights imply nothing but a universal implementation of these
>rights, which is a very realistic objective.
You just keep proving me right... and proving me right again. You now
ADMIT it is an OBJECTIVE, and not a reality, which has been MY argument
all along. Although I disagree that there is even a remote
possibility that it is realistic within the next 100 years. You have now
confirmed that it does not EXIST. Which has always been my
argument. It is an objective... just as presumably we will someday
have as an objective a journey to another star system. As long as there
is one person who does not enjoy what you speak of it CANNOT be
presumed as _universal_. Which is the purpose of the _picture_ I
provided, which you tried to distort into a totally meaningless dialog
on _nationalistic contributions_. Why do you think I keep asking
where it IS, for that child? It is because it provides a POSITIVE
counter-example to your pathetic ravings about something existing
that does not.
> What appears as immoral to me
>and makes me feel vomit, is those one who don't understand the necessity of
>granting ODA to developping countries and feel perfectly normal that
>hundreds of billions of dollars be spent on military programmes (in order to
>later attack developping countries, of course).
>
I could not agree more. I've been a firm supporter of the U.S. withdrawal
from NATO, and let NATO become the military arm of the EU, to handle
its own problems. For almost ten years now, believing that should be
implemented.
Then let me remind you of self-defense killings, and those actions taken by
LEOs in the course of apprehending criminals who point weapons at them,
and police snipers who kill hostage-takers. Nor is even all criminal homicide
seen as murder. There must be an element which aggravates that crime,
containing an element of malice. Intentionally taking a life even if one is
convicted of a crime for doing so, making it an unlawful taking of a life,
is quite often not seen as elevated to the crime of murder. There is a crime
called manslaughter. Talk to _just passing by_... since his big love... the
_baby bouncer_, was convicted of murder, and had her crime reduced to
manslaughter because of a lack of proof of malice in her crime.
>> And society legally executing those who have been sentenced to the DP
>> is not murder. The taking of a life is defined as HOMICIDE. MURDER
>> is a SUB-SET of HOMICIDE. Not all homicides are murder. But
>> all murders are homicides. Homicides can be lawful. Murder cannot
>> be lawful.
>
>Yes, it can, as explicited above.
>
No.. quite simply... it cannot. To presume that "murder can be lawful," is
to presume that the holocaust was _lawful_. In addition to it defying every
definition in the English language. There is a clear distinction between CRIMES
and PENALTIES for those crimes. What is unlawful is defined within the
parameters of those crimes. And since murder is defined as a crime... and
crimes are defined as unlawful. Murder cannot be lawful.
>
>> > Taking the life of a murderer, even
>> >though society has conveniently put a law to allow it, remains a murder.
>>
>> I love it when you make those absolutely absurd conclusions.
>
>Thank you.
>
Don't thank me... thank either nature or nurture, which one or the other failed
you along the way. You continually prove the observation of Thomas Hobbes...
Man is the only living creature given the privilege of absurdity. You continually
assert that privilege. You should try to understand that people who always
pose their arguments in absurdities are very much in the way of the advance
of our species.
>> >And, which is more, the second killing can't be justified by the
>> >preexistence of a murder.
>> >
>> Of course it can.
>
>No, it can't. It's even less forgivable than the first killing in many
>cases.
>
Rubbish... that kind of presumption assumes that all murder can be
JUSTIFIED, in the absurd conclusion that punishment for that murder
is worse than the murder itself.
>> Society DETERMINES what is justified. You cannot
>> commit homicide independently. When you kill someone SOCIETY determines
>> if you did so lawfully, for whatever reason, or if you did so unlawfully
>> but
>> not at the elevated meaning of murder. You have no control over that
>> determination. You CANNOT kill independently of society determining
>> what type of killing it was. Society determines WHAT IS JUSTIFIED,
>> through its laws. You cannot decide that this second killing cannot be
>> justified, anymore than you could decide that someone you kill WAS
>> justified. The _yes_ or _no_ of justified is the decision of Society, not
>you.
>
>Then we have an iniquitious law, justifying a violation of human rights.
>That is enough to ask for this law to be repelled.
>
Once again... you do not have the POWER to make such a presumption,
other than as an opinion. Now if you claim it is only an opinion, you have
a perfect right to offer it... but I see you trying to offer it as an axiom... and
it most certainly is not. What is JUSTIFIED in FACT.. through our
membership in a particular society is what that SOCIETY decides, and not
you individually. Since if YOU could justify it individually, you could presume
that you can justify your committing a murder.
>> >> >> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem with
>your
>> >> >words.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my
>side.
>> >> >
>> >> Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the only
>> >result is
>> >> that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT unlawful
>> >> murder.
>> >
>> >And I never said it was.
>> >
>> Then there is no such thing as "the DP is murder."
>
>No, but there is such thing as "the DP is lawful murder", which, indeed, I
>regularly said.
>
??????? There is no such thing as "lawful murder," in any case of what one
speaks of. NOTHING is "lawful murder."
>
>> >> Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
>> >
>> >Yes, it can. It is called an execution.
>> >
>> Only when it is a murder committed EXECUTION STYLE by an INDIVIDUAL.
>> Society cannot commit an unlawful act... since it MAKES THE LAW. You
>> do not have the power to do so.
>
>Society can commit a lawful murder, in which case it violates human rights.
>
yada, yada, yada... Haven't I told you about making absurd statements?
Didn't I tell you of the observation of Thomas Hobbes... that Man is the only
living creature given the privilege of absurdity. Why do you continually
assert that privilege? You should try to understand that people who always
pose their arguments in absurdities are very much in the way of the advance
of our species. In point of fact, human have no _rights_ other than what
each particular society provides to them. Some offer NONE, in despotic
societies. Those are REALITIES... not some dream-world utopia, which,
however high the purpose, is still only a dream-world utopia.
>> >If you look at online dictionaries, you'll find out that murder isn't
>always
>> >defined according to being lawful or unlawful. For instance, the
>Cambridge
>> >International Online Dictionary says murder is "the crime of
>intentionally
>> >killing a person".
>> > (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=murder*1+0).
>> >
>> ROTFLMAO... You do know that a 'crime' is UNLAWFUL, don't you?
>> url:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crime
>>
>> You can be hilarious at times. You provide a definition what CALLS it a
>> "crime" and then contend that doesn't mean it's "unlawful." Hint --
>"crimes"
>> are "unlawful."
>
>And legal crimes are lawful. That's logical, though you seem to have
>difficulty admitting it.
>
????????? CRIMES are defined as "An act punishable by law, as being
forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare. (Properly including all
offences punishable by law, but commonly used only of grave offences.)"
Your thinking is just too convoluted to even do more than chuckle at it.
Crimes, in fact, CANNOT be lawful, by their very definition. They are
FORBIDDEN by statute. They only BECOME crimes when they are
written into law as crimes... or are you an advocate of the "Ten
Commandments" being a LEGAL definition of crimes? And in a democratic
world... what is NOT forbidden is allowed. Thus you are presuming
that _crimes are allowed_.
>>
>> >Many other dictionaries that define murder as "the unlawful act of
>killing"
>> >don't do the same for the verb "to murder", defined as "To kill brutally
>or
>> >inhumanly."
>> >
>> Since the DP does neither of those, your _argument_ is simply more
>> nonsense. The fact that murder committed is brutal and inhumane,
>> does not make it LAWFUL. I would hope that is not your argument.
>
>My argument is that executions are legal, or lawful, murder.
>
There is no such thing as "lawful murder." Nor are lawful executions "murder."
>> >Many definitions also refer with malice or aforethought to differenciate
>> >murder from manslaughter. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, says
>> >"The most direct case of malicious intent occurs when the killer is known
>to
>> >have adopted the deliberate intent to commit the homicidal act at some
>time
>> >before it is actually committed".
>> >(http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=%22murder%22)
>> >
>> yada...yada...yada... meaningless drivel which has nothing to do with a
>> Lawful execution being "murder," as you contend.
>
>Being "lawful murder", indeed.
>
"He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that" J.S. Mill.
>
>> >I'm not a native English speaker and I realize that English thesauri and
>> >dictionaries don't agree on whether murder is stricly unlawful or not. An
>> >execution is clearly the intentional and planned killing of a person with
>> >aforethought, it is hence normal to name it a murder, albeit lawful.
>Hence
>> >my formula "legal murder" or "lawful murder". Whether you agree or not
>> >matters few: killing is the final purpose of an execution and I will keep
>> >using that formula.
>> >
>> >> While execution is ALWAYS performed under the color of the LAW,
>> >> and is defined as lawful. Something lawful cannot be unlawful, and
>> >something
>> >> unlawful cannot be lawful. Thus the DP can NEVER be murder.
>> >
>> >Yes it can, as explicited above.
>> >
>> Yeah, right... what you've proved is that murder is a CRIME. And ALL
>> crime is unlawful. Execution is LAWFUL and not a crime.
>
>Execution is lawful and is consequently a lawful murder.
>
Narrow-minded people and narrow-necked bottles... the
less they have in them... the more noise is made coming out.
As I said at the very beginning... You can _say it_ forever... and
it will be no more true than if you said _the sun comes up in the
West_. Language deals in definitions, not in opinions.
>> >> Even
>> >> in the possible execution of an innocent, it is not murder, but an
>> >unfortunate
>> >> accident, since there was no INTENTION to execute an innocent.
>> >
>> >"Accident"??? What a euphemism! That would be funny if a life weren't at
>> >stake. I do hope such an "accident" doesn't happen to you or to your
>> >children.
>> >
>> Hello... are you prepared to relinquish your driver's license because of
>> accidents which kill innocents?
>
>Comparison not legitimate.
Of course it is... by a factor of a million to one... very legitimate. And
certainly driving is A PERMISSION granted by the same society that
you would deny permission to execute MURDERERS.
> In many cases, I have no alternative than drive.
WHAT??? Are you presuming there was no "alternative to drive"
100 years ago? The fact is the ONLY reason driving was invented,
and developed as it has, was to increase our MOBILITY upon the
face of the lands of our planet.
>In all cases, I have an alternative to death penalty, which is life
>imprisonment. Death penalty can in no way be presented as a "necessary
>evil".
In all cases, there is an alternative to DRIVING, which is walking...
and other less dangerous to innocents forms of transportation. Quite
clearly, there would be an upside in energy conservation, and a great
increase in the work force in creating an infrastructure in alternate
public transportation. I can see a great many advantages to eliminating
personal use of motor vehicles. If your purpose is to _save lives_,
there is no question that this act would save a great many lives.
While providing a bit of a hassle for you PERSONALLY. But you
see how when it's YOUR ox being gored, suddenly all those lives
lost to vehicle accidents become quite insignificant to you. Does the
word hypocrite spring to mind?
>> >> It
>> >> is no different than operating a motor vehicle, which the state grants
>> >> PERMISSION to do. Realizing that accidents which will kill innocents
>> >> WILL happen. And are certainly not called murder. While also
>realizing
>> >> those certain deaths are accepted as a necessary evil to increase
>mobility
>> >> of all citizens. With always an eye on REDUCING those possibilities as
>> >> much as possible. Just as the U.S. DP should ALWAYS examine every
>> >> facet of the application of the DP to reduce the possibility of the
>> >accidental
>> >> execution of an innocent. You can no more justify abolishing the DP on
>> >> the principle of preventing the possible killing of an innocent in the
>DP,
>> >than
>> >> you can justify the elimination of all vehicle operation on the
>principle
>> >of
>> >> preventing the possible accidental killing of an innocent in a vehicle
>> >accident.
>> >
>> >Oh yes, you can. Because the death penalty is not necessary.
>>
>> Ummm... driving a motor vehicle is _not necessary_.
>
>In many cases, it is.
>
Absolutely not. We lived with it for THOUSANDS of years. And
suddenly you claim we CANNOT do so? What you're saying is
_you don't WANT to lose it personally_.
>> In fact it wasn't
>> even AVAILABLE a short time ago. Motor vehicles are a rather new
>> invention on the scene.
>
>Before them, there were other means that, though being sometimes dangerous,
>were necessary as well.
>
None of them as dangerous as motor vehicle traffic. You are
avoiding the argument. You are saying that something that did not
exist 150 years ago, has become necessary today, although it has
cost 1 million lives in the past 25 years. While something which
existed 150 years ago, has become unnecessary today, although
its stated purpose is to SAVE innocent lives. Can you possibly
see the hypocrisy in that view?
>> And one could argue that the DP is OFTEN
>> necessary.
>
>No, because there is an alternative option that, when implemented well,
>presents all guarantees of safety + the possibility to prevent irreversible
>mistakes.
>
There is an alternative option to motor vehicle operation. A total
dependence on public transportation, foot travel, and bicycles.
If you are looking for _guarantees_. My point is, society ACCEPTS,
and YOU DO in your admission right here, those 1 million lives
lost in the past 25 years, if you can operate your motor vehicle,
as everyone else who is permitted by society to do so. All for the
sake of increased mobility. Those innocents dead from motor vehicle
accidents are ALSO dead irreversibly, when mistakes are made by
drivers. And society executes proven murderers... while drivers
are not that selective in who they kill.
>> Since the object is public safety. While the only purpose
>> of motor vehicles is _increased mobility_. Society well recognizes the
>> trade-off it makes in accidental loss of innocent lives, each time it
>> provides a driver's license. It might as well be providing a lottery
>> ticket for an executioner. And the reason society does so... is because
>> the members of those societies ACCEPT that risk to themselves and
>> others for that trade-off in increased mobility. Just as members of
>> societies that have the DP ACCEPT that risk to themselves and others
>> for that trade-off in increased SAFETY.
>
>Except that there is no alternative to motor vehicles now, while there
>exists an alternative to the death penalty.
Rubbish... you are presuming that something which did not even EXIST
150 years ago, has now become something that has no alternative???
Why are you intent on being so deceptive? Don't you think others (of
course NO ONE has read this far) can SEE your duplicity??
>Except, also, that an execution
>is always a (legally) planned murder, while a car accident may only result
>in unwanted and unplanned homicides.
Oh no... car accidents are quite certainly guaranteed... by statistics. When
that examiner issues your license he is well aware of the statistical
probability that he is issuing it to someone who might kill another in the
next hour. Juries that pass judgment in all crimes, are well aware that
their perception is not _absolute_, but depends on _beyond a reasonable
doubt_. Nor are executions murder, anymore than those who die
in vehicle accidents murder.
>
>Euro
>---------------------------------
>"Insults reveal usually more on those who say them than on those who receive
>them". Catherine Colonna, speaker of President Chirac
>
Phfttt.
"A truly noble nature cannot be insulted"
Publius Syrus
And you are certainly not capable of harming me with your insults. Since they are
only pitiful demonstrations of your inability to form a cogent thought process.
Yours in retention...
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:26:06 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:24:59 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >(long snipped)
> >> >PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is
> >nothing
> >> >else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being.
> >>
> >> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
> >> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
> >
> >No, that's a logical deduction.
[snip PV's as-usually long reply ;)]
I agree with PV on this one, in broad terms. Calling a legal execution
"murder" is nonsense. If it's legal then it can't be murder. Look up a
definition of murder in your dictionary and I'll be prepared to bet that
you'll find I'm right.
On the other hand, if one wants to describe an execution in emotive
terms (and I'm not above that), try "strapping down and killing a human
being in cold blood". It's true, it's not arguable and it makes
retentionists howl with outrage.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:26:06 +0800, dans l'article <3e6c91cd$1...@news.meganetnews.com>, Euro <vs...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
>>> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
>
>> No, that's a logical deduction. Do you know what a *modifier* is? It's a
>> word, phrase, or
>> clause that limits or qualifies the sense of another word or word group. I
>> will give three simple examples on modifiers and their usage.
>>
>> Example 1. "Toy gun." "Toy" is a very typical modifier.
>> A gun is "A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is
>> fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory."
>>
>> The modifier replaces some of the characteristics of a gun with others (does
>> not fire projectiles and is meant for kids to play with, while the look of a
>> gun is retained.)
>
>Yellow card, Euro ! FuckWit is just getting to grips with apostrophes, and
>I've promised that when he's mastered them, we can move onto the gerund.
>Talking about 'modifiers' is only going to confuse him. Can we schedule
>this lesson for say, Easter 2007 ? That way, he should have learned that
>'portentious' isn't a real word, and that 'quote' is only a noun in
>substandard, bastardised English.
>
>{ snip one of the most glorious, dignified yet savage spankings that
> _anyone_ has yet delivered to FW }
>
>*applause*
>
Yeah, right... euro is revealed as an hi1k clone, posting under another handle,
and desi begins applauding like a trained seal. How typical. desi will next be
sucking up to hi1k, to see if he can't get him to also _vote_ for that ol' racist,
desi.
euro's convoluted, meaningless garbage is typical of the type of postings
that you prefer, desi. Thus, it's understandable that you'd try to _seek him
out_ to be your _friend_. euro -- attempting to _justify_ murder, by presuming
it can be "legal" -- joins you as just another _murderer lover_ on the scene.
euro has in fact, attempted to reduce _murder_ to --
"A modifier"
"A toy gun"
"A hamburger"
"A vegetarian hamburger"
"A sandwich"
"A patty of ground beef"
and "legal"
You should be so proud of him. Of course, he does have a history of plagiarism.
But then that's something you are also fond of.
PV
>--
>Des The Spanked and bitch slapped puppet of PV
Another poster remarked of desi --
"As I keep on telling the more strident retentionists, Desmond, if you made the
claim, then it is you who must 'prove' it..."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=85jea5%247it%241%40lure.pipex.net
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:46:32 +0800, dans l'article <3e6dcbce$1...@news.meganetnews.com>, Euro <vs...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>>> { snip one of the most glorious, dignified yet savage spankings that
>>> _anyone_ has yet delivered to FW }
>>>
>>> *applause*
>
>> Frankly speaking, Desi, when I began posting on the death peenalty, I never
>> thought it would lead me to teach English to native speakers
>
>It hasn't, Euro. FuckWit may not be Russian (I just tweak his nose with
>that, as I know it enrages him), but he most certainly doesn't speak or
>write English as a native speaker.
>
ROTFLMAO... Hemingway -- John Donne
Desi -- Intellectual emptiness
PV
>--
>Des The Spanked and bitch slapped puppet of PV
Some other paranoia in the past from desi --
"You (and the others who sought to force me off the group) have yet to provide a
single iota of evidence that I have lied to this newsgroup."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8clfa5.1cl.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
No chance of euro being _part of that conspiracy_, after you suck up sufficiently.
LOL.
A Planet Visitor
When did you intend to start???
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
That from the guy who is going to _teach English_. Do you have any idea
what you're even trying to say, sport??
Okay... nuff said... go back to sucking up to desi. Maybe he'll claim you've
redeemed yourself, and he'll let you stay in HIS newsgroup. LOL.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le 12 Mar 2003 00:06:47 GMT, dans l'article <20030311190647...@mb-fu.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> I never called PV the way you do, Jigsaw.
>
>> Call him? Me??
>>
>> Hell, I dont even know his name, much less his telephone number.
>
>Jigsaw's inability to comprehend a single sentence reaches new heights ...
>er ... 'height's' (sic) ... er ... depths ...
>
Go on, desi... tell us how those few words from euro... make any sense
at all.
PV
>--
> Ayatollah desi
desi complains about executing murderers, but does he feel it necessary
to _complain_ if murderers are murdered? Obviously not, in his words --
"but surely even he cannot bring himself to 'complain' about murderers being
murdered. Is he _that_ much of a retarded, fuckwitted hypocrite ?" See -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030115212941.27673.00000041%40mb-mv.aol.com
I get the impression that desi doesn't want society to execute... but would be
buying tickets to see murderers _murder each other_.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:6i4t6v0hjp1qke84b...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:26:06 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:24:59 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >(long snipped)
> >> >PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is
> >nothing
> >> >else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being.
> >>
> >> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
> >> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
> >
> >No, that's a logical deduction.
>
> There is absolutely nothing _logical_ about claiming that murder can be
> legal.
It's, indeed, paradoxical, but this paradox is caused by societies that
pretend to show killing humans is wrong by killing other humans. I'm not
responsible for the contradiction, I merely point it out.
> It is a gross injustice to humanity to presume that an individual
> could take the life of another in the most heinous kind of criminal
homicide,
> and such an act be called "legal."
"Legal murder", in my view, refers to executions only. Your point is hence
invalid.
> It is unfortunate that one of the most potent
> abolitionist arguments --- that all society killing is wrong -- which can
be
> seen by many to contain a moral and noble purpose - is being hidden
> behind your filthy way of offering that argument. Your attempts to define
> "murder" as "legal" is just such filth. I don't know if nature or nurture
is
> responsible for your disgusting argument here... but there is no question
that
> it offers some rather disgusting attempt to presume that "murder" can be
> "legal." And at the risk of violating Godwin's Law... you have presumed
that
> the holocaust was "legal." Through your _argument_.
Well, and? The holocaust was legal from the viewpoint of nazi laws. You
yourself write that societies only can determine what is legal or not. I'm
the one who tries to let you understand that what is legal must not
necessarily be unconditionally accepted.
Because murders are individual acts, while executions are state-sponsored
acts. While murders are unacceptable, they are imprevisible individual acts
that, sometimes, even occur by accident, without any planned intention to
kill. But executions are the result of a planned premeditation and a state
organization aimed at destroying a person, under the reason that this person
killed. "An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the
privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a
rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization
which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death", said
Camus. This is why executions constitute a violation of human rights.
No. I have explained you why it is correct to speak about "legal murder" for
executions. It may shock you, but that's not my problem, since I don't
support that kind of punishment.
> >> in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
> >> unlawful.
> >
> >... which I never actually said, but, as Bertrand Russell said "A stupid
> >man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he
> >unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand".
You
> >show once more how true he was.
> >
> What you actually said was that "execution is nothing else than legal
murder."
> But in fact, that admits to the EXISTENCE of "legal murder."
Yes, executions are.
> Regardless
> of the use of "execution," you have said that "LEGAL MURDER" EXISTS.
No. I said legal murder exists, and it is executions. Your way to twist what
I say can also be called intellectual dishonesty.
> And, of course, if you claim it does.. that makes "MURDER LEGAL." If
> you presume you can say it about executions, that leaves the clear meaning
> that other murders must also be LEGAL. You have, in fact, determined that
> the LAWS of society are INVALID... and ALL murder is legal. Since
> society DETERMINES what is "legal."
This is why I say that executions are "legal murder". If I didn't recognise
the fact that societies define what is legal, I'd call executions
"state-sponsored murder", or maybe just "murder". But I call them "legal
murder".
> >(snipped)
> >
> >> > Execution,
> >> >being the taking of a life, is a violation of the basic human right to
> >life,
> >> >recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, duly ratified by the
US
> >> >Congress and therefore part of US law.
> >>
> >> Rubbish. total nonsense. See --
> >> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
> >
> >(Thanks for the URL, but you can imagine that, since I have been
referring
> >to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'm quite aware of what is in it).
> >
> Ah.. but you really don't UNDERSTAND it, little grasshopper. Reading
> without comprehending gains no knowledge or understanding. If you presume
> that Article 3, provides the support necessary for your _argument_ (sic),
> than you obviously expect that if we cannot execute murderers, we also
> cannot deprived them of their liberty in any way, and thus must abolish
> every form of control on murderers which might limit them from repeating
> those murders.
You draw here an abusive conclusion. Imprisonment can be justified as a way
to protect society from murderers, as well as a way to protect murderers
from society (private vendettas). Besides, your comparison is invalid:
imprisonment is by nature a temporary measure, whereas the deprivation of
life by execution is definitive and irreversible.
> They must then have, in your view, the "liberty" to recommit
> those murders, as a RIGHT. Further, that article would seem to support
> the "right" of every human to possess a firearm, to insure the security of
his
> person.
That's what you imagine, but that's not what I have said. Article 3 says
that all individuals "have the right to freedom", which certainly doesn't
include the freedom to do something illegal - hence no "liberty to recommit
murder".
I let you follow your reflexion on firearms. I have several times, on this
newsgroup, suggested that abolition of Amendment 2 would do much better than
any capital execution to diminish crime in the US. At least, we seem to
agree on this.
> >> Nowhere is there any agreement that a sovereign state cannot execute
> >> those it finds necessary to do so under the law. Much of the same is
> >> written into the U.S. Constitution... and none of it ABOLISHES the DP.
> >
> >Recognising "right to life" as a human right is enough to consider
> >executions as unjustified under a human rights approach. Whether the US
> >considers right to life and executions as compatible is a contradiction
it
> >will have to overcome in the future.
> >
> No, actually that's only your opinion, since nowhere in that document
> does it even speak of executions under the law of any sovereign society.
