• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

vote your conscience not your wallet

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I've never understood why the same folks who yell about there being a rape culture also support gun control. Seems the best way to prevent rape is to prevent rape. I'm convinced that gun control is anti-woman. As you say, it virtually assures a victim status. I honestly don't get it.
I’ve never understood why people who support capital punishment are also pro-life.
 

DeletedUser36572

I've never understood why the same folks who yell about there being a rape culture also support gun control. Seems the best way to prevent rape is to prevent rape. I'm convinced that gun control is anti-woman. As you say, it virtually assures a victim status. I honestly don't get it.

You are talking about people who are more interested in ensuring a young woman knows how to utilize and apply a condom, than how to utilize one of 7 basic moves that can break an aggressive hold from a possible attacker.

The reason they complain about the rape culture and support gun control, is because in all matters, they have a rather idealistic propensity to believe what should be, actually can be.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I’ve never understood why people who support capital punishment are also pro-life.
It's quite easy to understand. All babies in-utero are by definition innocent of any crime. Unfortunately, some adults choose to engage in behaviors so reprehensible, they void their right to continued life. Innocence vs. guilt. Murder vs. capital punishment. Not hard to wrap your head around. I take it you think the opposite? Abortion is all good for you?
 

DeletedUser

Since I live in the Tarheel state, I know full well what you are talking about. I sickens me. Now, having said that, you can understand why I have supported term limits for politicians for several yrars. 2 terms in government is enough for them to screw things up.

Fully agree that term limits could be very useful, but only if coupled with restrictions on how long before they can become a lobbyist, and also combined with reforms of political financing. At the very least, all donations to politicians should be disclosed to the pubic, and the leadership of all PACs should also be disclosed. I want to know who is tying to buy votes, and how much they are spending. 2 terms for a senator, 3 or 4 for a representative: like any job, it takes a while to learn how to write legislation, understand the administrative tasks, etc, etc. .
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Fully agree that term limits could be very useful, but only if coupled with restrictions on how long before they can become a lobbyist, and also combined with reforms of political financing. At the very least, all donations to politicians should be disclosed to the pubic, and the leadership of all PACs should also be disclosed. I want to know who is tying to buy votes, and how much they are spending. 2 terms for a senator, 3 or 4 for a representative: like any job, it takes a while to learn how to write legislation, understand the administrative tasks, etc, etc. .
As far as financing reform, how about any entity that does business with or receives funding from the federal government cannot contribute to political campaigns. No teacher's or Gov't employee unions contributing to campaigns, no organizations like Planned Parenthood or Catholic Charities which gets paid to resettle refugees, no defense contractors, no colleges or universities, etc. Feel free to do business with the federal government, but your receipt of taxpayer money bars your corporate/organizational contributions to PACs, parties, campaigns, or candidates. Individuals working for these organizations can contribute as they like, but the entity itself cannot.

The position of lobbyist should be illegal, and all legislation should be penned (actually written) by the member of Congress sponsoring the bill. If it's too complex for them to write, it's too complex to adopt as legislation. When we were told we needed to pass Obamacare in order to see what was in Obamacare, the entire nation should have screamed a collective "Oh, hell no!", and Nancy and Co. should have been taken out behind the Capitol building for a major tune up. Yet we vote them back in and back into leadership. We indeed get the Government we deserve.

Before we establish term limits, We should repeal the 18th amendment so that State Legislatures elect their State's Senators once again. This would restore the original balance of power, giving the people a voice in the House of Representatives and the States a voice in the Senate. This is why each has separate powers and responsibilities. This ensured that the State's were in agreement with the will of the people to forward legislation to the President.

Prior to the 18th amendment in 1912/13, Senators rarely served more than 2 terms. As such, it was not unusual for the same person to serve in their State Legislature, serve in the Senate, serve as Ambassador, then back to the Senate, then onto VP, then back to the Senate, their State Legislature, State Governorship, or Ambassador again.
 

DeletedUser36572

Fully agree that term limits could be very useful, but only if coupled with restrictions on how long before they can become a lobbyist, and also combined with reforms of political financing. At the very least, all donations to politicians should be disclosed to the pubic, and the leadership of all PACs should also be disclosed. I want to know who is tying to buy votes, and how much they are spending. 2 terms for a senator, 3 or 4 for a representative: like any job, it takes a while to learn how to write legislation, understand the administrative tasks, etc, etc. .

Politicians are required to report their donations as a matter of public record. PAC leadership is a matter of public record. Whether or not you take the time necessary to review the record is another story.

Also, lobbyists are not the problem people want to make them out to be. For all practical purposes, if you elect an Evangelical Christian, you have elected a lobbyist for God to be your representative.

The problems are created when people believe it is Congress’ job to do the work of the People. Before we changed all the rules for passing legislation, it was extremely difficult to pass a bill with a super-majority. The checks and balances system worked better in ensuring the legislation that actually survived debate, was more measured, substantial, broadly supported and likewise a benefit to the Republic.

In short, the problem is the fact the People have come to believe it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to govern their everyday lives in every aspect.
 

DeletedUser36572

....

The position of lobbyist should be illegal, and all legislation should be penned (actually written) by the member of Congress sponsoring the bill. If it's too complex for them to write, it's too complex to adopt as legislation. When we were told we needed to pass Obamacare in order to see what was in Obamacare, the entire nation should have screamed a collective "Oh, hell no!", and Nancy and Co. should have been taken out behind the Capitol building for a major tune up. Yet we vote them back in and back into leadership. We indeed get the Government we deserve.

....

Setting the requirements for passing responsible legislation to what our Representatives are capable of understanding ... When we have a Representative that was concerned Guam may capsize if we keep troops there ... Is setting the bar extremely low.

Edit:
I mean, if they are going to start writing legislation in Crayon with pictures, like a coloring book ... That may work.

Let’s not forget freshman Representive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Republicans went as far as amending the Constitution to make sure President Roosevelt couldn’t be re-elected ... Failing to comprehend President Roosevelt had been dead for 2 years when the Amendment was passed.

The fact she graduated “with honors” from Boston University ... Is a pretty fair indicator of what a college education is worth nowadays ... No wonder they think it should be free, or amount to four additional years of public education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

This does make a lot of assumptions. Namely that poor people and rich commit the same amount of crimes in the same type category. But here’s the thing: if I’m rich or middle class I don’t have the same needs as the poor. I’m every bit as capable of committing the same crimes if I don’t hold tight to my convictions regarding my own behaviour. But I don’t have the same motivating factors. Why would I steal bread if I have the money for it? I’d like to think (and hope) I would never do that even if I ended up on the streets tomorrow, but it’s not something I’ve ever been in a situation where that’d be remotely tempting

It’s not that rich are any better or commit less crimes, but they are in better situations so the crimes they’re more likely to commit or get caught with will reflect their needs and wants


Edit: re-reading what you wrote, are your statistics based on total number of convictions or the results of trials? (Or both)


The 1st and 2nd paragraphs were written sarcastically, though probably that was not so clear on re-reading it. Apologies for that.

The first para was to point out the silliness of demonizing "government" or "lawyers". Just as any group (gardeners, teachers, small business owners, CEOs) lawyers are a varied mix of folks: parents and daughters/sons, and optimists/pessimists, democrats/republicans, and righteous/unethical persons. For example, public defenders are underpaid, overworked, but many are passionate believers in justice. They are not naïve; they are what I would call true patriots willing to walk the talk of “justice for all”.

And talking about “government as if it were some monolithic entity is silly. It’s an attempt to avoid recognizing that government is made up of people, just like you and me, who go to work, pay their bills, deal with their children’s illnesses and joys, etc. just as we all do. The institutions may be inefficient and bureaucratic but the hundreds of thousands of folks working in various government functions are largely just trying to get by and take care of their families.