> In effect, you are attempting to perpetrate a LIE, through the distortion
> of those words. You are the one attempting to offer a contradiction,
> in a rather filthy attempt to call "murder" -- "Legal."
If "legal murder" is a contradiction, it's not due to me, but to the
contradictory logic of killing humans to show that killing is bad.
No. In "universal rights", the modifier "universal" doesn't mean the
universe, but the fact these rights are "of worldwide scope or
applicability". If it's the case on the earth, it's already good enough.
> They are only WORDS in that Charter, and they IGNORE the clear
> counter-examples I've provided that PROVE, that although it is a _lofty_
> thought... its EXISTENCE is factually disproved.
Your remark doesn't entail the relevance of the Declaration of Human Rights
as a compendium of principles that should be fulfilled.
> >> and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
> >> you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making
these
> >> STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your OPINION
> >> can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And it's
> >disgusting...
> >> since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming
> >opinion
> >> can become fact.
> >
> >Claiming human rights are universal is a fact.
> >
> "Claiming human rights are universal" is an OPINION. You may in FACT
> STATE that OPINION... but it cannot CHANGE fantasy into reality.
Human rights are universal, because they are "of worldwide scope and
applicability".
"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the
end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was universal because it is "of
worldwide scope or applicability", and consequently the human rights it
proclaims are universal as well. That's not an opinion, that's a legal
conclusion.
> One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
> url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
> Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
> background. There on the left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes
> of the 'provider of the Universal Right to Life,' peering from the brush.
> How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right
> that all 'life' possesses? Where is your "right" for that child?
I already replied to you. His right is to receive financial help from the
richer countries.
"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the
end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. "
(Preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights)
> >
> >> > They are the universal rights of all
> >> >human beings, whatever their race. Saying the contrary would be
admitting
> >> >that some human beings don't deserve or need the same rights as others
> >and
> >> >would be utterly racist.
> >>
> >> Rubbish... It is simply pointing out REALITY. We may WISH it were
so...
> >> but IT IS NOT.
> >
> >The fact it is not like that doesn't bear any prejudice to the fact it
> >*should* be like that and to the fact that we *should* strive so as it
> >becomes like that.
> >
> Well... there you go... FINALLY!!!! You now accept that it
> "SHOULD BE" like that... but the FACT is "it is not like that."
> Your words -- in humble submission -- that what you claimed exists...
> actually doesn't. Which is my point. I've never claimed that
> _human rights_ are not a noble and lofty ideal. I have only
> claimed that we become arrogant and blind when we
> presume it exists.
I never *presumed* it exists. I underlined the need to strive for the
respect of human rights, and this is why, while recognising executions do
legally exist, I oppose them in the name of the respect of human rights.
> We may SAY it does... but the PROOF
> is that it doesn't. And when we presume it does exist, we become
> blind to those instances which PROVE it doesn't.
Fortunately I have never been that blind, as my purpose is to oppose
executions in the name of human rights. Each execution, wherever it takes
place, makes me indeed presume that human rights are violated in that place.
> And when
> we speak of it as _universal_, there is the implication that
> _someone_... someone greater than us (since we obviously
> have no control over the UNIVERSE)... has provided that to
> us... and we need no longer concern ourselves with it... since
> it's _just there_.
Point invalid. Human rights are a universal value because all UN member
States decided to say so in a Declaration and recognise that all humans
should enjoy those rights. Nothing to do with the universe, and no volunty
to even control it. Human rights are a secular value.
> But you cannot even define at what point it
> begins. Since I clearly asked you, and it remains unanswered
> exactly where in the taxonomy classification of even the animal
> kingdom (much less all biological life forms), does such a right
> begin? If it's _universal_, why do some in that kingdom have
> it, and others don't? Who DECIDED?
Their governments do. Sometimes also history does. Individuals, by their
actions, may also influence on this, but basic human rights like freedom of
opinion and right to life must be granted and recognised by governments in
the first hand. That's all the problem of unequalities in this world. But
the objective of human rights remains pertinent whatever violations there
may be.
> These are questions
> you cannot answer without depending on the cognitive abilities
> of Man having decided for HIMSELF what those rights are.
> Nothing _universal_ about them at all.
I just answered them, and this answer does in no way entail the universal
value of human rights, as a set of principles "of worldwide scope or
availability".
> >> When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
> >> it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities
> >around us.
> >
> >No. Racism is saying that some people shouldn't hope getting basic human
> >rights under the pretext they don't have them already.
> >
> No.. you have presumed that stating _universal human rights_ somehow
> abolishes racism along with it. And you state that we DO have _universal
> human rights_, which certainly presumes thusly that racism has been
> abolished. You said in respect to your presumed EXISTENCE of _universal
> human rights --- "Saying the contrary... would be utterly racist."
Yes. Saying that human rights aren't universal would mean that human rights
have a scope or applicability limited to certain groups of humans, and this
would be utterly racist.
> And thus, you presume that by saying _universal human rights_ you have
> magically made racism disappear.
No. That's an abusive deduction you made.
> It is the disgusting presumption of
> the EXISTENCE of a _universal human right_ that presumes racism
> does not exist. But the very fact it DOES... demonstrates that a
> _universal human right_ DOES NOT EXIST.
Human rights are universal. Legally, since the UN Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, human rights are universal. Article 2 says "Everyone is
entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race (I snip the remaining part)".
That alone shows that human rights are universal.
> I am not arguing that
> it wouldn't be _nice_ if it did, nor am I arguing that it is not a lofty
concept
> that we should strive to achieve. But it certainly doesn't EXIST.
> And it's the height of hypocrisy to presume it does... since it implies
> _our work is finished here_, simply in the existence of that ideal.
No, it implies that you can invoke the UN Declaration of Human Rights to
denounce any violation of human rights, which I consistantly do when I
oppose executions.
> >> Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce
> >_everything
> >> is all right_.
> >
> >I never said that. You imagined it.
> >
> Please.. when you SAY that _universal human rights_ EXIST... you are
> STATING that _everything is all right_, and requires no further work to
> achieve what has already been achieved. The very fact that many are
> DEPRIVED of that concept is PROOF that it does not EXIST. Nothing
> to do with a goal. But you presume the journey is ended, and it has
hardly
> begun.
No. That's an abusive deduction you make, and it doesn't involve what I say.
Once again, intellectual dishonesty.
> Nor is abolishing the DP for murderers part of that process, since
> it presumes we expect to forgive ALL of those who murder. Which can
> hardly be seen as a lofty goal, or an expression of _human rights_ for
> the victims.
Here again intellectual dishonesty. Abolishing the DP for murderers wouldn't
mean forgiving murderers, but commuting their sentence into life
imprisonment, a penalty that respects human rights.
Besides, the victims don't have any "human right to see murderers executed".
That's a fraud.
> >> Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
> >> _universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
> >> DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
> >> humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_.
> >
> >Of course it is universal. It is recognised as such by the UN Declaration
of
> >Human Rights: "of worldwide scope or applicability". Whether it is
> >universally applied in the reality matters few, since the universality of
> >human rights is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration of Human
Rights.
> >
> Ah, yes... that document written by God... pardon me for doubting your
> pronouncement from FAITH.
Written by God??? And I thought it had been written by Rene Cassin!!!!!
> >
> >> Presuming there
> >> IS NO racism, is itself RACISM. It is a sickening idea you propose,
> >> that IGNORES the suffering in the world around you, which is why I
posted
> >> that picture of that naked child which STILL has not penetrated that
> >iron-cast
> >> skull of yours. In truth, YOURS is an immoral view that would IGNORE
the
> >> misery in the world.
> >
> >The one who ignores the misery of the world is the one who called me
> >"xenophobic imbecile" when I referred to the need of increasing flows of
> >official development aid (ODA). ODA is all the more necessary that the
naked
> >child whose picture you posted has rights
>
> Of course... let's FORGET all about that naked child... after all... we
have
> _universal human rights_. You hypocrite.
I'm certainly not the hipocrite here. Thanks to universal human rights, we
do have a legitimate basis to ask justice for this child. If we hadn't, we
could just watch him starve and regret not to be able to do anything.
But once again, I stress that transforming the meaning of "universal human
rights" from "human rights of worldwide scope and applicability" to
"world-wide respected human rights", as you persistently do, is
intellectually dishonest.
Of course, if you exclude the personal contributions made by citizens from
those so-called "socialist governments". Flawed comparison, based, of
course, on no verificable statistics.
> >> is consuming IGNORANCE... It is IMMORAL...
> >> It is ABSOLUTISM (which is akin to despotism).... It is BLINDNESS...
> >> It is HYPOCRISY. And it DOES NOT EXIST. _Universal rights_ implies
> >> _perfect man_... and that is so arrogant and blind a presumption that I
> >want to
> >> vomit.
> >
> >Universal rights imply nothing but a universal implementation of these
> >rights, which is a very realistic objective.
>
> You just keep proving me right... and proving me right again. You now
> ADMIT it is an OBJECTIVE, and not a reality, which has been MY argument
> all along.
Haha!!! Do you remember where this tread comes from? On March 2nd, in
posting nº161574 of this newsgroup, I told Jigsaw: "The abolition of the
death penalty is a matter of human rights."
You seem to have just rediscovered warm water. Of course, the respect of
human rights is an objective and not a reality! If it weren't, I wouldn't
need to fight executions because executions wouldn't exist any more. What
you present as YOUR argument is not an argument at all. It's a mere notice
that everyone can do all the time, but it certainly doesn't justify
renouncing the objective of human rights respect to fight human rights
violations.
> Although I disagree that there is even a remote
> possibility that it is realistic within the next 100 years. You have now
> confirmed that it does not EXIST.
I never said it exists. That's what YOU imagined when I began referring to
human rights, because you always misinterpret what others write to
accomodate to views.
(remaining snipped because of irrelevance, or because already discussed
above).
> >> >And, which is more, the second killing can't be justified by the
> >> >preexistence of a murder.
> >> >
> >> Of course it can.
> >
> >No, it can't. It's even less forgivable than the first killing in many
> >cases.
> >
> Rubbish... that kind of presumption assumes that all murder can be
> JUSTIFIED, in the absurd conclusion that punishment for that murder
> is worse than the murder itself.
No, it assumes that the existence of a murder can't justify an execution,
because an execution is a planned, state-sponsored killing, which surpasses
any murder in cruelty.
I couldn't justify any killing, because the reason for me to contest
executions is Article 2 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights that
guarantees right to life. Executions, like any other killing, are a
violation of this article.
> >> >> >> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem
with
> >your
> >> >> >words.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my
> >side.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the
only
> >> >result is
> >> >> that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT
unlawful
> >> >> murder.
> >> >
> >> >And I never said it was.
> >> >
> >> Then there is no such thing as "the DP is murder."
> >
> >No, but there is such thing as "the DP is lawful murder", which, indeed,
I
> >regularly said.
> >
> ??????? There is no such thing as "lawful murder," in any case of what
one
> speaks of. NOTHING is "lawful murder."
Yes. Executions are.
> >
> >> >> Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, it can. It is called an execution.
> >> >
> >> Only when it is a murder committed EXECUTION STYLE by an INDIVIDUAL.
> >> Society cannot commit an unlawful act... since it MAKES THE LAW. You
> >> do not have the power to do so.
> >
> >Society can commit a lawful murder, in which case it violates human
rights.
> >
> yada, yada, yada... Haven't I told you about making absurd statements?
That's not an absurd statement. It's a mere conclusion drawn from Article 2
of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
> None of them as dangerous as motor vehicle traffic. You are
> avoiding the argument. You are saying that something that did not
> exist 150 years ago, has become necessary today, although it has
> cost 1 million lives in the past 25 years. While something which
> existed 150 years ago, has become unnecessary today, although
> its stated purpose is to SAVE innocent lives. Can you possibly
> see the hypocrisy in that view?
That's a mere constatation. Life imprisonment is a substitute thanks to
which we can say the death penalty is not necessary. That's all Beccaria's
thesis.
> There is an alternative option to motor vehicle operation. A total
> dependence on public transportation, foot travel, and bicycles.
> If you are looking for _guarantees_. My point is, society ACCEPTS,
> and YOU DO in your admission right here, those 1 million lives
> lost in the past 25 years, if you can operate your motor vehicle,
> as everyone else who is permitted by society to do so. All for the
> sake of increased mobility. Those innocents dead from motor vehicle
> accidents are ALSO dead irreversibly, when mistakes are made by
> drivers. And society executes proven murderers... while drivers
> are not that selective in who they kill.
Comparison flawed, as I said, unless you say that abolishing transportation
is possible, which you openly rejected (you only propose to change means of
transportation, which of course bears other risks of killing innocent lives
and is not a perfect substitute). Besides, abolition of death penalty is
necessary because life imprisonment constitutes a perfect substitute.
> >> Since the object is public safety. While the only purpose
> >> of motor vehicles is _increased mobility_. Society well recognizes the
> >> trade-off it makes in accidental loss of innocent lives, each time it
> >> provides a driver's license. It might as well be providing a lottery
> >> ticket for an executioner. And the reason society does so... is
because
> >> the members of those societies ACCEPT that risk to themselves and
> >> others for that trade-off in increased mobility. Just as members of
> >> societies that have the DP ACCEPT that risk to themselves and others
> >> for that trade-off in increased SAFETY.
> >
> >Except that there is no alternative to motor vehicles now, while there
> >exists an alternative to the death penalty.
>
> Rubbish... you are presuming that something which did not even EXIST
> 150 years ago, has now become something that has no alternative???
No, I say it has become an alternative to something that, for centuries, has
enabled only to kill innocents without proving to be an answer to crime.
> Why are you intent on being so deceptive? Don't you think others (of
> course NO ONE has read this far) can SEE your duplicity??
You're the one who is deceptive here. The vanity of your argument can be
summarised in one sentence: "the death penalty is justified because some
societies decide so". Not really moral.
> >Except, also, that an execution
> >is always a (legally) planned murder, while a car accident may only
result
> >in unwanted and unplanned homicides.
>
> Oh no... car accidents are quite certainly guaranteed... by statistics.
Like "it's the statistics that provoke car accidents"!!!!! LOL
> When
> that examiner issues your license he is well aware of the statistical
> probability that he is issuing it to someone who might kill another in the
> next hour. Juries that pass judgment in all crimes, are well aware that
> their perception is not _absolute_, but depends on _beyond a reasonable
> doubt_. Nor are executions murder, anymore than those who die
> in vehicle accidents murder.
I agree with you. Executions are legal murders and have nothing to do with
car accidents. Hence my remark that your comparison was purposeless.
Euro
Euro
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
??????:jonathan-D4903E...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <6i4t6v0hjp1qke84b...@4ax.com>, A Planet
> Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:26:06 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> > >??????:cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:24:59 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >(long snipped)
> > >> >PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is
> > >nothing
> > >> >else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being.
> > >>
> > >> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
> > >> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to
LIE...
> > >
> > >No, that's a logical deduction.
>
> [snip PV's as-usually long reply ;)]
>
> I agree with PV on this one, in broad terms. Calling a legal execution
> "murder" is nonsense. If it's legal then it can't be murder. Look up a
> definition of murder in your dictionary and I'll be prepared to bet that
> you'll find I'm right.
>
> On the other hand, if one wants to describe an execution in emotive
> terms (and I'm not above that), try "strapping down and killing a human
> being in cold blood". It's true, it's not arguable and it makes
> retentionists howl with outrage.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
Calling executions "legal murder" is enough to make PV howl with outrage and
the result is very amusing (though also quite vulgar, unfortunately).
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:nakt6vsl7lnfnvf5n...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:37:03 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
> wrote:
>
> You should be so proud of him. Of course, he does have a history of
plagiarism.
> But then that's something you are also fond of.
>
Actually, PV, you do as well have a history of plagiarism. See the URL
below, a posting of "Just passing by" sent last month, subject: "Subject:
Re: Deterrent effect of the Death Penalty", available at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=PV+AND+plagiarism&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=21b1da28.0302141219.24657f70%40posting.google.com&rnum=15
and the last two paragraphs:
QUOTE
A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<povo4vgccltmtoj2l...@4ax.com>...
(snipped)
>
> I don't think there is any question of that -- since one of my sentences
> in that FIRST post was --- "In a staggering breach of client
confidentiality
> she branded the au pair as a "duplicitous, lying monster" from a "very,
> low class family" who lied over plans to sell her story."
One of YOUR SENTENCES? Did you say that was YOUR SENTENCE? You want to
be careful, PV, Adonis and the London Evening Standard, who own
LondonNet, might sue you for plagiarism for making that claim. That
wasn't your sentence at all. You provided a link to a web page on
which those words appeared, and now you are trying to claim them as
your own for the purpose of trying to make it look as if your own
words really did suggest that you were calling EWS corrupt back on Oct
12 of last year. The truth is that nothing in any of YOUR SENTENCES
suggested any such thing.
You will try anything to wriggle out of this one, won't you?
UNQUOTE
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:6i4t6v0hjp1qke84b...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:26:06 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:24:59 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >(long snipped)
>> >> >PV, I already said this a lot of times and you know it: execution is
>> >nothing
>> >> >else than legal murder, i.e. the legal killing of a human being.
>> >>
>> >> You can _say it_ forever... and it will be no more true than it you
>> >> said _the sun comes up in the West_. It's simply an attempt to LIE...
>> >
>> >No, that's a logical deduction.
>>
>> There is absolutely nothing _logical_ about claiming that murder can be
>> legal.
>
>It's, indeed, paradoxical, but this paradox is caused by societies that
>pretend to show killing humans is wrong by killing other humans. I'm not
>responsible for the contradiction, I merely point it out.
>
One cannot formulate an argument based on a paradox. That's basic
Logic 101.
>> It is a gross injustice to humanity to presume that an individual
>> could take the life of another in the most heinous kind of criminal
>homicide,
>> and such an act be called "legal."
>
>"Legal murder", in my view, refers to executions only. Your point is hence
>invalid.
>
No... that's quite untrue... murder is murder. And if it's "legal" in one
respect, it must be legal in others. Further, you just nailed yourself
to the wall... since you said "in my view." Which makes it an OPINION,
and not a FACT. I've never said you couldn't hold ANY OPINION.
You may hold an opinion that the sun comes up in the west... opinions
are free will. But you need to understand that some opinions, are looked
at by reasonable people as seeing you are _off your rocker_. I believe
one other poster here, has already done so, and another, has clearly
defined "murder" as "Unlawful killing with intent." Obviously something
"unlawful" cannot BE "legal." I never said you couldn't have such an
OPINION... I've simply said you CANNOT express it as a FACT.
And you've now apparently agreed.
Exactly!!! Murders are "Individual acts." Acts by the state are NOT.
Thus, acts by the state are NOT MURDERS.
Huh???? None of what you've said demonstrates in the slightest that
"it is correct to speak about "legal murder" for executions." As I've
pointed out, it's just meaningless cajun voodoo mumbo jumbo,
posing as English.
>> >> in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
>> >> unlawful.
>> >
>> >... which I never actually said, but, as Bertrand Russell said "A stupid
>> >man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he
>> >unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand".
>You
>> >show once more how true he was.
>> >
>> What you actually said was that "execution is nothing else than legal
>murder."
>> But in fact, that admits to the EXISTENCE of "legal murder."
>
>Yes, executions are.
>
No... you simply cannot do that. Although you can do so as an opinion.
But you cannot FACTUALLY limit "legal murder" to one specific aspect
of murder. Murder itself is EITHER legal or illegal. It cannot be both.
>> Regardless
>> of the use of "execution," you have said that "LEGAL MURDER" EXISTS.
>
>No. I said legal murder exists, and it is executions. Your way to twist what
>I say can also be called intellectual dishonesty.
>
Actually, sport. The twisting is the presumption that you can DIVIDE
murder into two separate entities called "legal murder" and "illegal murder."
And that can only be done using opinion. Since ALL murder is not
defined in such a manner. It is EITHER ALL legal, or ALL illegal.
>> And, of course, if you claim it does.. that makes "MURDER LEGAL." If
>> you presume you can say it about executions, that leaves the clear meaning
>> that other murders must also be LEGAL. You have, in fact, determined that
>> the LAWS of society are INVALID... and ALL murder is legal. Since
>> society DETERMINES what is "legal."
>
>This is why I say that executions are "legal murder". If I didn't recognise
>the fact that societies define what is legal, I'd call executions
>"state-sponsored murder", or maybe just "murder". But I call them "legal
>murder".
>
As I said.. you can SAY it until the cows come home... and it will NEVER
become a FACT. It will always remain simply that you said it... as an
opinion.
>
>> >(snipped)
>> >
>> >> > Execution,
>> >> >being the taking of a life, is a violation of the basic human right to
>> >life,
>> >> >recognised in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, duly ratified by the
>US
>> >> >Congress and therefore part of US law.
>> >>
>> >> Rubbish. total nonsense. See --
>> >> http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
>> >
>> >(Thanks for the URL, but you can imagine that, since I have been
>referring
>> >to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'm quite aware of what is in it).
>> >
>> Ah.. but you really don't UNDERSTAND it, little grasshopper. Reading
>> without comprehending gains no knowledge or understanding. If you presume
>> that Article 3, provides the support necessary for your _argument_ (sic),
>> than you obviously expect that if we cannot execute murderers, we also
>> cannot deprived them of their liberty in any way, and thus must abolish
>> every form of control on murderers which might limit them from repeating
>> those murders.
>
>You draw here an abusive conclusion. Imprisonment can be justified as a way
>to protect society from murderers, as well as a way to protect murderers
>from society (private vendettas). Besides, your comparison is invalid:
>imprisonment is by nature a temporary measure, whereas the deprivation of
>life by execution is definitive and irreversible.
An "abusive conclusion." What's that? The article is very clear. And if
you PRESUME that it protects the LIFE of a murderer, then it is only
separated by a comma, and PRESUMES that it protects the LIBERTY
of that murderer as well. You cannot have your cake, and eat it too.
You keep changing the _rules_, as you see individually fit to do so,
yet if you presume that Article 3 protects the LIFE of a murderer,
it is clear that this Article ALSO protect his LIBERTY. In truth,
that article has NOTHING to do with capital punishment, and you
well know it. The entire Charter has nothing to do with Capital
Punishment either.
>
>> They must then have, in your view, the "liberty" to recommit
>> those murders, as a RIGHT. Further, that article would seem to support
>> the "right" of every human to possess a firearm, to insure the security of
>his
>> person.
>
>That's what you imagine, but that's not what I have said. Article 3 says
>that all individuals "have the right to freedom", which certainly doesn't
>include the freedom to do something illegal - hence no "liberty to recommit
>murder".
>
It you presume that a CRIME negates what right they have to LIBERTY,
and we CAN take away that liberty, then it is clear that a CRIME can also
negative the right they have to LIFE in that same article. You don't MAKE
the rules, or the exclusions. That article speaks of LIFE and LIBERTY in
the SAME meaning, separated ONLY by a simple grammatically necessary
comma.
>I let you follow your reflexion on firearms. I have several times, on this
>newsgroup, suggested that abolition of Amendment 2 would do much better than
>any capital execution to diminish crime in the US. At least, we seem to
>agree on this.
>
Hardly... I hold Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution as essential to the rights
of Americans to self-protection. Do I believe that right means that we do
not have more homicides? No. If there were NO GUNS, of course there
would be less homicides. But the "right" to self-protection I find is greater
than the "non-right to self-protection." Plus there is no possibility of ever
implementing it, so that criminals give up their guns as well. I am firmly against
many methods used to DISTORT the meaning of that right, which are too
extensive to go into here, other than penalties for crimes committed with
firearms should be greater than those same crimes committed without, and
penalties for gun dealers selling to felons should be SUBSTANTIAL. But I
would never presume that any government could take away my legal right to
own a firearm within my home to protect myself and my family.
>> >> Nowhere is there any agreement that a sovereign state cannot execute
>> >> those it finds necessary to do so under the law. Much of the same is
>> >> written into the U.S. Constitution... and none of it ABOLISHES the DP.
>> >
>> >Recognising "right to life" as a human right is enough to consider
>> >executions as unjustified under a human rights approach. Whether the US
>> >considers right to life and executions as compatible is a contradiction
>it
>> >will have to overcome in the future.
>> >
>> No, actually that's only your opinion, since nowhere in that document
>> does it even speak of executions under the law of any sovereign society.
>> In effect, you are attempting to perpetrate a LIE, through the distortion
>> of those words. You are the one attempting to offer a contradiction,
>> in a rather filthy attempt to call "murder" -- "Legal."
>
>If "legal murder" is a contradiction, it's not due to me, but to the
>contradictory logic of killing humans to show that killing is bad.