The second para was to mock the assumption that the death penalty is neutrally applied, or based objectively on how "horrible: the crime is. The evidence is overwhelming that local prosecutors, when faced with a non-white defendant, stack juries with whites.


The third para follows from the 2nd, to show that there are severe racial disparities in who receives the death penalty. To your question, it does not matter, for this specific point, what the % distribution of crimes is. For the "Identical" Crime of 1st degree murder, a person of color is far more likely to be sentenced to death than a white person. I.e. despite the crimes being identical in severity, the punishments are much harsher for non-whites than whites. That is what the scandal in North Carolina is all about.

Yes, a rich person probably will risk criminal activity for a higher monetary amount than a poor person, but I don’t think, based on just that, that you can say the proportion of rich committing crimes is different than the proportion of poor committing crimes. The rich, however, do get to call it "White-Collar" crimes. As if a CEO ripping off and bankrupting a pension fund is in some way 'less horrible" than a plumber stealing tools from a construction site, that causes the project to lose money.

Data on income and crime does show that the poor (below the Poverty line) are twice as likely to be victims of crime than the rich. But the causes are not clear; since the rich tend to live in areas with greater security, often walled off enclaves, and can afford burglar alarms, etc.

Another big driver is income inequality (huge difference in wealth/assets owned between the rich and poor). Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.
 

DeletedUser36572

The 1st and 2nd paragraphs were written sarcastically, though probably that was not so clear on re-reading it. Apologies for that.

The first para was to point out the silliness of demonizing "government" or "lawyers". Just as any group (gardeners, teachers, small business owners, CEOs) lawyers are a varied mix of folks: parents and daughters/sons, and optimists/pessimists, democrats/republicans, and righteous/unethical persons. For example, public defenders are underpaid, overworked, but many are passionate believers in justice. They are not naïve; they are what I would call true patriots willing to walk the talk of “justice for all”.

And talking about “government as if it were some monolithic entity is silly. It’s an attempt to avoid recognizing that government is made up of people, just like you and me, who go to work, pay their bills, deal with their children’s illnesses and joys, etc. just as we all do. The institutions may be inefficient and bureaucratic but the hundreds of thousands of folks working in various government functions are largely just trying to get by and take care of their families.


The second para was to mock the assumption that the death penalty is neutrally applied, or based objectively on how "horrible: the crime is. The evidence is overwhelming that local prosecutors, when faced with a non-white defendant, stack juries with whites.


The third para follows from the 2nd, to show that there are severe racial disparities in who receives the death penalty. To your question, it does not matter, for this specific point, what the % distribution of crimes is. For the "Identical" Crime of 1st degree murder, a person of color is far more likely to be sentenced to death than a white person. I.e. despite the crimes being identical in severity, the punishments are much harsher for non-whites than whites. That is what the scandal in North Carolina is all about.

Yes, a rich person probably will risk criminal activity for a higher monetary amount than a poor person, but I don’t think, based on just that, that you can say the proportion of rich committing crimes is different than the proportion of poor committing crimes. The rich, however, do get to call it "White-Collar" crimes. As if a CEO ripping off and bankrupting a pension fund is in some way 'less horrible" than a plumber stealing tools from a construction site, that causes the project to lose money.

Data on income and crime does show that the poor (below the Poverty line) are twice as likely to be victims of crime than the rich. But the causes are not clear; since the rich tend to live in areas with greater security, often walled off enclaves, and can afford burglar alarms, etc.

Another big driver is income inequality (huge difference in wealth/assets owned between the rich and poor). Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.

So ... Do you pretty much support the theory that crime and punishment are the result of social inadequacies and have nothing to do with the choices criminals make ... Or, the idea that if we just fixed society, then crime would no longer be a significant factor?

Edit:
And also ... To fix the disparity in prosecution and punishment ... Do you think we should prosecute and punish white people more, or non-whites less?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

So ... Do you pretty much support the theory that crime and punishment are the result of social inadequacies and have nothing to do with the choices criminals make ... Or, the idea that if we just fixed society, then crime would no longer be a significant factor?

While evidence far from conclusive, it is pretty certain that criminal activity stems from multiple factors. Social factors are certainly important, as are family influences (nurture) There is also compelling evidence that genetics play a role, as does pre-birth exposure to drugs/toxins, some preventable diseases (like measles) and childhood malnutrition. The home and community environment play a role. That is why (personal opinion) as a society we should do as much as possible to ensure every child is given the opportunity to not just survive, but to thrive. Good food, health care, education, and safety from abuse and exploitation.

That said, it does not absolve a person from personal responsibility for her or his unsocial behavior. A wretched upbringing may make you understand why they made poor choices, and may spur you to ensure preventable social factors are better dealt with so that the next generation is not damaged.

Nonetheless, a crime is a crime and (if proven guilty) the person must be punished. Of course, it is not an area without greys. If a kid is starving and a parent steals food solely to feed the child, the punishment should be quite different than someone running out the door of a restaurant to avoid paying for a meal they could have afforded.

That is why having a jury “of one’s peers” is so vital: peers are more likely to know when someone is just irresponsible, and when mitigating factors have some true validity when sentencing occurs. In the majority of cases, criminals should have known better, and thus have full personal responsibly for their actions.

My personal opinion is that as a society, we should not celebrate when people fail, or think that it is ok for a child to grow up hungry, scared or abused. We should be “our brother’s and sister’s keeper”. We are rich enough to contribute some resources and work together as a society to help address racial, gender and other social barriers to accessing education, housing, healthcare, jobs. A society does have an obligation to give each child an equal, initial opportunity to make a productive and good life, which benefits everyone in society. However, if a person abuses or wastes that opportunity, they must be held personally accountable and they must suffer the consequences.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Edit:
And also ... To fix the disparity in prosecution and punishment ... Do you think we should prosecute and punish white people more, or non-whites less?
I would say giving the same sentencing to people for the same crime regardless of race or status of wealth would be a good place to start . Its not about charging these people more or those people more, thats the whole thing with prosecution disparity, but if a white kid caught with a gram of weed is let go with a warning vs a brown kid facing a year in jail, what are we telling our younger generation? Its okay to break the law as long as you're white?
 

DeletedUser

So ... Do you pretty much support the theory that crime and punishment are the result of social inadequacies and have nothing to do with the choices criminals make ... Or, the idea that if we just fixed society, then crime would no longer be a significant factor?

Edit:
And also ... To fix the disparity in prosecution and punishment ... Do you think we should prosecute and punish white people more, or non-whites less?

Just saw the edit.
We should not prosecute or punish based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Each crime should be judged based on its severity, and those found guilty should be punished in a similar way, with no regard to race or religion. (obviously gender could make a difference in sentencing. A pregnant woman should be locked up, at least until childbirth, in a facility where the pregnancy would not be endangered.)


Yes, absolutely believe that crime would be greatly reduced if we were a more tolerant, equitable and just society where every child had an equal opportunity to thrive, and every person an equal chance for being educated, having health needs taken care of , and faced no racial/ethnic discrimination in employment.