>
No... it's solely due to you... in the distortion of the English language,
and logic which you do not deny with your admission that your statement
is "paradoxical." You certainly cannot hold to any kind of LOGIC
being paradoxical... without relying as another on Alice in Wonderland
logic.
Once again... you don't get to DEFINE those type meanings. The next
thing you know, you'll contend that the EU is _universal_. And it
certainly doesn't extend even to our own species... See my picture..
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
>> They are only WORDS in that Charter, and they IGNORE the clear
>> counter-examples I've provided that PROVE, that although it is a _lofty_
>> thought... its EXISTENCE is factually disproved.
>
>Your remark doesn't entail the relevance of the Declaration of Human Rights
>as a compendium of principles that should be fulfilled.
>
yada, yada, yada... Can you hear how pathetic you sound? SHOULD BE!!!
I've never argue with SHOULD BE...but I'll certainly call you a fool if you
presume it IS. The danger is in PRESUMING it IS. Thus, presuming we have
no further to go.
>> >> and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
>> >> you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making
>these
>> >> STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your OPINION
>> >> can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And it's
>> >disgusting...
>> >> since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming
>> >opinion
>> >> can become fact.
>> >
>> >Claiming human rights are universal is a fact.
>> >
>> "Claiming human rights are universal" is an OPINION. You may in FACT
>> STATE that OPINION... but it cannot CHANGE fantasy into reality.
>
>Human rights are universal, because they are "of worldwide scope and
>applicability".
Rubbish.
>"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the
>end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
>Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
>promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
>national and international, to secure their universal and effective
>recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
>themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
>
I don't care what they put on paper... they PROCLAIM, but they are
NOT GODS. The proof can ONLY come if there are no counter-examples
which refute the existence.
>The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was universal because it is "of
>worldwide scope or applicability", and consequently the human rights it
>proclaims are universal as well. That's not an opinion, that's a legal
>conclusion.
>
And, let me think... lawyers are GODS???
>> One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
>> url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
>> Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
>> background. There on the left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes
>> of the 'provider of the Universal Right to Life,' peering from the brush.
>> How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything' right
>> that all 'life' possesses? Where is your "right" for that child?
>
>I already replied to you. His right is to receive financial help from the
>richer countries.
Oh, yeah... I'm sure they're working on it, as we speak. But meanwhile,
at this MOMENT... it doesn't EXIST. Thus the concept also doesn't
EXIST. You're so pathetic.
>"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the
>end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
>Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
>promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
>national and international, to secure their universal and effective
>recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
>themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. "
>
>(Preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights)
>
ROTFLMAO. You really are into simply copying... but not understanding,
aren't you?
>
>> >
>> >> > They are the universal rights of all
>> >> >human beings, whatever their race. Saying the contrary would be
>admitting
>> >> >that some human beings don't deserve or need the same rights as others
>> >and
>> >> >would be utterly racist.
>> >>
>> >> Rubbish... It is simply pointing out REALITY. We may WISH it were
>so...
>> >> but IT IS NOT.
>> >
>> >The fact it is not like that doesn't bear any prejudice to the fact it
>> >*should* be like that and to the fact that we *should* strive so as it
>> >becomes like that.
>> >
>> Well... there you go... FINALLY!!!! You now accept that it
>> "SHOULD BE" like that... but the FACT is "it is not like that."
>> Your words -- in humble submission -- that what you claimed exists...
>> actually doesn't. Which is my point. I've never claimed that
>> _human rights_ are not a noble and lofty ideal. I have only
>> claimed that we become arrogant and blind when we
>> presume it exists.
>
>I never *presumed* it exists.
Of course you did... It's been the entire course of this argument. And
NOW you realize how silly you look, since you FINALLY recognize
that your own words have tripped you up. Why do you think I've
been showing that picture over and over? Why do you think you've
been trying to JUSTIFY it in the PRESENT context?
> I underlined the need to strive for the
>respect of human rights, and this is why, while recognising executions do
>legally exist, I oppose them in the name of the respect of human rights.
>
Horse manure. You've been arguing that it is ILLEGAL to do so.
Calling it "Legal Murder," BECAUSE of the EXISTENCE of those
rights you've spoken of. Now you claim they DON'T EXIST. But
are only goals. Which is what I've been saying all along. They are
lofty principles. But man is INCAPABLE of making them happen.
Certainly not in your lifetime, or the lifetime of your children, or their
children. I am a realist... you are incapable of being a realist. And
that is a dangerous position to take, in respect to our species.
>> We may SAY it does... but the PROOF
>> is that it doesn't. And when we presume it does exist, we become
>> blind to those instances which PROVE it doesn't.
>
>Fortunately I have never been that blind,
LOL.
> as my purpose is to oppose
>executions in the name of human rights. Each execution, wherever it takes
>place, makes me indeed presume that human rights are violated in that place.
>
As I said.. you can PRESUME anything you wish... but do NOT
try to frame it in a dialog that presumes you are speaking FACTUALLY.
You are simply voicing an opinion.
>> And when
>> we speak of it as _universal_, there is the implication that
>> _someone_... someone greater than us (since we obviously
>> have no control over the UNIVERSE)... has provided that to
>> us... and we need no longer concern ourselves with it... since
>> it's _just there_.
>
>Point invalid. Human rights are a universal value because all UN member
>States decided to say so in a Declaration and recognise that all humans
>should enjoy those rights. Nothing to do with the universe, and no volunty
>to even control it. Human rights are a secular value.
>
Then why don't all humans have them, if they are _universal_ to ALL
HUMANS? And who decided that it would be limited to HUMANS?
Why not chimpanzees? Why not the entire animal kingdom? How can
WE be so arrogant to presume that one specific biological life form has
these _rights_? And EXACTLY what _rights_ are they? Since you
seemed to be arguing elsewhere that a _Universal right to life_, wasn't
among those rights.
>> But you cannot even define at what point it
>> begins. Since I clearly asked you, and it remains unanswered
>> exactly where in the taxonomy classification of even the animal
>> kingdom (much less all biological life forms), does such a right
>> begin? If it's _universal_, why do some in that kingdom have
>> it, and others don't? Who DECIDED?
>
>Their governments do.
That certainly doesn't make them _universal_. Actually, I would
think every human on the planet would need to VOTE that they
accept what is written there. And since when do governments
decide for the rest of the Animal kingdom?
> Sometimes also history does. Individuals, by their
>actions, may also influence on this, but basic human rights like freedom of
>opinion and right to life must be granted and recognised by governments in
>the first hand. That's all the problem of unequalities in this world. But
>the objective of human rights remains pertinent whatever violations there
>may be.
>
Objective.. not reality.
>> These are questions
>> you cannot answer without depending on the cognitive abilities
>> of Man having decided for HIMSELF what those rights are.
>> Nothing _universal_ about them at all.
>
>I just answered them, and this answer does in no way entail the universal
>value of human rights, as a set of principles "of worldwide scope or
>availability".
>
Good grief... can you ever speak about things that exist? You post
as if you're a demigod.
>
>> >> When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
>> >> it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities
>> >around us.
>> >
>> >No. Racism is saying that some people shouldn't hope getting basic human
>> >rights under the pretext they don't have them already.
>> >
>> No.. you have presumed that stating _universal human rights_ somehow
>> abolishes racism along with it. And you state that we DO have _universal
>> human rights_, which certainly presumes thusly that racism has been
>> abolished. You said in respect to your presumed EXISTENCE of _universal
>> human rights --- "Saying the contrary... would be utterly racist."
>
>Yes. Saying that human rights aren't universal would mean that human rights
>have a scope or applicability limited to certain groups of humans, and this
>would be utterly racist.
>
No.. saying that they EXIST, in the face of what IS racism, is abject
hypocrisy. And it blinds us to the fact that racism exists, if we claim that
_universal human rights_ exist. My entire doctrine is based on the principle
that those are ONLY WORDS. Without force. Especially in any sense
of being _universal_. It is HYPOCRISY. I'll have none of it. And I'll
certainly never presume it to mean that it has SOLVED racism, or that
it means that a sovereign nation cannot enact laws which provide for
execution of some murderers. I see you swiftly switching from claiming
it exists... to realizing now how silly such a conclusion is... based on the
MILLIONS of counter-examples that surround us. You argument at
the beginning was that it EXISTS... and that is why executions are
"Legal murder." I see you retreating on every front now.
>> And thus, you presume that by saying _universal human rights_ you have
>> magically made racism disappear.
>
>No. That's an abusive deduction you made.
>
You deserve it. By presuming that all our problems are solved, because
the U.N. put a few words on papers, written by some very high paid
legal minds.
>> It is the disgusting presumption of
>> the EXISTENCE of a _universal human right_ that presumes racism
>> does not exist. But the very fact it DOES... demonstrates that a
>> _universal human right_ DOES NOT EXIST.
>
>Human rights are universal.
You can't even define what _rights_ you're speaking of. What ARE
_human rights_?
> Legally, since the UN Universal Declaration of
>Human Rights, human rights are universal. Article 2 says "Everyone is
>entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
>without distinction of any kind, such as race (I snip the remaining part)".
>That alone shows that human rights are universal.
>
I repeat... if that's true... what about that CHILD??? What about
ghettos all over the world?
>> I am not arguing that
>> it wouldn't be _nice_ if it did, nor am I arguing that it is not a lofty
>concept
>> that we should strive to achieve. But it certainly doesn't EXIST.
>> And it's the height of hypocrisy to presume it does... since it implies
>> _our work is finished here_, simply in the existence of that ideal.
>
>No, it implies that you can invoke the UN Declaration of Human Rights to
>denounce any violation of human rights, which I consistantly do when I
>oppose executions.
>
Since that declaration doesn't even speak of the word "executions"
you're simply USING IT, for your own devious design. As many others
do with many written documents.
>
>> >> Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce
>> >_everything
>> >> is all right_.
>> >
>> >I never said that. You imagined it.
>> >
>> Please.. when you SAY that _universal human rights_ EXIST... you are
>> STATING that _everything is all right_, and requires no further work to
>> achieve what has already been achieved. The very fact that many are
>> DEPRIVED of that concept is PROOF that it does not EXIST. Nothing
>> to do with a goal. But you presume the journey is ended, and it has
>hardly
>> begun.
>
>No. That's an abusive deduction you make, and it doesn't involve what I say.
>Once again, intellectual dishonesty.
>
LOL... It seems like every time I _catch you_, you claim it is an
_abusive deduction_. Perhaps YOU should be more careful in composing
your words.
>> Nor is abolishing the DP for murderers part of that process, since
>> it presumes we expect to forgive ALL of those who murder. Which can
>> hardly be seen as a lofty goal, or an expression of _human rights_ for
>> the victims.
>
>Here again intellectual dishonesty. Abolishing the DP for murderers wouldn't
>mean forgiving murderers, but commuting their sentence into life
>imprisonment, a penalty that respects human rights.
>
Why? Why does THAT respect _human rights_, while execution does
not? Since Article 3 says "life, liberty..." You make this definitions and
determinations without anything other than your opinion. It would seem
that you've simply DISTORTED it, to suit your agenda, which is abolition.
But you don't have a problem with caging murderers like ANIMALS for the
rest of their natural life. But gee... aren't humans supposedly HIGHER
than other animals?
>Besides, the victims don't have any "human right to see murderers executed".
>That's a fraud.
>
Oh... so _victims_ have no _human rights_? Thanks for clearing that
up. I guess murderers can now go and murder ANYONE, since victims
do not have the same _rights_ that they do.
>> >> Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
>> >> _universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
>> >> DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
>> >> humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_.
>> >
>> >Of course it is universal. It is recognised as such by the UN Declaration
>of
>> >Human Rights: "of worldwide scope or applicability". Whether it is
>> >universally applied in the reality matters few, since the universality of
>> >human rights is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration of Human
>Rights.
>> >
>> Ah, yes... that document written by God... pardon me for doubting your
>> pronouncement from FAITH.
>
>Written by God??? And I thought it had been written by Rene Cassin!!!!!
>
Oh, yeah.. he just THINKS he's God.
>> >
>> >> Presuming there
>> >> IS NO racism, is itself RACISM. It is a sickening idea you propose,
>> >> that IGNORES the suffering in the world around you, which is why I
>posted
>> >> that picture of that naked child which STILL has not penetrated that
>> >iron-cast
>> >> skull of yours. In truth, YOURS is an immoral view that would IGNORE
>the
>> >> misery in the world.
>> >
>> >The one who ignores the misery of the world is the one who called me
>> >"xenophobic imbecile" when I referred to the need of increasing flows of
>> >official development aid (ODA). ODA is all the more necessary that the
>naked
>> >child whose picture you posted has rights
>>
>> Of course... let's FORGET all about that naked child... after all... we
>have
>> _universal human rights_. You hypocrite.
>
>I'm certainly not the hipocrite here. Thanks to universal human rights, we
>do have a legitimate basis to ask justice for this child. If we hadn't, we
>could just watch him starve and regret not to be able to do anything.
>
The point is... and always has been, that the document you speak of
does not speak to REALITY. It speaks to a dream. But you have
been USING it as a REALITY, to justify your opposition to the DP.
And it's deplorable, that you would take a lofty principle such as that
stated in the Charter, to presume it PROTECTS MURDERERS.
It does not.. it does not say that anywhere... it does not even speak
to any justice system. The reason we have gone down this road,
is because you first insisted that those principles in the charter were
INVIOLATE. But I have shown they are violated with impunity.
Thus they have no meaning in terms of ACTUAL BEING. And I
became incensed when you presumed that the words had already
SOLVED all the problems of racism... because you presumed
those principles had TAKEN EFFECT. We become LULLED
into a sense of complacency when we look at those words, and
presume we are already there. Now this argument is entirely outside
of the argument we began... simply because you kept throwing up
that document as PROVING by the EXISTENCE of those words
that a _universal right to life_ ALSO existed. And it does not.
It cannot... it will not. Simply because MAN is unable to achieve
those goals. Certainly not in the next 200 years. That does not
mean that we should not take the first step in this long journey.
It simply means one should NEVER presume the journey is
complete. And I despise the word _universal_ when I see the
absolute hypocrisy of presuming such exists.
Now aside from this... the Charter itself does NOT even speak to
murderers, executions, incarceration, or ANY sovereign Justice
System. And the sooner you realize that.. the more effective you
might become in honing your argument against the DP. Because
the CHARTER... and absolute idiot ravings such as "legal murder,"
do the cause of abolition no good... since you only look silly
introducing them.
>But once again, I stress that transforming the meaning of "universal human
>rights" from "human rights of worldwide scope and applicability" to
>"world-wide respected human rights", as you persistently do, is
>intellectually dishonest.
>
No... actually it is intellectually dishonest NOT to transform those
words as you've stated them. In fact, they need even FURTHER
distancing between what you say... and what you presume I say.
Do you know in that Charter one certain four-letter word does
not exist? (no... not that kind of four letter word). The word I'm
thinking of is "goal." It seems to me that the Charter itself, as you,
presumes those clear OBJECTIVES, are simply already a
reality. Not that I have any objections about the words themselves.
But the understanding that _words_ do not make it so. But
believing they do... can be very dangerous.
Oh, the two numbers that I've presented were verified back when I
posted them. From news reports. I have no idea what socialist countries
contribute individually, but having lived in socialist countries for 26 years,
I can tell you that most citizens have the feeling that their governments will
handle those things, and their higher taxes insure they will.
>> >> is consuming IGNORANCE... It is IMMORAL...
>> >> It is ABSOLUTISM (which is akin to despotism).... It is BLINDNESS...
>> >> It is HYPOCRISY. And it DOES NOT EXIST. _Universal rights_ implies
>> >> _perfect man_... and that is so arrogant and blind a presumption that I
>> >want to
>> >> vomit.
>> >
>> >Universal rights imply nothing but a universal implementation of these
>> >rights, which is a very realistic objective.
>>
>> You just keep proving me right... and proving me right again. You now
>> ADMIT it is an OBJECTIVE, and not a reality, which has been MY argument
>> all along.
>
>Haha!!! Do you remember where this tread comes from? On March 2nd, in
>posting nº161574 of this newsgroup, I told Jigsaw: "The abolition of the
>death penalty is a matter of human rights."
>
But it isn't. Since you've never even defined _human rights_. And certainly
the U.N. Charter doesn't state that "no state can execute murderers." And
certainly your statement presumes the EXISTENCE of _human rights_,
yet you're now shifting toward stating they are _an objective_.
>You seem to have just rediscovered warm water. Of course, the respect of
>human rights is an objective and not a reality!
You've been claiming all along that it's a REALITY. And you're doing
some quick back stepping now.
> If it weren't, I wouldn't
>need to fight executions because executions wouldn't exist any more.
Rubbish... you're claiming it's A VIOLATION of what exists. Thus
you felt you could call it "legal murder."
> What
>you present as YOUR argument is not an argument at all. It's a mere notice
>that everyone can do all the time, but it certainly doesn't justify
>renouncing the objective of human rights respect to fight human rights
>violations.
>
I notice that you are now beginning to use the word "objective."
Hummm... wonder why?
>
>> Although I disagree that there is even a remote
>> possibility that it is realistic within the next 100 years. You have now
>> confirmed that it does not EXIST.
>
>I never said it exists. That's what YOU imagined when I began referring to
>human rights, because you always misinterpret what others write to
>accomodate to views.
>
But of course you said it exists. And you claim that it is violated, when
the U.S. executes.
>(remaining snipped because of irrelevance, or because already discussed
>above).
>
>> >> >And, which is more, the second killing can't be justified by the
>> >> >preexistence of a murder.
>> >> >
>> >> Of course it can.
>> >
>> >No, it can't. It's even less forgivable than the first killing in many
>> >cases.
>> >
>> Rubbish... that kind of presumption assumes that all murder can be
>> JUSTIFIED, in the absurd conclusion that punishment for that murder
>> is worse than the murder itself.
>
>No, it assumes that the existence of a murder can't justify an execution,
You can _assume_ all you wish... but there are many who would disagree
with you, and you cannot base your argument on _assumptions_.
>because an execution is a planned, state-sponsored killing, which surpasses
>any murder in cruelty.
>
yada, yada, yada. At least you're no longer calling it "legal murder," and
referring to it as it correctly is. Unfortunately you still are confused as to
the fact that murder is many times more cruel.
Article 2??? Article 2 doesn't even contain the WORD "Life."
>> >> >> >> Now, if you agree with those two statements I have no problem
>with
>> >your
>> >> >> >words.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I'm afraid you will still do but that doesn't change anything on my
>> >side.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Of course, if you persist in rewriting the English language, the
>only
>> >> >result is
>> >> >> that YOU will look stupid... not me. Lawful execution is NOT
>unlawful
>> >> >> murder.
>> >> >
>> >> >And I never said it was.
>> >> >
>> >> Then there is no such thing as "the DP is murder."
>> >
>> >No, but there is such thing as "the DP is lawful murder", which, indeed,
>I
>> >regularly said.
>> >
>> ??????? There is no such thing as "lawful murder," in any case of what
>one
>> speaks of. NOTHING is "lawful murder."
>
>Yes. Executions are.
>
Rubbish.
>
>> >
>> >> >> Murder is ALWAYS unlawful, and thus cannot BE Lawful.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, it can. It is called an execution.
>> >> >
>> >> Only when it is a murder committed EXECUTION STYLE by an INDIVIDUAL.
>> >> Society cannot commit an unlawful act... since it MAKES THE LAW. You
>> >> do not have the power to do so.
>> >
>> >Society can commit a lawful murder, in which case it violates human
>rights.
>> >
>> yada, yada, yada... Haven't I told you about making absurd statements?
>
>That's not an absurd statement. It's a mere conclusion drawn from Article 2
>of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
>
What are you talking about? See -
url:http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
>> None of them as dangerous as motor vehicle traffic. You are
>> avoiding the argument. You are saying that something that did not
>> exist 150 years ago, has become necessary today, although it has
>> cost 1 million lives in the past 25 years. While something which
>> existed 150 years ago, has become unnecessary today, although
>> its stated purpose is to SAVE innocent lives. Can you possibly
>> see the hypocrisy in that view?
>
>That's a mere constatation. Life imprisonment is a substitute thanks to
>which we can say the death penalty is not necessary. That's all Beccaria's
>thesis.
>
While Mill and many others conclude the DP is an essential element
in a just society.
>> There is an alternative option to motor vehicle operation. A total
>> dependence on public transportation, foot travel, and bicycles.
>> If you are looking for _guarantees_. My point is, society ACCEPTS,
>> and YOU DO in your admission right here, those 1 million lives
>> lost in the past 25 years, if you can operate your motor vehicle,
>> as everyone else who is permitted by society to do so. All for the
>> sake of increased mobility. Those innocents dead from motor vehicle
>> accidents are ALSO dead irreversibly, when mistakes are made by
>> drivers. And society executes proven murderers... while drivers
>> are not that selective in who they kill.
>
>Comparison flawed, as I said, unless you say that abolishing transportation
>is possible,
No... MOTOR VEHICLE transportation. PRIVATE USE. It seems
we did just that a bit more that 100 years ago.
> which you openly rejected (you only propose to change means of
>transportation, which of course bears other risks of killing innocent lives
>and is not a perfect substitute).
Meaningless, since the number of deaths as a percentage of population
to ANY form of travel other than motor vehicles is minuscule. You're
grasping at straws.
> Besides, abolition of death penalty is
>necessary because life imprisonment constitutes a perfect substitute.
>
Rubbish... Here's your _perfect substitute_
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Bomar, Jr. was released from prison in Nevada on
parole in 1990. Bomar had served 11 years of a murder sentence
for killing a man over an argument about a parking space. Six
years later in Pennsylvania, Bomar brutally kidnapped, raped
and murdered George Mason University star athlete Aimee Willard.
Dwain Little, Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life
term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975.
Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three
consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.
John McRae, Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old
boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder
of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending
on 2 other counts in Florida.
John Miller, California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of
murder, 1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life
term 1975.
Michael Lawrence, Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term,
1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
Donald Dillbeck, Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped
from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after
escape. Condemned 1991.
Edward Kennedy, Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to
Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after
prison break. Executed 1992.
Dawud Mu'Min, Virginia. Killed cab driver in holdup. Sentenced
1973. Escaped 1988. Raped/killed woman 1988. Condemned
1989. Executed 1997.
Viva Nash, Utah/Arizona. Two terms of life for murder in Utah,
1978. Escaped in 1982. Murdered again. Condemned in
Arizona, 1983.
Randy Greenawalt - Escaped from Prison in 1978, while serving
a life sentence for a 1974 murder. He then murdered a family of
4 people, shotgunning them to death, including a toddler.
Norman Parker, Florida/D.C. Life term in Florida for murder,
1966. Escaped 1978. Life on another count of murder in
1979.
Winford Stokes, Missouri. Ruled insane on two counts of
murder 1969. Escaped from asylum, 1978. Murdered
again. Executed for this murder, 1990.
Charles Crawford, Missouri. Life term in 1965 for murder.
Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994.
Darrell P. Pandeli - After being released from prison after a conviction
for murder, Pandeli murdered a prostitute, cut off her nipples and
flushed them down the toilet. Now on DR in Arizona for that second
recidivist murder.
Chad Allen Lee. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other
than death. Released and went on murder spree. Murdering Linda Reynolds,
a pizza delivery person, and 9 days later robbed and murdered David
Lacey, a taxi cab driver. Lee then robbed a mini-market 7 days after
than. Shooting the owner, Harold Drury, multiple times without reason.
Scott Lehr. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other
than death. Later released. After release, between Feb 91 and Feb 92
lured 10 different female victims, between the ages of 10 and 48-years-old,
into his car. Raping and beating them unconscious, stripped and
abandoned them in the desert. Three of his victims died in those
acts.
James Erin McKinney. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to
other than death. Later released. Then murdered Christine Mertens
in a home invasion robbery. Later murdered James McClain in another
separate home invasion robbery.
Michael Murdaugh. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other
than death. Later released. After release murdered David Reynolds.
Beating him to death. When 'dumping' the body, Murdaugh severed
Reynold's head and hands, pulled out his teeth, and buring the body parts.
Jack Ferrell, Florida. Committed Murdered 1981. 15 years to
life, 1982. Paroled 1987. Murdered again 1992. Condemned 1993.
Timothy Buss - Murdered five-year-old girl. Sentenced to 25 years
in 1981. Paroled 1993. Murdered 10-year-old boy. Condemned
1996.
Martsay Bolder, Missouri. Serving a sentence of life for
first-degree murder in 1973. Murdered prison cellmate 1979.
Henry Brisbon, Illinois. Murdered 2 in robbery. Sentenced to 1000-
3000 years. Killed inmate in prison 1982. Sentenced to DP.
Commuted by Governor Ryan.