Crime and evil actions will likely always exist. While we can reduce environments that encourage criminal behavior, crime will never disappear. Some persons are innately anti-social, or sociopathic, or immoral. For them, police, courts and jails will always be needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
It's quite easy to understand. All babies in-utero are by definition innocent of any crime. Unfortunately, some adults choose to engage in behaviors so reprehensible, they void their right to continued life. Innocence vs. guilt. Murder vs. capital punishment. Not hard to wrap your head around. I take it you think the opposite? Abortion is all good for you?
I'll also never understand why conservatives stop the pro-life mantra after the child is born thinking social programs like welfare and universal healthcare aren't necessary. If a woman can't pay for her child's birth/surgery/food/water/necessary ingredients to life, would you blame the woman for failing her child? Is it her fault she was forced into giving birth when she wasn't ready to raise a child so you can feel better about yourself for the actions of others? Do you feel good about yourself suggesting that adoption is an option for the mother while the foster care system is already over populated? Do you volunteer at women's health clinics? Do you suggest to your politicians that medication shouldn't be marked up in value by 1000%?

Edit: By your logic, the pharmaceutical companies are guilty of capital murder for raising prices on life saving medication knowing that many families that need it will not be able to pay for it. That's fine for you, though? They made the medicine, so they get to set the price, right? What about the economic disparity in America? The majority of families that have abortions performed are poor. Do you think another child to that community is going to help their situation? Do you know how much it costs to raise a child in America? Do you know the disparity of costs between women's healthcare to men's?

You don't. And you don't care. All you care about is legally murdering adults who were found guilty by our flawed judicial system and sentencing raped 14 year old girls to life long pain and suffering brought on by child birth and bearing. Maybe she can learn to love this result of a horrific event that occured in her life? Maybe. Will she still have every health problem that comes with child birth? Maybe. Will she be able to receive any help for it? Nope. Doesn't matter though. Innocent baby gets born right? Would it matter if the child died two years later due to health complications because the mother couldn't afford it? Would you blame the mother for that?

Second edit: I said it from the start, i would be pro-life if we put women's health first..if we even cared about women...but the truth of the matter is that in politics, in the conservative party, they don't. They just care about votes. Old, white men who will never know the cost of child birth taking on the frame of being pro-life while fighting against taxes and healthcare. Fighting against taking the power away from their PAC buddies in the pharma and insurance industries. Whatever, you'll vote for them.

Third edit: You're going to respond that there is no con v lib blah blah you've said only right v wrong blah blah blah. If that were the case in politics, it'd be more clear who the better choice would be. Sadly, it's not the case in American politics and we have to choose democrat or republican..founded on the basis of whether more or less government is better. Do they all have everything we agree with? Absolutely not. So I'll say it better this time and see if you agree, the two party system of government has wrecked this once great nation.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser36572

I would say giving the same sentencing to people for the same crime regardless of race or status of wealth would be a good place to start . Its not about charging these people more or those people more, thats the whole thing with prosecution disparity, but if a white kid caught with a gram of weed is let go with a warning vs a brown kid facing a year in jail, what are we telling our younger generation? Its okay to break the law as long as you're white?
Just saw the edit.
We should not prosecute or punish based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Each crime should be judged based on its severity, and those found guilty should be punished in a similar way, with no regard to race or religion. (obviously gender could make a difference in sentencing. A pregnant woman should be locked up, at least until childbirth, in a facility where the pregnancy would not be endangered.)


Yes, absolutely believe that crime would be greatly reduced if we were a more tolerant, equitable and just society where every child had an equal opportunity to thrive, and every person an equal chance for being educated, having health needs taken care of , and faced no racial/ethnic discrimination in employment.


Crime and evil actions will likely always exist. While we can reduce environments that encourage criminal behavior, crime will never disappear. Some persons are innately anti-social, or sociopathic, or immoral. For them, police, courts and jails will always be needed.

In response to both of you ... It is assumed you desire parity (I posted “to fix the disparity”).

The question was to which subset (whites, non-whites) we should target said parity ... It is a process question.

You may think whites are not prosecuted enough, non-whites are prosecuted too much, and one is going to be greater than the other. My question is which subset do you favor?
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
In response to both of you ... It is assumed you desire parity (I posted “to fix the disparity”).

The question was to which subset (whites, non-whites) we should target said parity ... It is a process question.