Randolph Dial, Oklahoma. Life for murder 1986. Escaped from
prison with deputy warden's wife as kidnap victim. 1989. Still
at large. Warden's wife never found.
Arthur Shawcross (The 'Monster of the Rivers') -- Released after
serving a 25 year sentence for a child murder, turned to murdering
prostitutes. At least 10 in all. Now serving ten consecutive
sentences of 25 years to life - 250 years in all.
Samuel D. Smith in prison for murdering Zita Casey, 79, during a
burglary in St. Louis in 1978. While in prison he murdered another
inmate, Marlin May, during a knife fight in 1987 in prison.
Charles Daniels was convicted and sentenced to Life for the
1965 rape and murder of a Louisiana woman. Later having
his sentence commuted, he was release. And he again
killed another woman, 32-year-old Debbie Tatum.
Jarmarr Arnold - who, while on DR, murdered another
DR inmate by stabbing him in the forehead with a sharpen
spike. Proving that not even a death sentence can
prevent murder until the sentence is carried out.
Robert Lee Massie. See
url:http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
Sentenced to the DP, but overturned by Furman, which resulted
in him committing further new murders.
Kenneth McDuff - Sentenced to the DP, but overturned by Furman.
Who once remarked "Killing a woman is like killing a chicken. They
both squawk." See
url:http://www.reporternews.com/texas/bod1118.html
Melvin Geary, originally sentenced to L wop, for the stabbing death
of a woman in 1973 with a boning knife. Changed to Life.. released...
After his release, Geary was subsequently convicted of murdering
71-year-old Edward Colvin of Sparks, again with a boning knife after
Colvin took him in.
William Coday Jr. convicted of murdering 19-year-old Lisa Hullinger
in September 1978. After spending just 15 months in a German prison,
he was released. In April 2002, he was convicted of having murdered
Gloria Gomez on 13 July, 1997.
Corey R. Barton - In 1983 he murdered 16-year-old Shari-Ann Merton.
He received 18 years in prison. He was released after serving 9 years
and 8 months. In November 1998, he murdered 27 year-old Sally Harris
of North Carolina.
Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, of Rainbow City, Alabama, who was
serving life without parole for 3 murders in Gadsden, Alabama was found
guilty of capital murder for murdering a fellow inmate
Jimmy Lee Gray, who was free on parole from an Arizona conviction for
killing a 16-year-old high school girl, kidnapped, sodomized, and suffocated
a three-year-old Mississippi girl.
Jack Henry Abbott, who had murdered a fellow prison inmate, was released
early from a Utah prison. On July 18, 1981, six-weeks after his release, Abbott
stabbed actor Richard Adan to death in New York.
Benny Lee Chaffin, on December 7, 1984 kidnapped, raped, and murdered
a 9-year-old Springfield, Oregon girl. He had been convicted of murder once
before in Texas, but not executed.
Thomas Eugene Creech, who had been convicted of three murders
and had claimed a role in more than 40 killings in 13 states as a
paid killer for a motorcycle gang, killed a fellow prison inmate in
1981 and was sentenced to death.
Wayne Henry Garrison, 42, was convicted of 1st-degree murder
in the death of Justin Wiles 13, of Tulsa. As a teenager, Garrison
had killed two children in Tulsa. Police earlier said the circumstances
of those killings were similar to Justin's death.
Tommy Arthur was sentenced to die in Alabama's electric chair
for killing Troy Wicker in a 1982 murder for-hire scheme in Muscle
Shoals. Arthur had already been convicted in 1977 of killing the
sister of his common-law wife. He had been sentenced to life
for that murder. During sentencing, Arthur asked jurors to recommend
death. He told them a capital sentence would mean automatic appeals,
better accommodations in prison and liberal access to the prison law
library. Arthur's appellate court record shows why it's taken nearly 19
years to send him to the electric chair: "After 3 trials, 4 appellate reviews,
approximately 10 different attorneys and numerous delays and
continuances, Arthur raises over 40 issues before this court,"
Robert Lynn Pruett, 20, a convicted killer already serving a life sentence,
fatally stabbed prison guard Daniel Nagle with a sharpened rod while
patrolling the Texas Department of Criminal Justice McConnell Unit near
Beeville in South Texas. It was the first fatal attack on a Texas corrections
officer since guard Minnie Houston was stabbed to death in 1984 by an
inmate at the Ellis Unit near Huntsville, a prison official said.
Miguel Salas Rodriguez, 50, is charged in the murder of a sheriff's
deputy. Sgt. David M. Furrh, 40, in Dec 2000. Rodriguez had a
December 1973 conviction of homicide without malice, for which
he was sentenced to five years in prison. And yet ANOTHER
conviction for murder in April 1979, for which he was sentenced to
70 years in prison. Rodriguez was paroled in October 1989.
Bennie Demps, was condemned to the DP for the 1976 murder
of Alfred Sturgis, a prison snitch. Originally, Demps was sent to death row
for the murders of R.N. Brinkworth and Celia Puhlick, who
were fatally shot in a Lake County citrus grove. A year after
Demps was sent to death row, the U.S. Supreme Court threw
out capital punishment across the country, ruling death sentences
had been imposed in an arbitrary way. Another failure of the
Furman-commuted murderers.
Leroy Schmitz was convicted of strangling his live-in girlfrie
in 1986, during an argument. He was sentenced to 18-20
years for that homicide. He was later convicted of murdering
his wife, in Whitefish, Montana in 1999.
Vernon Sattiewhite -- In 1977, Sattiewhite had been sentenced
to five years for a murder but was paroled two years later
and granted clemency. In 1984, he was convicted of robbery
and sentenced to two years in prison but was paroled after less
than six months. Soon after he murdered his ex-girlfriend,
Sandra Sorrell.
Tomas G. Ervin. Sentenced to death in 1990, after conviction
of the December 1988 murders of Mildred L. Hodges, 75, and
her son, Richard E. Hodges. Bert Hunter, who was arrested
along with Ervin pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder charges.
Hunter and Ervin had met in the Missouri State Penitentiary,
where they were both serving life sentences for previous murders.
William Michael "Billy the Kid" Mason killed his wife three weeks
after he was paroled on another murder conviction.
Daniel Joe Hittle, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to
death for murdering a police officer Hittle, 40, was described by
witnesses as a man who gleefully killed or tortured animals and who
routinely beat women and children. He was on parole for the killings
of his adoptive parents in Minnesota when he shot Garland police
officer Gerald Walker during a traffic stop. Hittle then sped to East
Dallas, where he fatally shot Mary Alice Goss, 39; Richard Joseph
Cook Jr., 36; Raymond Scott Gregg, 19; and Goss' 4-year-old
daughter Christy Condon.
Tony Walker, Texas. Convicted of murder in 1978. Sentenced to 5 years.
Murdered a 66 year-old woman and her 81 year-old husband in 1992.
Jerome Butler -- Found guilty of the shooting of cab driver Nathan
Oakley, 67. Oakley had been a Houston cab driver for 30 years.
Butler had an extensive criminal history, including a 1959 conviction
on two counts of robbery and assault in New York City. Butler had
previously served about 10 years of a 30-year sentence after
pleading guilty to the murder of A.C. Johnson, 69.
Dalton Prejean killed a taxi driver when he was 14, . When he was
17, he gunned down a state trooper in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Despite protests from the American Civil Liberties Union and
other abolitionist groups, Prejean was executed for the second
murder on May 18, 1990.
Phillip Jablonski. Carol Spadoni married Jablonski on June 16,
1982, while he was serving a prison sentence for the 1979
murder of his third wife, Melinda Kimball. After she became
his pen-pal correspondent in prison. Jablonski murdered his
prison pen-pal wife and her mother. And the day before those
murders he had murdered Fathyma Vann, 38, in Indio,
about 25 miles from Palm Springs, Vann was found shot and
sexually mutilated in the desert with ``I love Jesus'' carved in
her back."
Now GET THIS -- See
url:http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/97-06%20JUN/classif.html
It seems that Phillip Jablonski, now in prison after ALL those
murders, placed an ad for a pen-pal --
"Jewish Death Row inmate, white, 51 years old, seeking
understanding and open female or male for honest correspondence.
Amateur poet, artist. Will answer all correspondence received.
PHILLIP JABLONSKI, C-02477/SE95, San Quentin, CA 94974"
Jerry Michael Ward -- Originally sentenced to die in the electric chair,
for committing murder with malice in the rape and murder of a Houston
school girl. His sentence was commuted to life in prison when the U.S.
Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in 1972. Although the death
penalty was reinstated, the sentence was not. He was subsequently
paroled in 1984 after serving 18 years in prison. He was the number one
suspect in two new cases, involving the the disappearance of Connie Sue
Cooke, and the murder of Brenda Maureen Hackett. But althought
police were on the verge of arresting him, Ward committed suicide in
a self-inflicted execution.
James Homer Elledge was sent to prison for life in 1975 after beating
a Seattle motel owner to death with a ball-peen hammer. In the
years that followed, he won parole 3 times, most recently in
August 1995. prosecutors have now charged Elledge with 1st-degree
murder for allegedly stabbing and strangling Eloise Jane Fitzner,
47, in a church basement.
Zeno E. Sims was sent to prison for eight years for the murder of a
24-year-old-man. Released on parole, in Kansas City, he then murdered
DeAntreia L Ashley, a 15-year-old-girl, after a minor traffic accident.
Arthur James Julius was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
In 1978, he was given a brief leave from prison, during which he raped and
murdered a cousin. He was sentenced to death for that crime and was executed
on November 17, 1989.
Timothy Charles Palmes was on probation for an earlier manslaughter conviction
when he and two accomplices robbed and brutally murdered a Florida furniture
store owner.
In 1978, Wayne Robert Felde, while being taken to jail in handcuffs, pulled a
gun hidden in his pants and killed a policeman. At the time, he was a fugitive
from a work release program in Maryland, where he had been convicted of
manslaughter.
On November 9, 1983 Associate U.S. Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen told a
Senate subcommittee that it is impossible to punish or even deter such prison
murders because, without a death sentence, a violent life-termer has free rein
"to continue to murder as opportunity and his perverse motives dictate."
On October 22, 1983 at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois,
two prison guards were murdered in two SEPARATE instances by
SEPARATE inmates who were both serving life terms for previously
murdering inmates.
The Texas 7 - Escaped from prison. Recaptured, after murdering a law
enforcement officer while in escape status. As desi 'prayed' for their
'safe journey' to Mexico.
Theodore Bundy
John Wayne Gacy
Theodore Frank
Jeffrey Daumer
Then see --
url:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
TABLE 9... to find that of a total of 2,593 on DR, 285 of those murderers
under sentence of the DP, had previously been convicted of homicide.
This is a recidivism rate of 7.9% for those presently under sentence to
the DP.
~300 post-Furman DP sentenced murderers who had their
sentences commuted to alternate prison sentences as a
result of Furman, murdered 6 more while still in prison.
Then we have the contributions of Peter Morris here, who has reported
that in addition to Jarmarr Arnold, he knows of 4 other murderers on DR
who murdered while on DR
1) Ambrose Harris murdered Robert Simon, both on DR.
2) Jimmie Mack murdered Donald Leroy Evans, both on DR.
3) Robert Vickers murdered Buster Holsinger, both on DR
4) An undertermined DR resident murdered Jerry Thompson on DR
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see that at the end? 285 of those on DR were murderers who
were NOT executed... and they MURDERED again. It is perverse
to call alternate penalties "A Perfect substitute."
>> >> Since the object is public safety. While the only purpose
>> >> of motor vehicles is _increased mobility_. Society well recognizes the
>> >> trade-off it makes in accidental loss of innocent lives, each time it
>> >> provides a driver's license. It might as well be providing a lottery
>> >> ticket for an executioner. And the reason society does so... is
>because
>> >> the members of those societies ACCEPT that risk to themselves and
>> >> others for that trade-off in increased mobility. Just as members of
>> >> societies that have the DP ACCEPT that risk to themselves and others
>> >> for that trade-off in increased SAFETY.
>> >
>> >Except that there is no alternative to motor vehicles now, while there
>> >exists an alternative to the death penalty.
>>
>> Rubbish... you are presuming that something which did not even EXIST
>> 150 years ago, has now become something that has no alternative???
>
>No, I say it has become an alternative to something that, for centuries, has
>enabled only to kill innocents without proving to be an answer to crime.
>
I haven't heard of an executed murderer ever murdering again? Have you?
>> Why are you intent on being so deceptive? Don't you think others (of
>> course NO ONE has read this far) can SEE your duplicity??
>
>You're the one who is deceptive here. The vanity of your argument can be
>summarised in one sentence: "the death penalty is justified because some
>societies decide so". Not really moral.
>
Of course, that is perfect justification. You would presume that YOU
are as God... and can DECIDE for those other societies. You cannot
you know... you are NOT GOD... and those societies should have the
_right_ (since you are so involved in _rights_) to decide what it will
do with its murderers. In fact, what YOU are saying is => the death penalty
is NOT justified REGARDLESS of what a society decides. What
gives YOU the _right_ to decide for other societies? Since I don't
care what YOUR society does? You can well abolish all punishment
for all I care. Just don't send them to MY society.
>
>> >Except, also, that an execution
>> >is always a (legally) planned murder, while a car accident may only
>result
>> >in unwanted and unplanned homicides.
>>
>> Oh no... car accidents are quite certainly guaranteed... by statistics.
>
>Like "it's the statistics that provoke car accidents"!!!!! LOL
>
It's the statistics THAT PROVE car accidents.
>> When
>> that examiner issues your license he is well aware of the statistical
>> probability that he is issuing it to someone who might kill another in the
>> next hour. Juries that pass judgment in all crimes, are well aware that
>> their perception is not _absolute_, but depends on _beyond a reasonable
>> doubt_. Nor are executions murder, anymore than those who die
>> in vehicle accidents murder.
>
>I agree with you. Executions are legal murders and have nothing to do with
>car accidents. Hence my remark that your comparison was purposeless.
>
I didn't say any such thing. But it's typical when one is boxed in, as you are,
to lie and try to distort what the other has said.
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:oeb07vkc3fhdgbot7...@4ax.com...(snipped)
>
> >> It is a gross injustice to humanity to presume that an individual
> >> could take the life of another in the most heinous kind of criminal
> >homicide,
> >> and such an act be called "legal."
> >
> >"Legal murder", in my view, refers to executions only. Your point is
hence
> >invalid.
> >
> No... that's quite untrue... murder is murder. And if it's "legal" in one
> respect, it must be legal in others. Further, you just nailed yourself
> to the wall... since you said "in my view." Which makes it an OPINION,
> and not a FACT. I've never said you couldn't hold ANY OPINION.
> You may hold an opinion that the sun comes up in the west... opinions
> are free will. But you need to understand that some opinions, are looked
> at by reasonable people as seeing you are _off your rocker_. I believe
> one other poster here, has already done so, and another, has clearly
> defined "murder" as "Unlawful killing with intent." Obviously something
> "unlawful" cannot BE "legal." I never said you couldn't have such an
> OPINION... I've simply said you CANNOT express it as a FACT.
> And you've now apparently agreed.
I certainly do. When I write that executions are legal murders, I always
understand it as my opinion. YOU are the one who believed I presented it as
a fact - maybe that could have been avoided if I began all my sentences by
"I think", but you should also always understand what others say with this
in mind. I'm here only to defend my opinions, not to present facts - else I
would rely on others and stop losing my time sending posters on this
newsgroup.
Anyway, I'm glad to learn from you that I can have the opinions I like to
have, but I didn't expect anything else.
(snipped)
Thus, when they consist in killing, acts of state are more cruel and
unforgivable than acts of individuals.
On the contrary, it is a perfectly acceptable way to describe executions.
Executions are legal murders. It's an oxymoron, just like a "deafening
silence".
> >> >> in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
> >> >> unlawful.
> >> >
> >> >... which I never actually said, but, as Bertrand Russell said "A
stupid
> >> >man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because
he
> >> >unconciously translates what he hears into something he can
understand".
> >You
> >> >show once more how true he was.
> >> >
> >> What you actually said was that "execution is nothing else than legal
> >murder."
> >> But in fact, that admits to the EXISTENCE of "legal murder."
> >
> >Yes, executions are.
> >
> No... you simply cannot do that. Although you can do so as an opinion.
> But you cannot FACTUALLY limit "legal murder" to one specific aspect
> of murder. Murder itself is EITHER legal or illegal. It cannot be both.
Executions are legal murders. I have nothing more to add.
>
> >> Regardless
> >> of the use of "execution," you have said that "LEGAL MURDER" EXISTS.
> >
> >No. I said legal murder exists, and it is executions. Your way to twist
what
> >I say can also be called intellectual dishonesty.
> >
> Actually, sport. The twisting is the presumption that you can DIVIDE
> murder into two separate entities called "legal murder" and "illegal
murder."
> And that can only be done using opinion. Since ALL murder is not
> defined in such a manner. It is EITHER ALL legal, or ALL illegal.
Murder is actually illegal, but executions are "legal murders". The value
added of this expression, apart from being short, is that it also hints that
executions are an illegitimate way of punishment and should hence be
abandonned.
> >> And, of course, if you claim it does.. that makes "MURDER LEGAL." If
> >> you presume you can say it about executions, that leaves the clear
meaning
> >> that other murders must also be LEGAL. You have, in fact, determined
that
> >> the LAWS of society are INVALID... and ALL murder is legal. Since
> >> society DETERMINES what is "legal."
> >
> >This is why I say that executions are "legal murder". If I didn't
recognise
> >the fact that societies define what is legal, I'd call executions
> >"state-sponsored murder", or maybe just "murder". But I call them "legal
> >murder".
> >
> As I said.. you can SAY it until the cows come home... and it will NEVER
> become a FACT. It will always remain simply that you said it... as an
> opinion.
That's indeed an opinion. The fact is that executions exist, unfortunately,
but will hopefully be abandonned as a way of punishment. Ryan's decision was
very encouraging in that sense.
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only
to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of
securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the
general welfare in a democratic society. " (article 29 al. 2)
This article recognises the possibility to limit rights and freedoms in
order to ensure public order and the respect of freedoms and rights of
others, and hence opens the way to imprisonment of criminals.
That, however, can't be deemed as enabling death penalty, because the
purpose of this article is only to limit rights and freedoms in a temporary
way. Death penalty is not a temporary limitation of the right to life: it is
definitive.
> In truth,
> that article has NOTHING to do with capital punishment, and you
> well know it. The entire Charter has nothing to do with Capital
> Punishment either.
It has to do with human rights. Capital punishment is a violation of human
rights and appears to be in violation of article 3 (if not article 5 as
well).
> >
> >> They must then have, in your view, the "liberty" to recommit
> >> those murders, as a RIGHT. Further, that article would seem to support
> >> the "right" of every human to possess a firearm, to insure the security
of
> >his
> >> person.
> >
> >That's what you imagine, but that's not what I have said. Article 3 says
> >that all individuals "have the right to freedom", which certainly doesn't
> >include the freedom to do something illegal - hence no "liberty to
recommit
> >murder".
> >
> It you presume that a CRIME negates what right they have to LIBERTY,
> and we CAN take away that liberty, then it is clear that a CRIME can also
> negative the right they have to LIFE in that same article. You don't MAKE
> the rules, or the exclusions. That article speaks of LIFE and LIBERTY in
> the SAME meaning, separated ONLY by a simple grammatically necessary
> comma.
But taking a right or liberty for some time and taking it for ever is
certainly not the same. What can be justified in one case, can't be
justified in another one because it becomes a violation of human rights.
> >I let you follow your reflexion on firearms. I have several times, on
this
> >newsgroup, suggested that abolition of Amendment 2 would do much better
than
> >any capital execution to diminish crime in the US. At least, we seem to
> >agree on this.
> >
> Hardly... I hold Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution as essential to the
rights
> of Americans to self-protection. Do I believe that right means that we do
> not have more homicides? No. If there were NO GUNS, of course there
> would be less homicides.
Indeed. And it would save a lot of lives and play a great role in reducing
crime. Without mentioning lethal accidents.
(snip)
>
> >> >> Nowhere is there any agreement that a sovereign state cannot execute
> >> >> those it finds necessary to do so under the law. Much of the same
is
> >> >> written into the U.S. Constitution... and none of it ABOLISHES the
DP.
> >> >
> >> >Recognising "right to life" as a human right is enough to consider
> >> >executions as unjustified under a human rights approach. Whether the
US
> >> >considers right to life and executions as compatible is a
contradiction
> >it
> >> >will have to overcome in the future.
> >> >
> >> No, actually that's only your opinion, since nowhere in that document
> >> does it even speak of executions under the law of any sovereign
society.
> >> In effect, you are attempting to perpetrate a LIE, through the
distortion
> >> of those words. You are the one attempting to offer a contradiction,
> >> in a rather filthy attempt to call "murder" -- "Legal."
> >
> >If "legal murder" is a contradiction, it's not due to me, but to the
> >contradictory logic of killing humans to show that killing is bad.
> >
> No... it's solely due to you... in the distortion of the English language,
> and logic which you do not deny with your admission that your statement
> is "paradoxical."
It's an oxymoron, a paradoxical formula frequently used in English
("deafening silence", "cruel kindness"... etc).
(snip)
Yes, I get to. First, because it is precisely the sense in which I use this
word. Second, because it is also the most widely accepted sense of this word
(http://www.onelook.com/?w=universal&ls=a).
(snip)
> >> They are only WORDS in that Charter, and they IGNORE the clear
> >> counter-examples I've provided that PROVE, that although it is a
_lofty_
> >> thought... its EXISTENCE is factually disproved.
> >
> >Your remark doesn't entail the relevance of the Declaration of Human
Rights
> >as a compendium of principles that should be fulfilled.
> >
> yada, yada, yada... Can you hear how pathetic you sound? SHOULD BE!!!
> I've never argue with SHOULD BE...but I'll certainly call you a fool if
you
> presume it IS. The danger is in PRESUMING it IS. Thus, presuming we have
> no further to go.
I never said I *presumed* it *is*, though you obviously misinterpreted it
this way. But the existence of a text like the UN Declaration is important
to recall that it should be, whenever it *is not*.
> >> >> and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
> >> >> you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making
> >these
> >> >> STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your
OPINION
> >> >> can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And
it's
> >> >disgusting...
> >> >> since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming
> >> >opinion
> >> >> can become fact.
> >> >
> >> >Claiming human rights are universal is a fact.
> >> >
> >> "Claiming human rights are universal" is an OPINION. You may in FACT
> >> STATE that OPINION... but it cannot CHANGE fantasy into reality.
> >
> >Human rights are universal, because they are "of worldwide scope and
> >applicability".
>
> Rubbish.
No. That's the raison d'etre of human rights, and *here* it's not an
opinion. If you say the contrary, you suggest that some people can't enjoy
human rights and adopt a kind of relativist approach based on a racist
vision (like "human rights are a concept that doesn't belong at all to the
culture of these people" etc...). In other words, some category of people
deserve human rights, and some others don't deserve them. That, once again,
would be utterly racist.
>
> >"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
> >as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to
the
> >end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
> >Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
> >promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
measures,
> >national and international, to secure their universal and effective
> >recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
> >themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
jurisdiction."
> >
> I don't care what they put on paper... they PROCLAIM, but they are
> NOT GODS. The proof can ONLY come if there are no counter-examples
> which refute the existence.
They don't need to be gods. They proclaimed and, by doing so, gave everyone
rights that can and should be respected.
> >The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was universal because it is
"of
> >worldwide scope or applicability", and consequently the human rights it
> >proclaims are universal as well. That's not an opinion, that's a legal
> >conclusion.
> >
> And, let me think... lawyers are GODS???
Stop thinking if you can't perform any better.
> >> One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
> >> url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
> >> Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
> >> background. There on the left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes
> >> of the 'provider of the Universal Right to Life,' peering from the
brush.
> >> How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything'
right
> >> that all 'life' possesses? Where is your "right" for that child?
> >
> >I already replied to you. His right is to receive financial help from the
> >richer countries.
>
> Oh, yeah... I'm sure they're working on it, as we speak. But meanwhile,
> at this MOMENT... it doesn't EXIST. Thus the concept also doesn't
> EXIST. You're so pathetic.
The concept exists, even though reality shows otherwise.
> >"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
> >as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to
the
> >end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
> >Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
> >promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
measures,
> >national and international, to secure their universal and effective
> >recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
> >themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
"
> >
> >(Preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights)
> >
> ROTFLMAO. You really are into simply copying... but not understanding,
> aren't you?
I wish you could understand when I say something once, but it seems I need
to repeat what I say.
You've been showing this picture to tell that, since it doesn't exist in
reality, it also doesn't exist legally (as I pointed out). Once again, I
never *presumed* it exists in reality, but you *presumed* that non-existence
in reality entailed juridical existence - and this is quite stupid.
> > I underlined the need to strive for the
> >respect of human rights, and this is why, while recognising executions do
> >legally exist, I oppose them in the name of the respect of human rights.
> >
> Horse manure. You've been arguing that it is ILLEGAL to do so.
> Calling it "Legal Murder," BECAUSE of the EXISTENCE of those
> rights you've spoken of. Now you claim they DON'T EXIST.
No, YOU claim that. These rights do exist legally, and they need to be
enforced. This is why, based on that text, I consider executions are a
violation of human rights.
> But
> are only goals.
As universal abolition is my goal.
> Which is what I've been saying all along. They are
> lofty principles.
No. They are useful principles that need to be fulfilled and respected.
> But man is INCAPABLE of making them happen.
> Certainly not in your lifetime, or the lifetime of your children, or their
> children. I am a realist... you are incapable of being a realist. And
> that is a dangerous position to take, in respect to our species.
Maybe, and then? It's not a reason to sit down and watch at violations with
approving eyes, as you seem inclined to do.
> > as my purpose is to oppose
> >executions in the name of human rights. Each execution, wherever it takes
> >place, makes me indeed presume that human rights are violated in that
place.
> >
> As I said.. you can PRESUME anything you wish... but do NOT
> try to frame it in a dialog that presumes you are speaking FACTUALLY.
> You are simply voicing an opinion.
And then? I have the right to affirm it and won't accept your attempts to
censor me.
> >> And when
> >> we speak of it as _universal_, there is the implication that
> >> _someone_... someone greater than us (since we obviously
> >> have no control over the UNIVERSE)... has provided that to
> >> us... and we need no longer concern ourselves with it... since
> >> it's _just there_.
> >
> >Point invalid. Human rights are a universal value because all UN member
> >States decided to say so in a Declaration and recognise that all humans
> >should enjoy those rights. Nothing to do with the universe, and no
volunty
> >to even control it. Human rights are a secular value.
> >
> Then why don't all humans have them, if they are _universal_ to ALL
> HUMANS? And who decided that it would be limited to HUMANS?
> Why not chimpanzees?
LOL!!!!!!!!
Because it's HUMAN rights, not ANIMAL rights. Can you see the difference
now?
> How can
> WE be so arrogant to presume that one specific biological life form has
> these _rights_? And EXACTLY what _rights_ are they?
I can only give you one advice: write quickly a Universal Declaration of
canine rights and send it to Kofi Annan. I'm interested in getting human
rights respected, and that's already a lot. In this, I may be much more
realistic than you are.
>
> >> But you cannot even define at what point it
> >> begins. Since I clearly asked you, and it remains unanswered
> >> exactly where in the taxonomy classification of even the animal
> >> kingdom (much less all biological life forms), does such a right
> >> begin? If it's _universal_, why do some in that kingdom have
> >> it, and others don't? Who DECIDED?
> >
> >Their governments do.
>
> That certainly doesn't make them _universal_.
Yes, it does. These governments are supposed to represent their peoples,
just like when they take any international commitment.
> Actually, I would
> think every human on the planet would need to VOTE that they
> accept what is written there. And since when do governments
> decide for the rest of the Animal kingdom?
LOL!!! Because it's a declaration of human rights, not animal rights!
> > Sometimes also history does. Individuals, by their
> >actions, may also influence on this, but basic human rights like freedom
of
> >opinion and right to life must be granted and recognised by governments
in
> >the first hand. That's all the problem of unequalities in this world. But
> >the objective of human rights remains pertinent whatever violations there
> >may be.
> >
> Objective.. not reality.
Which doesn't take anything from the validity of human rights as a concept
to judge iniquitious acts.
> >> These are questions
> >> you cannot answer without depending on the cognitive abilities
> >> of Man having decided for HIMSELF what those rights are.
> >> Nothing _universal_ about them at all.
> >
> >I just answered them, and this answer does in no way entail the universal
> >value of human rights, as a set of principles "of worldwide scope or
> >availability".
> >
> Good grief... can you ever speak about things that exist? You post
> as if you're a demigod.
I speak about executions, which exist and though are a clear violation of
human rights as they have been universally recognised in the UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
> >
> >> >> When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
> >> >> it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities
> >> >around us.
> >> >
> >> >No. Racism is saying that some people shouldn't hope getting basic
human
> >> >rights under the pretext they don't have them already.
> >> >
> >> No.. you have presumed that stating _universal human rights_ somehow
> >> abolishes racism along with it. And you state that we DO have
_universal
> >> human rights_, which certainly presumes thusly that racism has been
> >> abolished. You said in respect to your presumed EXISTENCE of
_universal
> >> human rights --- "Saying the contrary... would be utterly racist."
> >
> >Yes. Saying that human rights aren't universal would mean that human
rights
> >have a scope or applicability limited to certain groups of humans, and
this
> >would be utterly racist.
> >
> No.. saying that they EXIST, in the face of what IS racism, is abject
> hypocrisy.
They do exist legally and recalling this is a way to recall governments of
the commitments they took.
(remaining nonsense snipped)
> >> It is the disgusting presumption of
> >> the EXISTENCE of a _universal human right_ that presumes racism
> >> does not exist. But the very fact it DOES... demonstrates that a
> >> _universal human right_ DOES NOT EXIST.
> >
> >Human rights are universal.
>
> You can't even define what _rights_ you're speaking of. What ARE
> _human rights_?
Look in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
> > Legally, since the UN Universal Declaration of
> >Human Rights, human rights are universal. Article 2 says "Everyone is
> >entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
> >without distinction of any kind, such as race (I snip the remaining
part)".
> >That alone shows that human rights are universal.
> >
> I repeat... if that's true... what about that CHILD??? What about
> ghettos all over the world?
This reality doesn't undermine the juridical value of the rights entailed in
the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What I would like you to
understand is that this juridical value is the basis upon which you can ask
justice for those whose rights are being violated. That seems obvious, but
getting you understand that is quite difficult.
So let me tell you in a few words, with capital letters as you like it:
You have REALITY on one side, and you have LEGAL RIGHTS on the other side.
Everyday, REALITY shows violations of rights, whetever LAWS forbid or
prohibit. When a crime takes place, it is SUPPOSEDLY forbidden by law and
YET the law didn't prevent the crime.
Does it mean the LAW should be repealed? No. Does it mean the LAW is invalid
and that invoking it to get the RIGHTS it grants really respected, is
impossible? No.
That's the same with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Violations of human
rights happen daily, and yet it is perfectly normal to invoke this text in
order to DENOUNCE violations that took and take place.
And this is exactly what I do regarding executions.
Understood, now?
> >> I am not arguing that
> >> it wouldn't be _nice_ if it did, nor am I arguing that it is not a
lofty
> >concept
> >> that we should strive to achieve. But it certainly doesn't EXIST.
> >> And it's the height of hypocrisy to presume it does... since it implies
> >> _our work is finished here_, simply in the existence of that ideal.
> >
> >No, it implies that you can invoke the UN Declaration of Human Rights to
> >denounce any violation of human rights, which I consistantly do when I
> >oppose executions.
> >
> Since that declaration doesn't even speak of the word "executions"
> you're simply USING IT, for your own devious design. As many others
> do with many written documents.
It refers to life, which is enough to make it a relevant text against
executions.
> >
> >> >> Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce
> >> >_everything
> >> >> is all right_.
> >> >
> >> >I never said that. You imagined it.
> >> >
> >> Please.. when you SAY that _universal human rights_ EXIST... you are
> >> STATING that _everything is all right_, and requires no further work to
> >> achieve what has already been achieved. The very fact that many are
> >> DEPRIVED of that concept is PROOF that it does not EXIST. Nothing
> >> to do with a goal. But you presume the journey is ended, and it has
> >hardly
> >> begun.
> >
> >No. That's an abusive deduction you make, and it doesn't involve what I
say.
> >Once again, intellectual dishonesty.
> >
> LOL... It seems like every time I _catch you_, you claim it is an
> _abusive deduction_. Perhaps YOU should be more careful in composing
> your words.
Perhaps you should be more careful in reading what I say, and not what you
believe/want/dream I could say.
> >> Nor is abolishing the DP for murderers part of that process, since
> >> it presumes we expect to forgive ALL of those who murder. Which can
> >> hardly be seen as a lofty goal, or an expression of _human rights_ for
> >> the victims.
> >
> >Here again intellectual dishonesty. Abolishing the DP for murderers
wouldn't
> >mean forgiving murderers, but commuting their sentence into life
> >imprisonment, a penalty that respects human rights.
> >
> Why? Why does THAT respect _human rights_, while execution does
> not?
Because it respects life.
> Since Article 3 says "life, liberty..." You make this definitions and
> determinations without anything other than your opinion. It would seem
> that you've simply DISTORTED it, to suit your agenda, which is abolition.
> But you don't have a problem with caging murderers like ANIMALS for the
> rest of their natural life. But gee... aren't humans supposedly HIGHER
> than other animals?
Imprisonment is by nature a non-definitive punishment and thus can't be put
on the same level as execution. It always allows the possibility that the
punishment be ended before its term.
> >Besides, the victims don't have any "human right to see murderers
executed".
> >That's a fraud.
> >
> Oh... so _victims_ have no _human rights_?
You see how you twist what I say!!!! I say "victims don't have any human
right to see murderers executed", and you translate it by "victims_ have no
_human rights". How stupid and how dishonest from you....
> >> >> Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
> >> >> _universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
> >> >> DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
> >> >> humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_.
> >> >
> >> >Of course it is universal. It is recognised as such by the UN
Declaration
> >of
> >> >Human Rights: "of worldwide scope or applicability". Whether it is
> >> >universally applied in the reality matters few, since the universality
of
> >> >human rights is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration of Human
> >Rights.
> >> >
> >> Ah, yes... that document written by God... pardon me for doubting your
> >> pronouncement from FAITH.
> >
> >Written by God??? And I thought it had been written by Rene Cassin!!!!!
> >
> Oh, yeah.. he just THINKS he's God.
No, you do, because you can't make the difference between Mose's tables of
the law and a UN Declaration that is just an international treaty.
No, I use it as a legal text according to which death penalty is a violation
of human rights.
> And it's deplorable, that you would take a lofty principle such as that
> stated in the Charter, to presume it PROTECTS MURDERERS.
Protects murderers???? Only protects their human rights, which is just very
normal.
> It does not.. it does not say that anywhere... it does not even speak
> to any justice system. The reason we have gone down this road,
> is because you first insisted that those principles in the charter were
> INVIOLATE.
I never said that. You invent it, once again.
> But I have shown they are violated with impunity.
Which doesn't undermine their value.
(remaining nonsense snipped)
> >But once again, I stress that transforming the meaning of "universal
human
> >rights" from "human rights of worldwide scope and applicability" to
> >"world-wide respected human rights", as you persistently do, is
> >intellectually dishonest.
> >
> No... actually it is intellectually dishonest NOT to transform those
> words as you've stated them. In fact, they need even FURTHER
> distancing between what you say... and what you presume I say.
> Do you know in that Charter one certain four-letter word does
> not exist? (no... not that kind of four letter word). The word I'm
> thinking of is "goal."
It contains "achieve" and "achievement", for instance in that sentence:
"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation
with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, " (Preamble)
This has clearly the meaning of goals.
> It seems to me that the Charter itself, as you,
> presumes those clear OBJECTIVES, are simply already a
> reality.
And this shows you simply didn't read the Declaration (which is different
from the Charter, bu the way).
HAHA!!!!! So if there is a news report that says Santa Clara exists, you
will actually believe it?
I give you a URL from an international organization that is well-known for
the serious of its statistics and the only reply you found were unnamed
"news reports"! That's pathetic.
> >> >> is consuming IGNORANCE... It is IMMORAL...
> >> >> It is ABSOLUTISM (which is akin to despotism).... It is BLINDNESS...
> >> >> It is HYPOCRISY. And it DOES NOT EXIST. _Universal rights_ implies
> >> >> _perfect man_... and that is so arrogant and blind a presumption
that I
> >> >want to
> >> >> vomit.
> >> >
> >> >Universal rights imply nothing but a universal implementation of these
> >> >rights, which is a very realistic objective.
> >>
> >> You just keep proving me right... and proving me right again. You now
> >> ADMIT it is an OBJECTIVE, and not a reality, which has been MY argument
> >> all along.
> >
> >Haha!!! Do you remember where this tread comes from? On March 2nd, in
> >posting nº161574 of this newsgroup, I told Jigsaw: "The abolition of the
> >death penalty is a matter of human rights."
> >
> But it isn't. Since you've never even defined _human rights_.
I told you these rights were in the UN Declaration.
> And certainly
> the U.N. Charter doesn't state that "no state can execute murderers."
It states there is a "right to life" in the regard of which executions are a
violation of human rights.
> And
> certainly your statement presumes the EXISTENCE of _human rights_,
> yet you're now shifting toward stating they are _an objective_.
They exist legally. If they are violated in reality, these violations must
be denounced in order that repairing measures be taken. I never said
anything else than that.
> >You seem to have just rediscovered warm water. Of course, the respect of
> >human rights is an objective and not a reality!
>
> You've been claiming all along that it's a REALITY. And you're doing
> some quick back stepping now.
Not at all. The UN Declaration exists really, and it is the legal basis for
human rights that are universally recognised: even though these human rights
are violated every day, they do exist legally and their legal existence
enables to denounce violations and ask for reparatory measures to be taken.
> > What
> >you present as YOUR argument is not an argument at all. It's a mere
notice
> >that everyone can do all the time, but it certainly doesn't justify
> >renouncing the objective of human rights respect to fight human rights
> >violations.
> >
> I notice that you are now beginning to use the word "objective."
> Hummm... wonder why?
Because I denounce a violation of a human right that exists and has been
legally recognised.
> >
> >> Although I disagree that there is even a remote
> >> possibility that it is realistic within the next 100 years. You have
now
> >> confirmed that it does not EXIST.
> >
> >I never said it exists. That's what YOU imagined when I began referring
to
> >human rights, because you always misinterpret what others write to
> >accomodate to views.
> >
> But of course you said it exists. And you claim that it is violated, when
> the U.S. executes.
Yes, and this is why I denounce it.
> >because an execution is a planned, state-sponsored killing, which
surpasses
> >any murder in cruelty.
> >
> yada, yada, yada. At least you're no longer calling it "legal murder,"
and
> referring to it as it correctly is. Unfortunately you still are confused
as to
> the fact that murder is many times more cruel.
-- "An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the
privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a
rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization
which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death."
Camus
Contrary to what you wrote, executions are much more cruel than crimes.
True enough. It's Article 3, as you perfectly know (note that it's the UN
Declaration of Human Rights and not the UN Charter, two quite different
texts).
> >> None of them as dangerous as motor vehicle traffic. You are
> >> avoiding the argument. You are saying that something that did not
> >> exist 150 years ago, has become necessary today, although it has
> >> cost 1 million lives in the past 25 years. While something which
> >> existed 150 years ago, has become unnecessary today, although
> >> its stated purpose is to SAVE innocent lives. Can you possibly
> >> see the hypocrisy in that view?
> >
> >That's a mere constatation. Life imprisonment is a substitute thanks to
> >which we can say the death penalty is not necessary. That's all
Beccaria's
> >thesis.
> >
> While Mill and many others conclude the DP is an essential element
> in a just society.
They mistake. Justice doesn't imply death penalty, which it's not a
necessary punishment.
> > Besides, abolition of death penalty is
> >necessary because life imprisonment constitutes a perfect substitute.
> >
> Rubbish... Here's your _perfect substitute_
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Arthur J. Bomar, Jr. was released from prison in Nevada on
> parole in 1990.
Bad implementation of imprisonment doesn't undermine it as a substitute.
Many people were released in the US because states didn't want to raise
taxes and build more prisons. Populism has a price, and this price made have
been increased by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
(remaining snipped: mismanagement of life imprisonment in the US can't hide
that this measure is working well in all other places, and this just shows
that the US justice system needs reform).
> >> >> Since the object is public safety. While the only purpose
> >> >> of motor vehicles is _increased mobility_. Society well recognizes
the
> >> >> trade-off it makes in accidental loss of innocent lives, each time
it
> >> >> provides a driver's license. It might as well be providing a
lottery
> >> >> ticket for an executioner. And the reason society does so... is
> >because
> >> >> the members of those societies ACCEPT that risk to themselves and
> >> >> others for that trade-off in increased mobility. Just as members of
> >> >> societies that have the DP ACCEPT that risk to themselves and others
> >> >> for that trade-off in increased SAFETY.
> >> >
> >> >Except that there is no alternative to motor vehicles now, while there
> >> >exists an alternative to the death penalty.
> >>
> >> Rubbish... you are presuming that something which did not even EXIST
> >> 150 years ago, has now become something that has no alternative???
> >
> >No, I say it has become an alternative to something that, for centuries,
has
> >enabled only to kill innocents without proving to be an answer to crime.
> >
> I haven't heard of an executed murderer ever murdering again? Have you?
I never heard that a murderer would unavoidably kill again. Where does this
presumption come from, if it's not from a biased mind?
> >> Why are you intent on being so deceptive? Don't you think others (of
> >> course NO ONE has read this far) can SEE your duplicity??
> >
> >You're the one who is deceptive here. The vanity of your argument can be
> >summarised in one sentence: "the death penalty is justified because some
> >societies decide so". Not really moral.
> >
> Of course, that is perfect justification.
No. Laws can be iniquitious. Some decades ago, a part of the society in your
country had decided that racial segregation was legal. That law guaranteed
everyday violations of human rights, and yet, it *never* justified racial
segregation from a human rights perspective - because it was iniquitious.
Euro
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:19:57 +0000
>
>le Wed, 12 Mar 2003 06:33:00 GMT, dans l'article <nakt6vsl7lnfnvf5neis5k8=
>he44d...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...=20
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>{ snip one of the most glorious, dignified yet savage spankings that
>>>_anyone_ has yet delivered to FW }
>>>
>>>*applause*
>
>> Yeah, right... euro is revealed as an hi1k clone, posting under another
>> handle, and desi begins applauding like a trained seal. How typical.
>> desi will next be sucking up to hi1k, to see if he can't get him to als=
>o
>> _vote_ for that ol' racist, desi.
>
>Poor ol' FuckWit ... like a sparrow that's trapped by the domestic cat, h=
>e
>'goes native', and limits his posts to a litany (ha, ha, ha ...) of
>gimmicks, which I have taken the time to list. The above was a perfect
>invocation of gimmick n=B0 73, the 'everyone who spanks me is a friend of
>desi [sic]' gimmick ...
>
>url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/73.html
>
>{ snip FW's bellowing of rage at being caught out again }
>
>--=20
>Des The Deathie Spanker=20=20=20=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!uio.no!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212
-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Poor old God
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:19:57 +0000
>Lines: 37
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <t366k-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <3e636edb$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><3e64a...@news.meganetnews.com>
><uj6b6vgdsm8garn57...@4ax.com>
><3e65e72a$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><ch0e6v4cglsusokbf...@4ax.com>
><3e676b83$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><ss2j6vs22n5hkvgl1...@4ax.com>
><3e69d252$1...@news.meganetnews.com>
><cedo6v0fbrouqbcqk...@4ax.com>
><3e6c91cd$1...@news.meganetnews.com> <fhkuj-...@zeouane.org>
><nakt6vsl7lnfnvf5n...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047554630 70124270 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
Actually, the way that was worded it WAS my comment from another post,
and my comment which had just been correctly attributed a few paragraphs prior...
which was well recognized in both places, to be a quote. One has only to go to --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=UtQp9.73988%24S8.1170370%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
To see that I attributed those words as a direct quote, and placed them in
quotes thusly --
-------------------------------
"And see --
http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/louise_woodward.html
Quoting -- "The ex-Louise Woodward lawyer, Elaine Whitfield-Sharp,
recently caught for drink driving made remarkable claims in a
taped telephone call regarding her client. Excerpts from the taped
call were published in UK newspapers.
In a staggering breach of client confidentiality she branded the au pair
as a "duplicitous, lying monster" from a "very, low class family" who
lied over plans to sell her story.
She also said that the she now believes the au pair killed baby
Matthew Eappen."
-------------------------------
In the post you offer, I was referring to the fact that _I_ had commented
on those words in that first post. And had AGAIN in the SAME post where
I use the term -- _I_ -- had posted the attribution to those words. In these
words again in that second post --
-----------------------------------------------
And see --
http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/louise_woodward.html
Quoting -- "The ex-Louise Woodward lawyer, Elaine Whitfield-Sharp,
recently caught for drink driving made remarkable claims in a
taped telephone call regarding her client. Excerpts from the taped
call were published in UK newspapers.
In a staggering breach of client confidentiality she branded the au pair
as a "duplicitous, lying monster" from a "very, low class family" who
lied over plans to sell her story.
She also said that the she now believes the au pair killed baby
Matthew Eappen."
------------------------------------------------
You really need to look at those two posts that drove JPB into his raging hysterics,
because he could not stand the fact that others realized a member of the defense
team was corrupt. JPB is well known for lying and deceptive practices. My message,
which included that full attribution, that so drove JPB into his usual insane frenzy,
can be found at --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=povo4vgccltmtoj2l9g3sd64ekj8bj2cp0%404ax.com
And if you READ the words in that second post I state only that THOSE
WORDS EXIST in my first post... not that they are MINE. And they are
placed in quotation marks. And they certainly DO EXIST in that first post of
mine. Even if they were fully attributed in both instances.
>You will try anything to wriggle out of this one, won't you?
>
>UNQUOTE
Apparently you are no better than him in attempting deceptive distortions. Since
I quoted that source in the FIRST post, and in the SAME post which drew his
fury. There is no doubt that ANYONE reading that post would realize that
I was not presuming they were MY words, but stating they were a quote from
my first post, and a repeat of what I had quoted in that same post... BOTH posts
fully attributing the source. You will not find a post from me that attributes those
words to me, which does not contain within that post, recognition of the attribution
of those words. The fact that I mention I had commented on it... simply means I
had commented by USING the attribution... and giving full credit to where it had
been sourced.
The next question is... how low will you go to distort??? Since your ENTIRE
plagiarism contained no possibility of anyone presuming those words were not
yours... and you were truly embarrassed when I showed how pathetic you needed
to be. You didn't even bother to put them in quotes. While mine were ALWAYS
placed in quotes, which provided clear attributions. And yours were extensive
lengthy posts, three of them, containing NOTHING but plagiarized material, not
one word being original from you, extremely pompous, and an attempt to portray
yourself as quite learned, without the SLIGHTEST mention of a source -- See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28587%24Gb1.6853721%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28589%24Gb1.6853464%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28588%24Gb1.6852001%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
You should be ASHAMED of yourself, instead of rooting around for some pitiful
EXCUSE for your blatant and deceptive plagiarism.
PV
>
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:92m27vo8mfg0uboc3...@4ax.com...
You should stop giving lessons when you show you're not up to do it.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Actually, you've argued quite hysterically that it is a FACTUAL view, rather
than an absurd illogical opinion. But if you now agree it is only your absurd
illogical opinion, similar to stating that _the Earth is flat_, I have no problem
with that, other than it generates in me an amused smile.
> YOU are the one who believed I presented it as
>a fact - maybe that could have been avoided if I began all my sentences by
>"I think",
That, in itself, would take a stretch of the imagination...
> but you should also always understand what others say with this
>in mind. I'm here only to defend my opinions, not to present facts - else I
>would rely on others and stop losing my time sending posters on this
>newsgroup.
>
You're also here to defend some very shaky moral arguments, using quite
a bit of plagiarism and hyperbole in the process.
>Anyway, I'm glad to learn from you that I can have the opinions I like to
>have, but I didn't expect anything else.
>
I've never denied anyone their OPINION... as long as they don't try to
foist it off as fact. Such as you did with citing the U.N. Declaration as some
FACT which prohibits the execution of murderers by a sovereign nation.
Once again... if you cannot see that you are presuming to offer that as a
FACT... then I must again remind you, it is an opinion. One countered
quite easily by a great number of other opinions of people on this planet.
Even most of those here who are strongly anti-DP, would never presume
to call a lawful execution MURDER.
Simply more baloney. One cannot base an argument on a presumed
oxymoron. In fact your statement "executions are legal murders," is more
aptly described as a paradoxical statement. One which CANNOT be true.
Even in a rhetorical sense to try and make a point. Since you ADMIT
you are attempting to describe it in terms of an oxymoron, you must realize
you admit that it is a self-contradictory and absurd conclusion. Which is
enough for any rational person to DISMISS it as silliness. Just as all
oxymorons are recognized as similar to Carroll's rather famous use of
them to demonstrate how flawed they are.