You may think whites are not prosecuted enough, non-whites are prosecuted too much, and one is going to be greater than the other. My question is which subset do you favor?
Why not both? Why does it need to be one? What if I think whites are not prosecuted enough while at the same time non-whites are prosecuted too harshly. Its a "rich get richer and poor get poorer" sort of disparity
 

DeletedUser36572

Why not both? Why does it need to be one? What if I think whites are not prosecuted enough while at the same time non-whites are prosecuted too harshly. Its a "rich get richer and poor get poorer" sort of disparity

For it to be both ... As far a prosecution and punishment is concerned ... You have indentify which crimes you wish whites were punished more for ... And which crimes non-whites were punished less for.

I asked you which subset was closer to where you think prosecution and punishment should be.

Also ... Statistics are only as good as the person interpreting them and how they intend to address the interpretation.

Example (regardless of race):

Let’s say you and I commit the same offense, appear in front of the same judge, are both found guilty and receive the same sentence.

The sentence is a $1250.00 fine or 30 days in jail.

If I have $1250.00 and you don’t ... Your incarceration rate is going to skyrocket while I am drinking margaritas on the back porch.


Plus ... The rich getting richer is the product of having the resources necessary to invest in their prosperity ... Which in no way means they owe anyone else jack.
 

DeletedUser

For it to be both ... As far a prosecution and punishment is concerned ... You have indentify which crimes you wish whites were punished more for ... And which crimes non-whites were punished less for.

I asked you which subset was closer to where you think prosecution and punishment should be.

Also ... Statistics are only as good as the person interpreting them and how they intend to address the interpretation.

Example (regardless of race):

Let’s say you and I commit the same offense, appear in front of the same judge, are both found guilty and receive the same sentence.

The sentence is a $1250.00 fine or 30 days in jail.

If I have $1250.00 and you don’t ... Your incarceration rate is going to skyrocket while I am drinking margaritas on the back porch.


Plus ... The rich getting richer is the product of having the resources necessary to invest in their prosperity ... Which in no way means they owe anyone else jack.


Not at all. The discrimination I referred to was discrimination in how sentences are applied to all those found guilty of the same crime.

What I am saying must be the goal is: for everyone who commits the same type and severity of crime, they should get the same punishment. It is a not at all about absolute numbers. It is not that whites do not get punished; they receive a less severe punishment.

E.g. for the same crime, 100 people of color receive the death penalty, while 100 whites receive 20 years with possibility of parole. That’s immoral and racist. If, however, only 1 Hindu and 6000 Catholics commit the same crime, and all 6001 get identical punishments, there is no disparity and nothing on the sentencing side needs correction.

As long as everyone who commits the same crime gets the same punishment, disparity in the type and severity of sentencing automatically disappear.

Relative numbers across races, ethnicity gender, etc matter when examining factors that might ore-dispose someone to criminal behavior matter (but not absolute numbers, since a minority group by definition has lower absolute numbers).

As an example, if the % committing petty, non-violent robbery is about the same when race is factored in, but wildly different when income or religion is factored in, then you have something to investigate. You can try to see why, and how to mitigate it through changes in laws or better enforcement of laws. E.g. the distribution of crimes in Northern Ireland differs between Catholics and Protestants, though both are white (to our eyes). That is because Protestants and Catholics there view themselves as belonging to different ethnic groups, and Catholics (being the minority) historically were discriminated against. (Protestants tend to identify as being British, or Ulster, rather than Irish). Much like WASPs frequently discriminated against white Catholics in the USA until just recently (e.g. Kennedy election propaganda was fierce). My father was barred from several jobs for being Catholic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser36572

Not at all. The discrimination I referred to was discrimination in how sentences are applied to all those found guilty of the same crime.

What I am saying must be the goal is: for everyone who commits the same type and severity of crime, they should get the same punishment. It is a not at all about absolute numbers. It is not that whites do not get punished; they receive a less severe punishment.