>> >> >> in a most deceptive manner to contend that what is lawful can be
>> >> >> unlawful.
>> >> >
>> >> >... which I never actually said, but, as Bertrand Russell said "A
>stupid
>> >> >man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because
>he
>> >> >unconciously translates what he hears into something he can
>understand".
>> >You
>> >> >show once more how true he was.
>> >> >
>> >> What you actually said was that "execution is nothing else than legal
>> >murder."
>> >> But in fact, that admits to the EXISTENCE of "legal murder."
>> >
>> >Yes, executions are.
>> >
>> No... you simply cannot do that. Although you can do so as an opinion.
>> But you cannot FACTUALLY limit "legal murder" to one specific aspect
>> of murder. Murder itself is EITHER legal or illegal. It cannot be both.
>
>Executions are legal murders. I have nothing more to add.
>
Which means you also believe _the earth is flat_. Of course, nothing more
can be added to that statement either.. except some rather quizzical stares from
others who might question your sanity.
>>
>> >> Regardless
>> >> of the use of "execution," you have said that "LEGAL MURDER" EXISTS.
>> >
>> >No. I said legal murder exists, and it is executions. Your way to twist
>what
>> >I say can also be called intellectual dishonesty.
>> >
>> Actually, sport. The twisting is the presumption that you can DIVIDE
>> murder into two separate entities called "legal murder" and "illegal
>murder."
>> And that can only be done using opinion. Since ALL murder is not
>> defined in such a manner. It is EITHER ALL legal, or ALL illegal.
>
>Murder is actually illegal, but executions are "legal murders". The value
>added of this expression, apart from being short, is that it also hints that
>executions are an illegitimate way of punishment and should hence be
>abandonned.
>
Hint...executions are legitimate, in respect to conforming to law or rule.
Being sanctioned by such law. You can oppose the DP, but you CANNOT
state it is not LEGAL. Because it FACTUALLY is. And when you argue
that murder can be the DP, then you are not affecting the DP itself, but
diminishing MURDER... presuming to make it LEGAL. You are in fact,
now claiming that MURDER is LEGAL.
>
>> >> And, of course, if you claim it does.. that makes "MURDER LEGAL." If
>> >> you presume you can say it about executions, that leaves the clear
>meaning
>> >> that other murders must also be LEGAL. You have, in fact, determined
>that
>> >> the LAWS of society are INVALID... and ALL murder is legal. Since
>> >> society DETERMINES what is "legal."
>> >
>> >This is why I say that executions are "legal murder". If I didn't
>recognise
>> >the fact that societies define what is legal, I'd call executions
>> >"state-sponsored murder", or maybe just "murder". But I call them "legal
>> >murder".
>> >
>> As I said.. you can SAY it until the cows come home... and it will NEVER
>> become a FACT. It will always remain simply that you said it... as an
>> opinion.
>
>That's indeed an opinion. The fact is that executions exist, unfortunately,
>but will hopefully be abandonned as a way of punishment. Ryan's decision was
>very encouraging in that sense.
>
ROTFLMAO...
"determined by law"!!! Can't you see that? You seem to be citing passages
which SUPPORT the _right_ of the state to take whatever action through
laws that it considers necessary to insure "public order."
>This article recognises the possibility to limit rights and freedoms in
>order to ensure public order and the respect of freedoms and rights of
>others, and hence opens the way to imprisonment of criminals.
>
Actually, it does not limit what society may do in order to ensure "public
order." You simply wish to read into it, what is most certainly not there.
>That, however, can't be deemed as enabling death penalty, because the
>purpose of this article is only to limit rights and freedoms in a temporary
>way. Death penalty is not a temporary limitation of the right to life: it is
>definitive.
>
ROTFLMAO... Once again... a silly conclusion based on no fact whatsoever.
>> In truth,
>> that article has NOTHING to do with capital punishment, and you
>> well know it. The entire Declaration has nothing to do with Capital
>> Punishment either.
>
>It has to do with human rights. Capital punishment is a violation of human
>rights and appears to be in violation of article 3 (if not article 5 as
>well).
>
No... murder is a violation of human rights. Capital punishment is neither
mentioned nor excluded in that entire Declaration. And you well know it.
Further, you have deceptively tried before to presume that the Declaration
was explicit in such, and it is not. Then you tried to presume there was
such a thing in EXISTENCE as _universal human rights_, and had to
admit that it is only an objective. Clearly, if it is only an objective, don't
you think war, racism, poverty, starvation, pestilence, birth defects,
oppression of innocents, murder, other crimes against person, unsafe
climatic conditions, natural calamities, slavery, treatment of the terminally
ill, illiteracy, religious persecutions, and so many others demonstrations of
those things that afflict our species should take PRIORITY over the execution
of ~800 PROVEN MURDERERS in 25 years? If you are so concerned
with the objective of _individual human rights_, why is your focus on
this almost trivial fact, considering all the other facts which could certainly
improve our species more than keeping ~800 proven murderers alive?
While it is a certainty that many murderers we HAVE kept alive have
gone on to murder AGAIN and AGAIN. It would seem that the
PROTECTION of those who have done us harm, and certainly intend
to do us further harm, would be well down the list of our concerns in
respect to any _universal human rights_. I do believe the subject of
solving the affliction of warts on the penis, holds a higher priority.
I have always said that I would trade my support for the DP in AN
INSTANT, if either racism was abolished, or on-demand abortion in
the U.S. was eliminated. You see, ~800 proven murderers are not
that important in the larger scheme of things, and I usually argue only
that the U.S. has whatever right it wishes to enact laws which punish
murderers, irrespective of what other societies presume to do. NO
ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. But I would never deny
that society can decide that some murderers deserve to be executed.
You seem to never be able to separate the two.
>> >
>> >> They must then have, in your view, the "liberty" to recommit
>> >> those murders, as a RIGHT. Further, that article would seem to support
>> >> the "right" of every human to possess a firearm, to insure the security
>of
>> >his
>> >> person.
>> >
>> >That's what you imagine, but that's not what I have said. Article 3 says
>> >that all individuals "have the right to freedom", which certainly doesn't
>> >include the freedom to do something illegal - hence no "liberty to
>recommit
>> >murder".
>> >
>> It you presume that a CRIME negates what right they have to LIBERTY,
>> and we CAN take away that liberty, then it is clear that a CRIME can also
>> negative the right they have to LIFE in that same article. You don't MAKE
>> the rules, or the exclusions. That article speaks of LIFE and LIBERTY in
>> the SAME meaning, separated ONLY by a simple grammatically necessary
>> comma.
>
>But taking a right or liberty for some time and taking it for ever is
>certainly not the same.
Actually, according to the Declaration, it certain IS. Separated only
by a grammatically necessary comma.
> What can be justified in one case, can't be
>justified in another one because it becomes a violation of human rights.
>
LOL.
>
>> >I let you follow your reflexion on firearms. I have several times, on
>this
>> >newsgroup, suggested that abolition of Amendment 2 would do much better
>than
>> >any capital execution to diminish crime in the US. At least, we seem to
>> >agree on this.
>> >
>> Hardly... I hold Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution as essential to the
>rights
>> of Americans to self-protection. Do I believe that right means that we do
>> not have more homicides? No. If there were NO GUNS, of course there
>> would be less homicides.
>
>Indeed. And it would save a lot of lives and play a great role in reducing
>crime. Without mentioning lethal accidents.
>
And it would TAKE AWAY my right to self-defense. Which is rather
fundamental to every principles provided by society. And certainly is
seen as filling a role in our _urge to survive_ as a species. There are some
things that necessarily have a cost associated with them. Such as operation
of a motor vehicle, as I have already pointed out. We (society) well
recognize that it trades innocent lives which are CERTAIN to be lost,
by providing increased mobility. Disarming the population is the REMOVAL
of a _right_ rather than it can be seen as any possibility of the granting of
a right. I would refer you to this quote --
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history
will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation
of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
--"Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446
And since you are a _great proponent_ of Baccaria, see --
http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Quotations.aspx?PhilCode=Becc
Quoting -- "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crimes."
In other words... it's no better than something from Alice in Wonderland.
And you presume to base YOUR ARGUMENT on such nonsense??
Where is the REALITY in your argument... rather than something which
might have been spoken by the Mad Hatter?
No... seriously, euro... you DON'T get to define words. Only your ego-driven
drive would presume that. Just looking at the very first reference you provide..
Which takes us to--
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86672
We find that _universal_ is defined as "existing everywhere or involving everyone."
"A universal truth." It obviously does not exist everywhere, or does it even
BEGIN to involve everyone, and it most certainly is not a _universal truth_.
Open your eyes, man.
>(snip)
>> >> They are only WORDS in that Charter, and they IGNORE the clear
>> >> counter-examples I've provided that PROVE, that although it is a
>_lofty_
>> >> thought... its EXISTENCE is factually disproved.
>> >
>> >Your remark doesn't entail the relevance of the Declaration of Human
>Rights
>> >as a compendium of principles that should be fulfilled.
>> >
>> yada, yada, yada... Can you hear how pathetic you sound? SHOULD BE!!!
>> I've never argue with SHOULD BE...but I'll certainly call you a fool if
>you
>> presume it IS. The danger is in PRESUMING it IS. Thus, presuming we have
>> no further to go.
>
>I never said I *presumed* it *is*, though you obviously misinterpreted it
>this way. But the existence of a text like the UN Declaration is important
>to recall that it should be, whenever it *is not*.
If you say it "should be," but you agree that it is not, than it actually has
nothing to do with proving anything in respect to your argument except
that you "presume" it does. In point of fact, that Declaration has NOTHING
to do with the execution of murderers under any legal standard of any
sort. You have in fact DISTORTED those words to _presume_ it
should do so... but it does not.
>
>> >> >> and I recognize that I can be a bore at times. But
>> >> >> you are evidently blind to how boring you can be. You just making
>> >these
>> >> >> STUPID... STUPID... STUPID... assertions, and expect that your
>OPINION
>> >> >> can be made fact. It is arrogance.... nothing but arrogance. And
>it's
>> >> >disgusting...
>> >> >> since it presumes morality... using an IMMORAL practice... claiming
>> >> >opinion
>> >> >> can become fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >Claiming human rights are universal is a fact.
>> >> >
>> >> "Claiming human rights are universal" is an OPINION. You may in FACT
>> >> STATE that OPINION... but it cannot CHANGE fantasy into reality.
>> >
>> >Human rights are universal, because they are "of worldwide scope and
>> >applicability".
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
>No. That's the raison d'etre of human rights, and *here* it's not an
>opinion. If you say the contrary, you suggest that some people can't enjoy
>human rights and adopt a kind of relativist approach based on a racist
>vision (like "human rights are a concept that doesn't belong at all to the
>culture of these people" etc...). In other words, some category of people
>deserve human rights, and some others don't deserve them. That, once again,
>would be utterly racist.
>
No... clearly I am saying that it is ABSURD to presume that people DO
enjoy human rights. You are blindly believing it is a POSSIBILITY under
the conditions that exist. It is NOT a possibility, and words put on paper
cannot MAKE it a possibility. It is racist to STATE that people enjoy
human rights, Because we should recognize that they do not. One must
always base such declarations in terms of OBJECTIVES, and not presume
they are already "enjoyed," because a majority of humans on our planet do
not ENJOY them. It has nothing to do with "deserve," since every human
"deserves" equal consideration. It has to do with the FACT that they do
not have such _rights_. Rights are taken away indiscriminately by both
Man and Nature, and society has the authority to take away what it most
surely has granted in words similar to those in the Declaration, when it
finds it becomes necessary to do so, through discriminating the acts some
might take which would require removing those rights. Those acts that
those societies define as crimes. Nor does it have ANYTHING to
do with _protecting_ murderers. Unless you believe that individuals are
given the _right_ to murder, as one of those _universal human rights_ you
speak of. Obviously, that is absurd, so one quickly realizes that when an
individual murders, society can decide to remove those same rights it
granted before that individual committed that murder. In that respect,
there is NOTHING INVIOLATE about them. They can be removed,
by the same entity that granted them, which were also the signatories to
that Declaration.
>>
>> >"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human
>Rights
>> >as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to
>the
>> >end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
>> >Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
>> >promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
>measures,
>> >national and international, to secure their universal and effective
>> >recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
>> >themselves and among the peoples of territories under their
>jurisdiction."
>> >
>> I don't care what they put on paper... they PROCLAIM, but they are
>> NOT GODS. The proof can ONLY come if there are no counter-examples
>> which refute the existence.
>
>They don't need to be gods. They proclaimed and, by doing so, gave everyone
>rights that can and should be respected.
>
You still do not understand the reason for the picture I provided. Proclaiming
doesn't MAKE it so. See
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
And you have lost the thread of this argument totally. I am not claiming that
those words SHOULD NOT be... I am saying that THEY ARE NOT. And
because they are NOT, they cannot be used as anything other than a hypocritical
argument that _racism doesn't exist_, and _all humans HAVE human rights_,
and those _rights are universal_. Each of those points DO NOT EXIST.
Thus, you most certainly cannot use them to justify not executing murderers,
and secondly you cannot claim they are _respected_. You keep claiming
that because they _should be_, it provides some _proof_ that a society
cannot execute murderers... and that's totally false.
>> >The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was universal because it is
>"of
>> >worldwide scope or applicability", and consequently the human rights it
>> >proclaims are universal as well. That's not an opinion, that's a legal
>> >conclusion.
>> >
>> And, let me think... lawyers are GODS???
>
>Stop thinking if you can't perform any better.
>
LOL...
"A truly noble nature cannot be insulted"
Publius Syrus
>> >> One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
>> >> url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html
>> >> Oh... wait a minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the
>> >> background. There on the left... see it, euro? Those two hidden eyes
>> >> of the 'provider of the Universal Right to Life,' peering from the
>brush.
>> >> How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal, beyond everything'
>right
>> >> that all 'life' possesses? Where is your "right" for that child?
>> >
>> >I already replied to you. His right is to receive financial help from the
>> >richer countries.
>>
>> Oh, yeah... I'm sure they're working on it, as we speak. But meanwhile,
>> at this MOMENT... it doesn't EXIST. Thus the concept also doesn't
>> EXIST. You're so pathetic.
>
>The concept exists, even though reality shows otherwise.
>
Rubbish. Pathetic, blinding rubbish.
>> >"The General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human
>Rights
>> >as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to
>the
>> >end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
>> >Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to
>> >promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
>measures,
>> >national and international, to secure their universal and effective
>> >recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
>> >themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
>"
>> >
>> >(Preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights)
>> >
>> ROTFLMAO. You really are into simply copying... but not understanding,
>> aren't you?
>
>I wish you could understand when I say something once, but it seems I need
>to repeat what I say.
>
When have you ever said anything that wasn't either rubbish consisting of your
words, or other words that you've simply plagiarized?
I don't think even YOU understand what you're trying to say here.
>> > I underlined the need to strive for the
>> >respect of human rights, and this is why, while recognising executions do
>> >legally exist, I oppose them in the name of the respect of human rights.
>> >
>> Horse manure. You've been arguing that it is ILLEGAL to do so.
>> Calling it "Legal Murder," BECAUSE of the EXISTENCE of those
>> rights you've spoken of. Now you claim they DON'T EXIST.
>
>No, YOU claim that. These rights do exist legally, and they need to be
>enforced. This is why, based on that text, I consider executions are a
>violation of human rights.
>
So, again you claim they DO EXIST, but of course, they do not... since I
can certainly show counter-examples which proves that they are NOT
_universal_.
>> But
>> are only goals.
>
>As universal abolition is my goal.
>
You really should concentrate on something that actually helps our species,
instead of trying to save those who have murdered some of our species.
Just my opinion, of course.
>> Which is what I've been saying all along. They are
>> lofty principles.
>
>No. They are useful principles that need to be fulfilled and respected.
>
LOL. None of that has anything to do with SAVING murderers.
>> But man is INCAPABLE of making them happen.
>> Certainly not in your lifetime, or the lifetime of your children, or their
>> children. I am a realist... you are incapable of being a realist. And
>> that is a dangerous position to take, in respect to our species.
>
>Maybe, and then? It's not a reason to sit down and watch at violations with
>approving eyes, as you seem inclined to do.
>
I am the FIRST to point out violations. My picture for example. You
are the FIRST to EXCUSE those violations, by blindly presuming they
do not exist. You are the one watching those violations with approving
eyes, and nodding your head so _intellectually_, while your brain is
shut down to reality.
>> > as my purpose is to oppose
>> >executions in the name of human rights. Each execution, wherever it takes
>> >place, makes me indeed presume that human rights are violated in that
>place.
>> >
>> As I said.. you can PRESUME anything you wish... but do NOT
>> try to frame it in a dialog that presumes you are speaking FACTUALLY.
>> You are simply voicing an opinion.
>
>And then? I have the right to affirm it and won't accept your attempts to
>censor me.
>
I'm not trying to do that at all. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies
which exist in your argument. Which have ranged from first presuming the
Declaration precludes execution of murderers (it does not), to then arguing that
such _rights_ are _universal_ (they are not), to then arguing that the words
in the Declaration speak to what exists (it does not). In each case, you've had
to backtrack from your words. And certainly your _argument_ (sic) that
"executions are legal murder," has only make the rest of your views suspect.
>> >> And when
>> >> we speak of it as _universal_, there is the implication that
>> >> _someone_... someone greater than us (since we obviously
>> >> have no control over the UNIVERSE)... has provided that to
>> >> us... and we need no longer concern ourselves with it... since
>> >> it's _just there_.
>> >
>> >Point invalid. Human rights are a universal value because all UN member
>> >States decided to say so in a Declaration and recognise that all humans
>> >should enjoy those rights. Nothing to do with the universe, and no
>volunty
>> >to even control it. Human rights are a secular value.
>> >
>> Then why don't all humans have them, if they are _universal_ to ALL
>> HUMANS? And who decided that it would be limited to HUMANS?
>> Why not chimpanzees?
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!
>Because it's HUMAN rights, not ANIMAL rights. Can you see the difference
>now?
>
You miss the point... Humans are not universal to the animal kingdom. Someone
had to make that distinction. The ones who did so are Men themselves. It is
a bit arrogant to claim something is _universal_ when they actually have no
control over anything in respect to it being _universal_. They are, in fact, only
words put on paper by Men, and have no meaning in the sense of being
_universal_. Those men managed to put those words on paper, only because
they can ARTICULATE them. Does that mean that others in the animal
kingdom who cannot articulate them, are deprived of those _rights_? And
most certainly, since Men provide those _rights_, those same Men can
determine when they might need to be removed on an individual basis,
because of certain acts an individual might commit. Certainly you would
not presume that the _right_ to liberty cannot be removed when one commits
a crime?
>> How can
>> WE be so arrogant to presume that one specific biological life form has
>> these _rights_? And EXACTLY what _rights_ are they?
>
>I can only give you one advice: write quickly a Universal Declaration of
>canine rights and send it to Kofi Annan. I'm interested in getting human
>rights respected, and that's already a lot. In this, I may be much more
>realistic than you are.
>
No, you're not. You are simply presuming that the U.N. is God, and
has decided to define what _rights_ to give Men, and called them
Universal. Of course, they are not. And it's always been that there
is NO ACTUAL things called _human rights_. It's simply some
_humans_ having decided to give them to themselves. It has no
validity outside of what we ACCEPT. As long as one person refuses
to abide by that Declaration, it is NOT _universal_, even in respect to
humans. And the fact is, it is simply humans giving something to humans,
and expecting something in return from other humans... much as I sell
a car to you for cash. Don't misunderstand... the U.N. Declaration, and
the Bible, and the Talmud and on and on..all express some IDEALS
that Men should abide by. But it has no means of enforcement,
thus cannot be called universal. There is no ACTUAL FORCE called
_human rights_, since we are just giving from one hand to the other
hand. No one other than humans has given those rights to humans.
Men certainly disregard with impunity many of those lofty ideals. What
do we do with them? Why... we try to punish them when we creates
specific laws against those acts. But the very act of punishment means
the withdrawal of those same rights that we call _universal_. Thus --
we create those laws... and then we say that if other men don't accept
those laws... we will take away from them what we have said we cannot.
Can you possibly see the illogic to such ideals? That is why the Declaration
itself has no LEGALLY binding force, in any respect, and why it can
have NOTHING to do with the use of the DP. And to presume that
it has some EXISTENCE, other than as a lofty ideal, is to IGNORE
the war, racism, poverty, starvation, pestilence, birth defects, oppression
of innocents, murder, other crimes against person, unsafe climatic
conditions, natural calamities, slavery, treatment of the terminally
ill, illiteracy, religious persecutions, and so many others demonstrations
of those things that afflict our species. And presume everything is okay...
because some men have put some lofty words to paper.
>>
>> >> But you cannot even define at what point it
>> >> begins. Since I clearly asked you, and it remains unanswered
>> >> exactly where in the taxonomy classification of even the animal
>> >> kingdom (much less all biological life forms), does such a right
>> >> begin? If it's _universal_, why do some in that kingdom have
>> >> it, and others don't? Who DECIDED?
>> >
>> >Their governments do.
>>
>> That certainly doesn't make them _universal_.
>
>Yes, it does. These governments are supposed to represent their peoples,
>just like when they take any international commitment.
>
No... clearly it doesn't. You can rant and rave all you wish... but
governments cannot make something universal... regardless of how many
put their heads together and try to create those concepts. And in any
case, those same governments can individually select who they wish to
no longer have those rights, based on the acts those individuals might
commit.
>> Actually, I would
>> think every human on the planet would need to VOTE that they
>> accept what is written there. And since when do governments
>> decide for the rest of the Animal kingdom?
>
>LOL!!! Because it's a declaration of human rights, not animal rights!
>
Ah... but WHO decided?
>> > Sometimes also history does. Individuals, by their
>> >actions, may also influence on this, but basic human rights like freedom
>of
>> >opinion and right to life must be granted and recognised by governments
>in
>> >the first hand. That's all the problem of unequalities in this world. But
>> >the objective of human rights remains pertinent whatever violations there
>> >may be.
>> >
>> Objective.. not reality.
>
>Which doesn't take anything from the validity of human rights as a concept
>to judge iniquitious acts.
>
No, actually... iniquitous acts are generally defined within crimes. The Declaration
itself only uses the word "crime" one time. In Article 14, having nothing to do with
defining "crimes" itself. And the Declaration certainly does not use the word
"iniquitous." You simply invent that connection.
>> >> These are questions
>> >> you cannot answer without depending on the cognitive abilities
>> >> of Man having decided for HIMSELF what those rights are.
>> >> Nothing _universal_ about them at all.
>> >
>> >I just answered them, and this answer does in no way entail the universal
>> >value of human rights, as a set of principles "of worldwide scope or
>> >availability".
>> >
>> Good grief... can you ever speak about things that exist? You post
>> as if you're a demigod.
>
>I speak about executions, which exist and though are a clear violation of
>human rights as they have been universally recognised in the UN Universal
>Declaration of Human Rights.
>
Ah.. now we get to the part that began this dialog. Executions are NOT a
clear violation of human rights. That is ABSURD. The concept is NOT
within that declaration at all. You have simply INVENTED it. When
governments, who were parties to signing that Declaration see that some
member of their society has VIOLATED the principles in that Declaration,
by harming another, and violating the rights of that other, they certainly
are not prohibited from providing punishment that they feel appropriate.
That Declaration in no way defines the limits a government may take in
respect to its justice system. It is not meant to PROTECT murderers.
It is meant to protect those who DO NOT harm others.
>> >
>> >> >> When we expect that it is reality, through simply wishing
>> >> >> it were so... THAT is racism... turning a blind eye to the realities
>> >> >around us.
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Racism is saying that some people shouldn't hope getting basic
>human
>> >> >rights under the pretext they don't have them already.
>> >> >
>> >> No.. you have presumed that stating _universal human rights_ somehow
>> >> abolishes racism along with it. And you state that we DO have
>_universal
>> >> human rights_, which certainly presumes thusly that racism has been
>> >> abolished. You said in respect to your presumed EXISTENCE of
>_universal
>> >> human rights --- "Saying the contrary... would be utterly racist."
>> >
>> >Yes. Saying that human rights aren't universal would mean that human
>rights
>> >have a scope or applicability limited to certain groups of humans, and
>this
>> >would be utterly racist.
>> >
>> No.. saying that they EXIST, in the face of what IS racism, is abject
>> hypocrisy.
>
>They do exist legally and recalling this is a way to recall governments of
>the commitments they took.
>
But the Declaration itself has no legally binding force on any society Justice
System. And presuming it does, is ignoring the racism that exists.
>(remaining nonsense snipped)
>
>> >> It is the disgusting presumption of
>> >> the EXISTENCE of a _universal human right_ that presumes racism
>> >> does not exist. But the very fact it DOES... demonstrates that a
>> >> _universal human right_ DOES NOT EXIST.
>> >
>> >Human rights are universal.
>>
>> You can't even define what _rights_ you're speaking of. What ARE
>> _human rights_?
>
>Look in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
>
I've looked, and reading them, if you presume that Article 3 means that
a society may not execute murderers, then it obviously ALSO means
we cannot take away their liberty... not for ONE SECOND.
>> > Legally, since the UN Universal Declaration of
>> >Human Rights, human rights are universal. Article 2 says "Everyone is
>> >entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
>> >without distinction of any kind, such as race (I snip the remaining
>part)".
>> >That alone shows that human rights are universal.
>> >
>> I repeat... if that's true... what about that CHILD??? What about
>> ghettos all over the world?
>
>This reality doesn't undermine the juridical value of the rights entailed in
>the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There IS no juridical value of those rights. Nor can they be _universal_,
since that would mean you would NEVER see a violation.
> What I would like you to
>understand is that this juridical value is the basis upon which you can ask
>justice for those whose rights are being violated. That seems obvious, but
>getting you understand that is quite difficult.
>
>So let me tell you in a few words, with capital letters as you like it:
>
>You have REALITY on one side, and you have LEGAL RIGHTS on the other side.
>Everyday, REALITY shows violations of rights, whetever LAWS forbid or
>prohibit. When a crime takes place, it is SUPPOSEDLY forbidden by law and
>YET the law didn't prevent the crime.
>
>Does it mean the LAW should be repealed? No. Does it mean the LAW is invalid
>and that invoking it to get the RIGHTS it grants really respected, is
>impossible? No.
>
>That's the same with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Violations of human
>rights happen daily, and yet it is perfectly normal to invoke this text in
>order to DENOUNCE violations that took and take place.
>
>And this is exactly what I do regarding executions.
>
>Understood, now?
Sure... you're a blithering idiot who presumes that the UN Declaration of Human
Rights states that murderers cannot be executed or even deprived of their freedom
for one second, because of a presumed _universal human right_ to life, liberty and
security of person. But you are wrong. There is no such meaning in that
Declaration.
>> >> I am not arguing that
>> >> it wouldn't be _nice_ if it did, nor am I arguing that it is not a
>lofty
>> >concept
>> >> that we should strive to achieve. But it certainly doesn't EXIST.
>> >> And it's the height of hypocrisy to presume it does... since it implies
>> >> _our work is finished here_, simply in the existence of that ideal.
>> >
>> >No, it implies that you can invoke the UN Declaration of Human Rights to
>> >denounce any violation of human rights, which I consistantly do when I
>> >oppose executions.
>> >
>> Since that declaration doesn't even speak of the word "executions"
>> you're simply USING IT, for your own devious design. As many others
>> do with many written documents.
>
>It refers to life, which is enough to make it a relevant text against
>executions.
>
No.. no, sport. You can't _pick and choose_. Since it also refers to _liberty_.
Thus, your argument has to be opposition to all penalties for ALL crimes.
No depravation of liberty at all. And in any case the Declaration has no
binding force in respect to any law of any sovereign nation, nor does it even
imply it does.
>> >
>> >> >> Instead of trying to FIX what is wrong... you childishly pronounce
>> >> >_everything
>> >> >> is all right_.
>> >> >
>> >> >I never said that. You imagined it.
>> >> >
>> >> Please.. when you SAY that _universal human rights_ EXIST... you are
>> >> STATING that _everything is all right_, and requires no further work to
>> >> achieve what has already been achieved. The very fact that many are
>> >> DEPRIVED of that concept is PROOF that it does not EXIST. Nothing
>> >> to do with a goal. But you presume the journey is ended, and it has
>> >hardly
>> >> begun.
>> >
>> >No. That's an abusive deduction you make, and it doesn't involve what I
>say.
>> >Once again, intellectual dishonesty.
>> >
>> LOL... It seems like every time I _catch you_, you claim it is an
>> _abusive deduction_. Perhaps YOU should be more careful in composing
>> your words.
>
>Perhaps you should be more careful in reading what I say, and not what you
>believe/want/dream I could say.
>
yada, yada, yada. Perhaps you should start making sense in what you say...
you might start with admitting that "execution is legal murder," is the most
clumsy and illogical statement ever offered here. Of course, you've ALREADY
admitted it, by recognizing that you were only expressing an oxymoron, and
not actually something that made sense.
>> >> Nor is abolishing the DP for murderers part of that process, since
>> >> it presumes we expect to forgive ALL of those who murder. Which can
>> >> hardly be seen as a lofty goal, or an expression of _human rights_ for
>> >> the victims.
>> >
>> >Here again intellectual dishonesty. Abolishing the DP for murderers
>wouldn't
>> >mean forgiving murderers, but commuting their sentence into life
>> >imprisonment, a penalty that respects human rights.
>> >
>> Why? Why does THAT respect _human rights_, while execution does
>> not?
>
>Because it respects life.
>
Caging humans as ANIMALS their entire life RESPECTS LIFE??? Actually,
I thought the humans who wrote that Declaration felt we were DIFFERENT
from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
>> Since Article 3 says "life, liberty..." You make this definitions and
>> determinations without anything other than your opinion. It would seem
>> that you've simply DISTORTED it, to suit your agenda, which is abolition.
>> But you don't have a problem with caging murderers like ANIMALS for the
>> rest of their natural life. But gee... aren't humans supposedly HIGHER
>> than other animals?
>
>Imprisonment is by nature a non-definitive punishment and thus can't be put
>on the same level as execution. It always allows the possibility that the
>punishment be ended before its term.
>
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. Of course it can be put on the same level. You
just hold the OPINION that it cannot. It has nothing to do with the
possibility you offer.
>> >Besides, the victims don't have any "human right to see murderers
>executed".
>> >That's a fraud.
>> >
>> Oh... so _victims_ have no _human rights_?
>
>You see how you twist what I say!!!! I say "victims don't have any human
>right to see murderers executed", and you translate it by "victims_ have no
>_human rights". How stupid and how dishonest from you....
>
Actually you certainly DID say that "victims don't have any human rights..."
in one certain respect... that of seeing murderers executed. You have in fact
tried to LIMIT what human rights victims have. Apparently you are now saying
that they DO have _human rights_, but it just doesn't extend to where you don't
wish to see it extend to. In fact, SOCIETY speaks to the _rights_ of victims,
and can well speak to them in a manner which would provide for the execution
of their murderers.
>> >> >> Your paedomorphism presumes that because there is this imaginary
>> >> >> _universal rights_ you speak of, that this suddenly MAKES RACISM
>> >> >> DISAPPEAR. And it does not!! And it's NOT all right. Because some
>> >> >> humans DO NOT have what you contend is _universal_.
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course it is universal. It is recognised as such by the UN
>Declaration
>> >of
>> >> >Human Rights: "of worldwide scope or applicability". Whether it is
>> >> >universally applied in the reality matters few, since the universality
>of
>> >> >human rights is explicitly recognised in the UN Declaration of Human
>> >Rights.
>> >> >
>> >> Ah, yes... that document written by God... pardon me for doubting your
>> >> pronouncement from FAITH.
>> >
>> >Written by God??? And I thought it had been written by Rene Cassin!!!!!
>> >
>> Oh, yeah.. he just THINKS he's God.
>
>No, you do, because you can't make the difference between Mose's tables of
>the law and a UN Declaration that is just an international treaty.
>
I don't see it as any "treaty," it's simply a Declaration of Intentions... some
good intentions, but having no treaty or legal obligations to sovereign nations
parties to that Declaration. You are the only one giving it more weight that I am.
Thus, you certainly find it closer to the ten commandments than I do. I actually
find a bit of hypocrisy in the words themselves.
Since it has no legal value, the DP is not a violation of human rights.
>> And it's deplorable, that you would take a lofty principle such as that
>> stated in the Charter, to presume it PROTECTS MURDERERS.
>
>Protects murderers???? Only protects their human rights, which is just very
>normal.
>
Rubbish... the _protection_ of murderers is way down the list of things
that need protecting. And you are ignoring those things to protect
MURDERERS. Who certainly have taken away the _human rights_
of others in their acts.
>> It does not.. it does not say that anywhere... it does not even speak
>> to any justice system. The reason we have gone down this road,
>> is because you first insisted that those principles in the Declaration were
>> INVIOLATE.
>
>I never said that. You invent it, once again.
>
Then you have not made yourself clear.
>> But I have shown they are violated with impunity.
>
>Which doesn't undermine their value.
>
I never said it did. But their value does not extend to having any force in
respect to a Justice System punishment for crimes.
>(remaining nonsense snipped)
>
<remaining nonsense snipped>
Quite clearly you are confused as to the meaning contained in the Declaration
of Human Rights, which has nothing to do with protecting murderers from any
punishment a society might decide is appropriate. The meaning of life, liberty
and security in that document is meant only as presuming it is a _right_ given
by men to other men, which is NOT inviolate from being taken away. Only
that given no reason for doing so, it should be respected. You have agreed
that Article 3 is not inviolate, thus society can determine when it finds it
necessary to remove such rights to both life or liberty. Neither one nor the
other has any meaning in respect to NEVER being taken away. And certainly
everyone realizes that NATURE can take away ANYTHING. The words
in the charter, in respect to _universal_ seem hypocritical to me, because they
presume a God-like quality which obviously does not exist. Children are born
without brains... they have no _universal human right_. It was gone the
moment they entered life. Natural catastrophes take away in an instant,
what is presumed as _universal_ in that document. If a _right to life_ exists,
as stated in Article 3, it seems to me that one standing in front of an oncoming
train should somehow survive being hit by that train... because of their
_universal right to life_, which presumably all humans have, according to
that Declaration.
1) It is absurd to say "Execution is legal murder"
2) It is absurd to believe there is anything _universal_ about human rights.
3) It is absurd to claim that the UN Declaration on Human Rights has anything
to do with any Justice System punishment of any kind for crimes.
4) It is absurd to claim Article 3, stating that _humans_ have a _right to life_,
means they will _win_ in an argument between an oncoming freight train and them.
5) It is absurd to presume that the Declaration means racism does not exist.
6) It is absurd to believe that Document has any force of any kind other than
presenting some lofty principles that have no possibility of EVER being realized,
given the fact that Man is an imperfect creature, and always will be.
7) It is absurd to believe that society cannot take away on an individual
basis what THEY most surely have given. You admit that it is Man himself
in the words in the Declaration that has provided for those _universal human
rights_. That being said... those same Men can find it necessary to take away
on a selective basis those rights from individuals who have violated the same
rights of other. You have admitted that those rights are NOT INVIOLATE.
You might argue that humans born into societies having agreed to the principles
in the Declaration are granted such rights, but you certainly cannot agree that
they can do ANYTHING they wish to the rights of other humans, and not be
expected to lose some of their own rights granted, through having committed
those acts.
This thread has run it's course, and become quite lengthy... go ahead and rant and
rave... I've had my say.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Wed, 12 Mar 2003 06:33:00 GMT, dans l'article <nakt6vsl7lnfnvf5n...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>{ snip one of the most glorious, dignified yet savage spankings that
>>>_anyone_ has yet delivered to FW }
>>>
>>>*applause*
>
>> Yeah, right... euro is revealed as an hi1k clone, posting under another
>> handle, and desi begins applauding like a trained seal. How typical.
>> desi will next be sucking up to hi1k, to see if he can't get him to also
>> _vote_ for that ol' racist, desi.
>
>Poor ol' FuckWit ... like a sparrow that's trapped by the domestic cat, he
>'goes native', and limits his posts to a litany (ha, ha, ha ...) of
>gimmicks, which I have taken the time to list. The above was a perfect
>invocation of gimmick n° 73, the 'everyone who spanks me is a friend of
>desi [sic]' gimmick ...
>
Actually it's everyone who _needs a friend_ that go sucking up to
others. As I recall, in the post of yours I offer below, it certainly
appeared that you were desperately _searching for friends_.
>url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/73.html
>
>{ snip FW's bellowing of rage at being caught out again }
>
Another uniquely spineless post from desi. Next he'll be whining to the
group to _vote_ for him, and demand they leave the group if they do not --
For an example of his whining these were the words he addressed to the
collective group only a few days ago --
----------------------------------------------
"You dress your sycophancy in the guise of not wanting to 'get involved'. Well you
are involved. This is your chance to redeem yourselves. This is your chance to show
the newsgroup that you have backbone. So far, only dirt and 'JPB' have bothered to
stand up and ridicule FW when he called me a racist, based on words that were
designed to call _him_ a racist. Whatever your 'vote', be it for me or against me, I
accept it. But either stand up now and be counted, or at least have the decency to
leave the newsgroup, for you are nothing but pawns of a sick, perverted lunatic who
demonises all those with whom he cannot debate."
------------------------------------------ see ---
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030224230644.03943.00001014%40mb-fj.aol.com
What we have there... is the worst case of _emotional blackmail_ every perpetrated
in Usenet. Alternating between whining, insulting and begging to support a racist,
and concluding with a demand that those not _voting_ for that racist... leave the
newsgroup. desi covered the entire gamut of everything that can possibly be wrong
about posts in Usenet. In the shortest space possible.
<applause...applause....applause>
This is a post that will live with him for a LONG TIME. I'll make sure of that.
PV
>--
>Des The Spanked "plaything" of PV
The _conspiracy_ lives... desi's words --
"You (and the others who sought to force me off the group) have yet to provide a
single iota of evidence that I have lied to this newsgroup."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8clfa5.1cl.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
A Planet Visitor
LOL... Take a LOOK at your pitiful attempt to plagiarize PURPOSELY,
and how I EXPOSED that deception for what it most certainly was --
a clear attempt to CLAIM all those words as your own, without the
slightest intention of anything else, until I exposed your deception. You
really need to apologize to the group for trying to deceive everyone here.
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:t2q57vsum9dn392g9...@4ax.com...
m
> >pabay.rr.com
> >>
> >> You should be ASHAMED of yourself, instead of rooting around for some
> >pitiful
> >> EXCUSE for your blatant and deceptive plagiarism.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You should stop giving lessons when you show you're not up to do it.
> >
> LOL... Take a LOOK at your pitiful attempt to plagiarize PURPOSELY,
> and how I EXPOSED that deception for what it most certainly was --
> a clear attempt to CLAIM all those words as your own, without the
> slightest intention of anything else, until I exposed your deception. You
> really need to apologize to the group for trying to deceive everyone here.
>
Accusing others of plagiarism while that's exactly what you do is indeed a
way to deceive the group. But contrary to you, I shall have the elegance not
to to try and call the group to witness. That's just vulgar and doesn't help
much your "cause".
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:ser47v888ht73mdt0...@4ax.com...(snip)
> > but you should also always understand what others say with this
> >in mind. I'm here only to defend my opinions, not to present facts - else
I
> >would rely on others and stop losing my time sending posters on this
> >newsgroup.
> >
> You're also here to defend some very shaky moral arguments, using quite
> a bit of plagiarism and hyperbole in the process.
Tell us, PV, what are you here for if not launching gratuitous personal
attacks, insulting others and intentionally distorting what others wrote in
order to accomodate your imagination?
And, which is more, without any value added.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:t2q57vsum9dn392g9...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:58:49 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:92m27vo8mfg0uboc3...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:03 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<rest clipped>
>Accusing others of plagiarism while that's exactly what you do is indeed a
>way to deceive the group. But contrary to you, I shall have the elegance not
>to to try and call the group to witness. That's just vulgar and doesn't help
>much your "cause".
For your extensive postings of plagiarized sources --- see --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28587%24Gb1.6853721%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28589%24Gb1.6853464%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28588%24Gb1.6852001%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
You should be ASHAMED of yourself, instead of rooting around for some pitiful
EXCUSE for your blatant and deceptive plagiarism. Take a LOOK at your pitiful
attempt to plagiarize PURPOSELY, and how I EXPOSED that deception for what
it most certainly was -- a clear attempt to CLAIM all those words as your own,
without the slightest intention of anything else, until I exposed your deception.
You really need to apologize to the group for trying to deceive everyone here.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
When I see someone attempting to distort the truth, I find it my responsibility
to point out those distortions. You certainly attempted to distort the truth in
your claim that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights could be shown as
proof that society could not execute murderers, without _violating_ the
Declaration that they had signed. Your pathetic drivel was doomed to
failure. And I found that you first tried to presume that those _Human
Rights_ in that declarations were some sort of _Law of Nature_, that holds
for all times and in all places because of the placement of the word
_Universal_. Universal laws in fact prescribe how things WILL behave,
unlike human laws, which usually prescribe how things OUGHT to behave.
You had to do some rather fancy footwork to admit that the Declaration
only prescribes how it believes things SHOULD be, and NOT how things
ARE.
>And, which is more, without any value added.
>
You've certainly added nothing, except an attempt to distort by claiming
a document which does not even address any of your argument, proved
your argument.
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:f95d7v0lgue29ee5m...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:21:36 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:ser47v888ht73mdt0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:20:19 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >(snip)
> >> > but you should also always understand what others say with this
> >> >in mind. I'm here only to defend my opinions, not to present facts -
else
> >I
> >> >would rely on others and stop losing my time sending posters on this
> >> >newsgroup.
> >> >
> >> You're also here to defend some very shaky moral arguments, using quite
> >> a bit of plagiarism and hyperbole in the process.
> >
> >Tell us, PV, what are you here for if not launching gratuitous personal
> >attacks, insulting others and intentionally distorting what others wrote
in
> >order to accomodate your imagination?
> >
> When I see someone attempting to distort the truth, I find it my
responsibility
> to point out those distortions. You certainly attempted to distort the
truth in
> your claim that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights could be shown as
> proof that society could not execute murderers, without _violating_ the
> Declaration that they had signed.
And that is perfectly true.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:cr4d7v8866dh3jsa3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:17:39 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:t2q57vsum9dn392g9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:58:49 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >> >??????:92m27vo8mfg0uboc3...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:03 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> <rest clipped>
>
> >Accusing others of plagiarism while that's exactly what you do is indeed
a
> >way to deceive the group. But contrary to you, I shall have the elegance
not
> >to to try and call the group to witness. That's just vulgar and doesn't
help
> >much your "cause".
>
> For your extensive postings of plagiarized sources --- see --
>
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28587%24Gb1.6853721%40typhoon
.tampabay.rr.com
> and see --
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28589%24Gb1.6853464%40typhoon
.tampabay.rr.com
> and see --
>
.tampabay.rr.com
>
> You should be ASHAMED of yourself, instead of rooting around for some
pitiful
> EXCUSE for your blatant and deceptive plagiarism. Take a LOOK at your
pitiful
> attempt to plagiarize PURPOSELY, and how I EXPOSED that deception for what
> it most certainly was -- a clear attempt to CLAIM all those words as your
own,
> without the slightest intention of anything else, until I exposed your
deception.
> You really need to apologize to the group for trying to deceive everyone
here.
>
>
Check how Desi exposed your plagiarism.
----------------------------------Quote
le Tue, 04 Feb 2003 01:00:09 GMT, dans l'article
<tgE%9.38245$mA2.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
> To pander to those opposed to both Bush and the invasion of
> Iraq... I give you ---
More blatant plagiarism ...
url:http://www.castlebar.ie/board/0103/57391.htm
url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=%2Bcannot+%2Bfind+%2BOsama+%2Bbomb+%2BI
raq+%2Bhappy&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&scoring=d
--
Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
http://www.zeouane.org/
http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
\ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
| | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
|_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
-------------------------------------------------Unquote
Available at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=PV+AND+plagiarism&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=EHJ%259.80%24AQ3.13256%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=21
John Rennie also sent a posting saying "you missed the first showing". He
could have added you forgot to put the URL from which you got it.
That, indeed, deceived me a lot. I can't understand how you can tolerate not
presenting your apologies, though, frankly speaking, no one would care for
them.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
No, actually, it's perfect nonsense. Clearly if you presume Article 3 protects a
murderer's life... then it also protects his liberty, and you support taking no
action whatsoever against a murderer, which only leads to them murdering again.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:cr4d7v8866dh3jsa3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:17:39 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:t2q57vsum9dn392g9...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:58:49 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >> >??????:92m27vo8mfg0uboc3...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:03 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
<clipped euro's pitiful excuse to try and justify his blatant plagiarism>
That plagiarism... three lengthy posts, containing NOTHING BUT a plagiarized
source, which euro would presume were his words -- See his plagiarism in
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c63e107_1%40news1.meganetnews.com
And see my _catch_ of euro's plagiarism in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28587%24Gb1.6853721%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see another of his plagiarisms in --
url: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c63e14f_1%40news1.meganetnews.com
And again see my _catch of euro's plagiarism in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28589%24Gb1.6853464%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see another of his plagiarisms in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c63e0f2_1%40news1.meganetnews.com
And again see my _catch_ of euro's plagiarism in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28588%24Gb1.6852001%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
euro should be ASHAMED of himself, instead of rooting around for some
pitiful EXCUSE for his blatant and deceptive plagiarism. Take a LOOK at his
pitiful attempt to plagiarize PURPOSELY, and how I EXPOSED that deception
for what it most certainly was -- a clear attempt to CLAIM all those words, in
three very lengthy posts as TOTALLY his own, without the slightest intention of
anything else, until I exposed his deception. euro really needs to apologize to the
group for trying to deceive everyone here. LOL... fat chance....
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:4i8l7v4f95n2kk213...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:24:20 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:cr4d7v8866dh3jsa3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:17:39 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >> >??????:t2q57vsum9dn392g9...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:58:49 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >> >> >??????:92m27vo8mfg0uboc3...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:03 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
----------------------------------Quote
le Tue, 04 Feb 2003 01:00:09 GMT, dans l'article
<tgE%9.38245$mA2.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
> To pander to those opposed to both Bush and the invasion of
> Iraq... I give you ---
More blatant plagiarism ...
url:http://www.castlebar.ie/board/0103/57391.htm
url:http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=%2Bcannot+%2Bfind+%2BOsama+%2Bbomb+%2BI
raq+%2Bhappy&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&scoring=d
--
Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
http://www.zeouane.org/
http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
\ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
| | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
|_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
-------------------------------------------------Unquote
Available at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=PV+AND+plagiarism&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=EHJ%259.80%24AQ3.13256%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=21
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:rl5l7vscamn8lhijg...@4ax.com...
No, because it would contradict the right to life of the victim. As you're
too ignorant to know what you discuss about, I understand you obviously
didn't read article 29 para. 2 of the same UN Declaration. I recommend you
read it.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Actually, I suggest that YOU read it... since it provides the justification for
the DP in the words -- "limitations as are determined by law...." And that
would JUSTIFY a law which is enacted to respect the rights of others... and
meets the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare.
Certainly the DP can be presumed to meet ALL of those general purposes.
There is no objective morality to keeping murderers alive. You may find it
subjectively moral to do so, in your moral framework... but I find it immoral
in MY subjective moral framework to presume that EVERY murderer MUST
be kept alive until their natural demise. Certainly total incapacitation of
murderers meets a more rigorous implementation of public order, and there is
no question that reducing the possibility of a murderer murdering again, satisfies
the general welfare of a society.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
Don't you love it when you believe you can JUSTIFY your own sins... by presuming to
point your finger at another? Certainly, you should realize that in pointing your
finger at me... in an incredibly stupid example which shows no plagiarism, there are
still three fingers in your hand, pointing directly back at YOU.
That plagiarism of yours... three lengthy posts, containing NOTHING BUT a plagiarized
source, which you would presume were your words -- See your plagiarism in
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c63e107_1%40news1.meganetnews.com
And see my _catch_ of euro's plagiarism in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28587%24Gb1.6853721%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see another of your plagiarisms in --
url: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c63e14f_1%40news1.meganetnews.com
And again see my _catch of euro's plagiarism in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28589%24Gb1.6853464%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
and see another of your plagiarisms in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c63e0f2_1%40news1.meganetnews.com
And again see my _catch_ of euro's plagiarism in --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UKV88.28588%24Gb1.6852001%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
You should be ASHAMED of yourself, instead of rooting around for some
pitiful EXCUSE for your blatant and deceptive plagiarism. Take a LOOK at your
pitiful attempt to plagiarize PURPOSELY, and how I EXPOSED that deception
for what it most certainly was -- a clear attempt to CLAIM all those words, in
three very lengthy posts as TOTALLY your own, without the slightest intention of
anything else, until I exposed your deception. You really needs to apologize to the
group for trying to deceive everyone here. LOL... fat chance....Instead, you will
try to lie your way out of it... something I've seen before. Be a man, bubblehead...
and admit you plagiarized purposely and deceptively.
PV
>
>Euro
>
>
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:5lsn7v0tos4oel1hp...@4ax.com...
That's exactly what you can't do for your own plagiarism, PV. You're totally
decredibilise in your game of "M. Virtue", because of your own turpitudes.
So, be a man for yourself and stop trying to deceive everyone by concealing
your own sins. As I once wrote, no one asks you apologies - you only can
receive that from someone who is respectable, and you don't seem to be.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:bmtn7vsqbngdhl8ol...@4ax.com...
That would be only justified if the death penalty wasn't the definitive
deprivation of a right, or if there was no other way to ensure citizens'
security. The problem is that:
1/ death penalty is a definitive deprivation of a right;
2/ death penalty isn't a necessary punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys
rights.
For those two reasons, no exception to article 29 can be received to justify
the death penalty.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Don't be silly... you don't make such decisions. If you are again referring
to Article 3, then depravation of liberty is just as valid, and you must then
presume that we cannot put ANYONE in prison for ANY CRIME.
>1/ death penalty is a definitive deprivation of a right;
Liberty is ALSO a right. Are we to presume we cannot deprive a human from
liberty?
>2/ death penalty isn't a necessary punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys
>rights.
>
That is simply rubbish. I could just as easily say that _prison isn't a necessary
punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys rights_. You are trying to turn your
opinion into FACT. Obviously you may BELIEVE what you have written,
but that does NOT make it an axiomatic TRUTH. The real fact is _I
believe the DP is a necessary punishment in some cases_. _You believe
the DP is unnecessary in EVERY case_. Those are BELIEFS... not
axiomatic truths.
>For those two reasons, no exception to article 29 can be received to justify
>the death penalty.
>
You obviously are _talking through your hat_. Since nothing even remotely
resembling your argument is in the entire U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 29, in FACT, PROVIDES for -- "everyone shall be subject only to
such limitations as are determined by law..." There is NOTHING in there
that precludes the DP, nor ANY PENALTY, other than "torture or to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Which is even itself
a rather subjective view, rather than DEFINITIVELY defined in that
document, as to what is specifically considered to fit that definition. You
may find the DP does, I find it does not. Thus, neither side is proven. Some
may find that they reject the _doctrine_ of ALL punishment. desi said
he did. Does that mean NO ONE can be punished?
PV
>
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
Look again... and YOUR OWN plagiarism... and accept it for what it was.
A rather devious attempt to have others believe those three lengthy diatribes
were YOUR words.
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:bgpq7v0ogsuore6v3...@4ax.com...
Deprivation of liberty is temporary, not definitive. It can also be
justified for the protection of society. This isn't the case of deprivation
of life, which is definitive and isn't necessary for the protection of
society.
> >1/ death penalty is a definitive deprivation of a right;
>
> Liberty is ALSO a right. Are we to presume we cannot deprive a human from
> liberty?
Temporarily, yes. Definitively, no.
> >2/ death penalty isn't a necessary punishment to ensure that everyone
enjoys
> >rights.
> >
> That is simply rubbish. I could just as easily say that _prison isn't a
necessary
> punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys rights_. You are trying to turn
your
> opinion into FACT. Obviously you may BELIEVE what you have written,
> but that does NOT make it an axiomatic TRUTH. The real fact is _I
> believe the DP is a necessary punishment in some cases_.
And here again you turn your opinion into a fact. Just what you reproach me
to do. But you wouldn't even explain WHY you believe so.
> _You believe
> the DP is unnecessary in EVERY case_. Those are BELIEFS... not
> axiomatic truths.
That's not an axiom, but that's true. With regard to protection of society,
death penalty isn't necessary. Life imprisonment is enough.
> >For those two reasons, no exception to article 29 can be received to
justify
> >the death penalty.
> >
> You obviously are _talking through your hat_. Since nothing even remotely
> resembling your argument is in the entire U.N. Declaration of Human
Rights.
> Article 29, in FACT, PROVIDES for -- "everyone shall be subject only to
> such limitations as are determined by law..." There is NOTHING in there
> that precludes the DP, nor ANY PENALTY, other than "torture or to
> cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
And this is exactly what the death penalty is. Thank you for proving me
right.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:kkqq7v4kvs68givsk...@4ax.com...
Look at what you did... on several occasions, and just a few weeks ago. That
really doesn't make you credible on this subject.
Euro
dirtdog
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:bgpq7v0ogsuore6v3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:23:24 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >2/ death penalty isn't a necessary punishment to ensure that everyone
>enjoys
>> >rights.
>> >
>> That is simply rubbish. I could just as easily say that _prison isn't a
>necessary
>> punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys rights_. You are trying to turn
>>your
>> opinion into FACT.
No he isn't, he is stating a _fact_.
The DP is not necessary to protect society. Life imprisonment
(properly implemented) attains the same ends without loss of life and
the preclusion of rectification on an erroneous sentence.
>> Obviously you may BELIEVE what you have written,
>> but that does NOT make it an axiomatic TRUTH. The real fact is _I
>> believe the DP is a necessary punishment in some cases_.
Which makes PV's argument more shaky than Euro's, since PV's is based
purely on opinion, whilst Euro's is based purely on fact.
The _fact_ is that life imprisonment (properly implemented) protects
society from recidivism as much as execution. This is what Euro
states. All PV can come up with is his belief that some murderers
should be killed.
It is therefore rather amusing that PV would accuse his interlocutor
in this instance of stating opinion as fact, when in fact the only
opinion being espoused in this thread is that of ol' Jedro himself,
whose _sole_ sustainable justification for the DP is, and must remain,
a desire for retribution.
>And here again you turn your opinion into a fact. Just what you reproach me
>to do. But you wouldn't even explain WHY you believe so.
>
>> _You believe
>> the DP is unnecessary in EVERY case_. Those are BELIEFS... not
>> axiomatic truths.
>
>That's not an axiom, but that's true. With regard to protection of society,
>death penalty isn't necessary. Life imprisonment is enough.
WHich is something that you're never going to drum into the thick
heads of retentionists around here, Euro. I'd save your breath.
<Euro rather naively citing legal sources and expecting FW to
understand snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
>On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:04:28 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>>??????:bgpq7v0ogsuore6v3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:23:24 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>> >2/ death penalty isn't a necessary punishment to ensure that everyone
>>enjoys
>>> >rights.
>>> >
>>> That is simply rubbish. I could just as easily say that _prison isn't a
>>necessary
>>> punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys rights_. You are trying to turn
>>>your
>>> opinion into FACT.
>
>No he isn't, he is stating a _fact_.
>
No, he isn't... and neither are you.
>The DP is not necessary to protect society. Life imprisonment
>(properly implemented) attains the same ends without loss of life and
>the preclusion of rectification on an erroneous sentence.
>
Presuming Life imprisonment can BE "properly implemented" in the
U.S., demonstrates how little you understand. In point of fact, there
are almost certainly MORE _innocents_ serving Life imprisonment
for murders they did not commit, then any _innocents_ that might
have been executed.
>>> Obviously you may BELIEVE what you have written,
>>> but that does NOT make it an axiomatic TRUTH. The real fact is _I
>>> believe the DP is a necessary punishment in some cases_.
>
>Which makes PV's argument more shaky than Euro's, since PV's is based
>purely on opinion, whilst Euro's is based purely on fact.
>
Umm... hardly -- How many murderers sentenced to the DP committed further
murders after their execution? How many murderers sentenced to Life
imprisonment committed further murders before final execution of THAT
sentence?
Dwain Little, Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life
term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975.
Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three
consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.
John McRae, Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old
boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder
of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending
on 2 other counts in Florida.
Michael Lawrence, Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term,
1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990.
Donald Dillbeck, Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped
from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after
escape. Condemned 1991.
Edward Kennedy, Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to
Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after
prison break. Executed 1992.
Dawud Mu'Min, Virginia. Killed cab driver in holdup. Sentenced
1973. Escaped 1988. Raped/killed woman 1988. Condemned
1989. Executed 1997.
Viva Nash, Utah/Arizona. Two terms of life for murder in Utah,
1978. Escaped in 1982. Murdered again. Condemned in
Arizona, 1983.
Randy Greenawalt - Escaped from Prison in 1978, while serving
a life sentence for a 1974 murder. He then murdered a family of
4 people, shotgunning them to death, including a toddler.
Norman Parker, Florida/D.C. Life term in Florida for murder,
1966. Escaped 1978. Life on another count of murder in
1979.
Charles Crawford, Missouri. Life term in 1965 for murder.
Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994.
Darrell P. Pandeli - After being released from prison after a conviction
for murder, Pandeli murdered a prostitute, cut off her nipples and
flushed them down the toilet. Now on DR in Arizona for that second
recidivist murder.
Chad Allen Lee. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other
than death. Released and went on murder spree. Murdering Linda Reynolds,
a pizza delivery person, and 9 days later robbed and murdered David
Lacey, a taxi cab driver. Lee then robbed a mini-market 7 days after
than. Shooting the owner, Harold Drury, multiple times without reason.
Scott Lehr. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other
than death. Later released. After release, between Feb 91 and Feb 92
lured 10 different female victims, between the ages of 10 and 48-years-old,
into his car. Raping and beating them unconscious, stripped and
abandoned them in the desert. Three of his victims died in those
acts.
James Erin McKinney. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to
other than death. Later released. Then murdered Christine Mertens
in a home invasion robbery. Later murdered James McClain in another
separate home invasion robbery.
Michael Murdaugh. Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other
than death. Later released. After release murdered David Reynolds.
Beating him to death. When 'dumping' the body, Murdaugh severed
Reynold's head and hands, pulled out his teeth, and buring the body parts.
Jack Ferrell, Florida. Committed Murdered 1981. 15 years to
life, 1982. Paroled 1987. Murdered again 1992. Condemned 1993.
Martsay Bolder, Missouri. Serving a sentence of life for
first-degree murder in 1973. Murdered prison cellmate 1979.
Henry Brisbon, Illinois. Murdered 2 in robbery. Sentenced to 1000-
3000 years. Killed inmate in prison 1982. Sentenced to DP.
Commuted by Governor Ryan.
Randolph Dial, Oklahoma. Life for murder 1986. Escaped from
prison with deputy warden's wife as kidnap victim. 1989. Still
at large. Warden's wife never found.
Arthur Shawcross (The 'Monster of the Rivers') -- Released after
serving a 25 year sentence for a child murder, turned to murdering
prostitutes. At least 10 in all. Now serving ten consecutive
sentences of 25 years to life - 250 years in all.
Samuel D. Smith in prison for murdering Zita Casey, 79, during a
burglary in St. Louis in 1978. While in prison he murdered another
inmate, Marlin May, during a knife fight in 1987 in prison.
Charles Daniels was convicted and sentenced to Life for the
1965 rape and murder of a Louisiana woman. Later having
his sentence commuted, he was release. And he again
killed another woman, 32-year-old Debbie Tatum.
Jarmarr Arnold - who, while on DR, murdered another
DR inmate by stabbing him in the forehead with a sharpen
spike. Proving that not even a death sentence can
prevent murder until the sentence is carried out.
Robert Lee Massie. See
url:http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/massie703.htm
Sentenced to the DP, but overturned by Furman, which resulted
in him committing further new murders.
Kenneth McDuff - Sentenced to the DP, but overturned by Furman.
Who once remarked "Killing a woman is like killing a chicken. They
both squawk." See
url:http://www.reporternews.com/texas/bod1118.html
Melvin Geary, originally sentenced to L wop, for the stabbing death
of a woman in 1973 with a boning knife. Changed to Life.. released...
After his release, Geary was subsequently convicted of murdering
71-year-old Edward Colvin of Sparks, again with a boning knife after
Colvin took him in.
Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, of Rainbow City, Alabama, who was
serving life without parole for 3 murders in Gadsden, Alabama was found
guilty of capital murder for murdering a fellow inmate
Thomas Eugene Creech, who had been convicted of three murders
and had claimed a role in more than 40 killings in 13 states as a
paid killer for a motorcycle gang, killed a fellow prison inmate in
1981 and was sentenced to death.
Tommy Arthur was sentenced to die in Alabama's electric chair
for killing Troy Wicker in a 1982 murder for-hire scheme in Muscle
Shoals. Arthur had already been convicted in 1977 of killing the
sister of his common-law wife. He had been sentenced to life
for that murder. During sentencing, Arthur asked jurors to recommend
death. He told them a capital sentence would mean automatic appeals,
better accommodations in prison and liberal access to the prison law
library. Arthur's appellate court record shows why it's taken nearly 19
years to send him to the electric chair: "After 3 trials, 4 appellate reviews,
approximately 10 different attorneys and numerous delays and
continuances, Arthur raises over 40 issues before this court,"
Robert Lynn Pruett, 20, a convicted killer already serving a life sentence,
fatally stabbed prison guard Daniel Nagle with a sharpened rod while
patrolling the Texas Department of Criminal Justice McConnell Unit near
Beeville in South Texas. It was the first fatal attack on a Texas corrections
officer since guard Minnie Houston was stabbed to death in 1984 by an
inmate at the Ellis Unit near Huntsville, a prison official said.
Miguel Salas Rodriguez, 50, is charged in the murder of a sheriff's
deputy. Sgt. David M. Furrh, 40, in Dec 2000. Rodriguez had a
December 1973 conviction of homicide without malice, for which
he was sentenced to five years in prison. And yet ANOTHER
conviction for murder in April 1979, for which he was sentenced to
70 years in prison. Rodriguez was paroled in October 1989.
Bennie Demps, was condemned to the DP for the 1976 murder
of Alfred Sturgis, a prison snitch. Originally, Demps was sent to death row
for the murders of R.N. Brinkworth and Celia Puhlick, who
were fatally shot in a Lake County citrus grove. A year after
Demps was sent to death row, the U.S. Supreme Court threw
out capital punishment across the country, ruling death sentences
had been imposed in an arbitrary way. Another failure of the
Furman-commuted murderers.
Tomas G. Ervin. Sentenced to death in 1990, after conviction
of the December 1988 murders of Mildred L. Hodges, 75, and
her son, Richard E. Hodges. Bert Hunter, who was arrested
along with Ervin pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder charges.
Hunter and Ervin had met in the Missouri State Penitentiary,
where they were both serving life sentences for previous murders.
Jerry Michael Ward -- Originally sentenced to die in the electric chair,
for committing murder with malice in the rape and murder of a Houston
school girl. His sentence was commuted to life in prison when the U.S.
Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in 1972. Although the death
penalty was reinstated, the sentence was not. He was subsequently
paroled in 1984 after serving 18 years in prison. He was the number one
suspect in two new cases, involving the the disappearance of Connie Sue
Cooke, and the murder of Brenda Maureen Hackett. But althought
police were on the verge of arresting him, Ward committed suicide in
a self-inflicted execution.
James Homer Elledge was sent to prison for life in 1975 after beating
a Seattle motel owner to death with a ball-peen hammer. In the
years that followed, he won parole 3 times, most recently in
August 1995. prosecutors have now charged Elledge with 1st-degree
murder for allegedly stabbing and strangling Eloise Jane Fitzner,
47, in a church basement.
Arthur James Julius was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
In 1978, he was given a brief leave from prison, during which he raped and
murdered a cousin. He was sentenced to death for that crime and was executed
on November 17, 1989.
On November 9, 1983 Associate U.S. Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen told a
Senate subcommittee that it is impossible to punish or even deter such prison
murders because, without a death sentence, a violent life-termer has free rein
"to continue to murder as opportunity and his perverse motives dictate."
On October 22, 1983 at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois,
two prison guards were murdered in two SEPARATE instances by
SEPARATE inmates who were both serving life terms for previously
murdering inmates.
Then see --
url:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
TABLE 9... to find that of a total of 2,593 on DR, 285 of those murderers
under sentence of the DP, had previously been convicted of homicide.
This is a recidivism rate of 7.9% for those presently under sentence to
the DP.
>The _fact_ is that life imprisonment (properly implemented) protects
>society from recidivism as much as execution.
That's hardly a _fact_. It is more close to _fiction_. In FACT, two
reports by the U.S. DOJ, one published on those murderers released
in 1983, showing a recidivism rate of 6.6% of those previous murderers
released, and the other published on those previous murderers released
in 1994, showing a recidivism rate of 1.2% of those released, would seem
to show that recidivism of released murderers dropped as executions rose
across the U.S. during that same period.
There is absolutely NO QUESTION that an executed murderer CANNOT
be recidivist after execution. And it strikes me as morally sickening to
presume that EVERY murderer must be sentenced to Life in Prison,
which is what I rather see you implying. I am morally opposed to L wop,
which presumes we cage a human without the slightest possibility of
release for the rest of their natural life. Do not try to tell me about that
_remote possibility_ of finding innocence after 25 years in prison, serving
a life sentence. The FACT is finding innocence is certainly more
POSSIBLE with a sentence to the DP, given the elevated due process,
and elevated efforts from those opposed to the DP, than any chance of
finding it for those sentenced to alternate penalties. I know of not a
single murderer sentenced to L wop, who was found innocent AFTER
serving L wop for ten years -- which is about the average that convicted
murderers spend on DR before execution. Should the DP be abolished,
I see only a RISE in the number of innocents now sentenced
to L wop, that NEVER find sufficient evidence to overturn their
conviction. But THAT doesn't seem to concern you. Innocents serving
LIFE in prison, with no possibility of EVER being released, is NOT
your concern... as long as we don't execute ANY of those who are
truly guilty.
> This is what Euro
>states. All PV can come up with is his belief that some murderers
>should be killed.
>
Actually, it is my belief that society can determine whether some murderers
should be executed. I certainly have no problem with a society that decides
not to do so. But conversely, you and others seem to be rather hysterically
opposed to other societies determining what is best for them. Although, in
my personal moral framework, I believe there ARE murderers who have
committed an act SO REPREHENSIBLE that society should decide execution
is necessary simply for SOCIETY to remain moral itself. But that is my
PERSONAL moral conviction, and I would never presume I could impose
that conviction on another society. In my opinion, MURDER is the most
violent act one INDIVIDUAL human can perpetrate upon another
INDIVIDUAL human... and at that point, society has the full right to
determine an appropriate punishment.
>It is therefore rather amusing that PV would accuse his interlocutor
>in this instance of stating opinion as fact, when in fact the only
>opinion being espoused in this thread is that of ol' Jedro himself,
>whose _sole_ sustainable justification for the DP is, and must remain,
>a desire for retribution.
>
Heh... you really ARE a simpleton, Louise. If I was concerned ONLY
with retribution I would not find it necessary to offer my _list_ so
frequently here. In fact, I find some abolitionists are MORE concerned
with _retribution_ than some retentionists. Peter Morris has claimed
that "we should leave them there to rot." He apparently finds execution
not SUFFICIENT _retribution_... hoping that we throw in a bit of
life-time torture in _rotting away_ while we're at it.
Hugh Neary voiced the same feeling, when he posted "Still, I feel that it is
far more civilised to let them ossify in jail, then rot slowly through natural
causes, rather than give them a helping push toward eternity."
Even Mr. D., appeared to _favor_ letting them _rot_, rather than execute
them, when he wrote "I (and many other DP opponents) am quite, quite
happy to see murderers rot in strict confinement for their crimes, secure in
the knowledge that they will never walk the streets again."
Funny how _rot_ seems to be the method of choice from some abolitionists.
I personally oppose any idea that L wop fulfills any moral or practical
purpose in MY society. Other societies have the full right to determine
if they feel the same or feel like murderers _deserve_ to _rot_ for the
remainder of their natural lives. I find that society has the right to
execute some murderers that it finds both deserve execution, and
represent a grave danger to be recidivist under any conditions of
confinement imposed.
>>And here again you turn your opinion into a fact. Just what you reproach me
>>to do. But you wouldn't even explain WHY you believe so.
>>
>>> _You believe
>>> the DP is unnecessary in EVERY case_. Those are BELIEFS... not
>>> axiomatic truths.
>>
>>That's not an axiom, but that's true. With regard to protection of society,
>>death penalty isn't necessary. Life imprisonment is enough.
>
>WHich is something that you're never going to drum into the thick
>heads of retentionists around here, Euro. I'd save your breath.
>
You should perhaps follow your own advice. One thing is also
sure... retentionists are never going to convince abolitionists that
murderers actually contribute NOTHING to the advance of our
species... but certainly contribute MUCH to its decline. Yet,
that remains an undeniable fact. Unless one presumes we should
not execute so we can _feel good about ourselves_ wallowing in
gross hypocrisy, believing _respecting_ MURDERERS, regardless
of how often they murder, somehow makes us better.
><Euro rather naively citing legal sources and expecting FW to
>understand snipped>
>
Legal sources???? ROTFLMAO... That's hilarious... coming from you.
PV
>w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
No... actually... a life time spent in a cage, as we keep animals in a zoo, is
more close to torture than a humane DP. Thank YOU for proving ME
right. Since the meaning within that Article is totally subjective, and has
no real force of law.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
Actually, your pitiful _example_ was only provided AFTER I gave evidence
of YOUR plagiarism... so it WAS an attempt to EXCUSE your own plagiarism.
In fact, you searched about rather desperately for two pathetic examples,
neither of which demonstrate any intentional plagiarism. Yours was blatant,
and INTENTIONAL. Anyone looking at your three posts, and the silly
examples you've offered of my posts, are not so stupid that they cannot see
how DECEPTIVE you CONTINUE to be... now in your attempts to
DENY your own plagiarism.
But you go ahead, and deny it again... I'm tired of your whining.
PV
>Euro
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:vcbt7v02pdd8q5v3v...@4ax.com...(snipped)
>
> >And this is exactly what the death penalty is. Thank you for proving me
> >right.
> >
> No... actually... a life time spent in a cage, as we keep animals in a
zoo, is
> more close to torture than a humane DP. Thank YOU for proving ME
> right. Since the meaning within that Article is totally subjective, and
has
> no real force of law.
And you're wrong. Because life imprisonment always contains the possibility
of parole, it can't be understood as the definitive deprivation of a right.
Besides, there can't be any humane DP. The premeditated act of killing can
never be humane.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:6f5t7v4ff5ekrla6d...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:29:04 +0000, dirtdog <dirtdog...@fruffrant.com>
wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:04:28 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >>??????:bgpq7v0ogsuore6v3...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 16:23:24 +0800, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> >2/ death penalty isn't a necessary punishment to ensure that everyone
> >>enjoys
> >>> >rights.
> >>> >
> >>> That is simply rubbish. I could just as easily say that _prison isn't
a
> >>necessary
> >>> punishment to ensure that everyone enjoys rights_. You are trying to
turn
> >>>your
> >>> opinion into FACT.
> >
> >No he isn't, he is stating a _fact_.
> >
> No, he isn't... and neither are you.
>
> >The DP is not necessary to protect society. Life imprisonment
> >(properly implemented) attains the same ends without loss of life and
> >the preclusion of rectification on an erroneous sentence.
> >
> Presuming Life imprisonment can BE "properly implemented" in the
> U.S., demonstrates how little you understand.
Life imprisonment can be properly implemented everywhere safe prisons can be
provided - it only depends on the US prison administrations to take the
necessary steps to ensure safety inside prisons and ensure that only safe
people could be released on parole.
The problem is that, in many US states, demogagic governors decided to free
many criminals instead of building new jails, so as not to raise taxes. US
citizens now get the bitter fruits of this stupid, demagogic policy.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:3hbt7vgkf6d1a7893...@4ax.com...
Of course. It happened only a few weeks ago. Two examples, by the way, which
shows it wasn't just an accident. How mean from you to dare give lessons to
others.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Horseshit. Pure, unadulterated horseshit.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
Don't be absurd. Please do not pontificate on what you know NOTHING
about.
>The problem is that, in many US states, demogagic governors decided to free
>many criminals instead of building new jails, so as not to raise taxes. US
>citizens now get the bitter fruits of this stupid, demagogic policy.
>
Spoken like a true demagogue. All you need now is a soapbox.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
How immoral of you to presume you can defend your plagiarism, by accusing
another of doing so. Perhaps you also believe you could JUSTIFY the slaughter
of the holocaust by comparing it to Timothy McVeigh's murders???
PV
>Euro
>
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:59i28vc81e37rdpjv...@4ax.com...
Vulgar again?
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:2bi28vk1694og4pj4...@4ax.com...
LOL!!!
> >The problem is that, in many US states, demogagic governors decided to
free
> >many criminals instead of building new jails, so as not to raise taxes.
US
> >citizens now get the bitter fruits of this stupid, demagogic policy.
> >
> Spoken like a true demagogue. All you need now is a soapbox.
>
> PV
LOL!!!
Thanks for the laugh.
Euro
> >
>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:vii28v0lk1k9jo8uk...@4ax.com...
That's exactly what you are doing. Glad we agree here.
Euro