E.g. for the same crime, 100 people of color receive the death penalty, while 100 whites receive 20 years with possibility of parole. That’s immoral and racist. If, however, only 1 Hindu and 6000 Catholics commit the same crime, and all 6001 get identical punishments, there is no disparity and nothing on the sentencing side needs correction.

As long as everyone who commits the same crime gets the same punishment, disparity in the type and severity of sentencing automatically disappear.

Relative numbers across races, ethnicity gender, etc matter when examining factors that might ore-dispose someone to criminal behavior matter (but not absolute numbers, since a minority group by definition has lower absolute numbers).

As an example, if the % committing petty, non-violent robbery is about the same when race is factored in, but wildly different when income or religion is factored in, then you have something to investigate. You can try to see why, and how to mitigate it through changes in laws or better enforcement of laws. E.g. the distribution of crimes in Northern Ireland differs between Catholics and Protestants, though both are white (to our eyes). That is because Protestants and Catholics there view themselves as belonging to different ethnic groups, and Catholics (being the minority) historically were discriminated against. (Protestants tend to identify as being Anglo-Saxon, or Ulster, rather than Irish). Much like WASPs frequently discriminated against white Catholics in the USA until just recently (e.g. Kennedy election propaganda was fierce). My father was barred from several jobs for being Catholic.



What I have been asking you is not whether or not there is a disparity ... But rather, what you intend to do about it?

If a white man commits the same crime as a black man ... And they receive the same punishment ... Should that punishment be what the white man had been getting, or what the black man had been getting before you got rid of the disparity?

You cannot answer the question with a little of both, or the cases should be judged individually ... Because they are judged individually now and that is not good enough for you, and you are comparing them to each other in order to obtain a disparity.

Also ... By what metric do you intend to determine the severity of individual crimes not directly related to the same victim, perpetrator and conditions?

What is unjust, immoral and racist about a non-white being charged by a non-white prosecutor, tried in front of a non-white judge, and majority non-white jury ... And what do the disparity numbers look like when those convictions are thrown out of the mix?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I'll also never understand why conservatives stop the pro-life mantra after the child is born thinking social programs like welfare and universal healthcare aren't necessary. If a woman can't pay for her child's birth/surgery/food/water/necessary ingredients to life, would you blame the woman for failing her child? Is it her fault she was forced into giving birth when she wasn't ready to raise a child so you can feel better about yourself for the actions of others? Do you feel good about yourself suggesting that adoption is an option for the mother while the foster care system is already over populated? Do you volunteer at women's health clinics? Do you suggest to your politicians that medication shouldn't be marked up in value by 1000%?
Please don't conflate issues that are unrelated to each other. Also stop implying that correlation equals causation, it doesn't.

Bottom line is it comes back to personal responsibility and self-governance. No one wants to talk about why the girl is pregnant unprepared to be a mother. And don't trot out the rape/incest canard. The truth is that very few abortions are performed on that basis. The primary reason is convenience. So I ask you, what woman or man is unable to afford condoms? Do condoms fail? Rarely. Certainly no where near the failure rate of bareback.

The rest of what you're saying is, "So, let's kill them so we don't have to deal with them, and we don't have to deal with the F'd up society and systems we've created that created them and we refuse to reverse, repair, or clean up." That you don't see that any argument that encourages us to kill our young is from the pit of hell is disturbing. Talk about someone who needs prayer.

Edit: By your logic, the pharmaceutical companies are guilty of capital murder for raising prices on life saving medication knowing that many families that need it will not be able to pay for it. That's fine for you, though? They made the medicine, so they get to set the price, right? What about the economic disparity in America? The majority of families that have abortions performed are poor. Do you think another child to that community is going to help their situation? Do you know how much it costs to raise a child in America? Do you know the disparity of costs between women's healthcare to men's?

You don't. And you don't care. All you care about is legally murdering adults who were found guilty by our flawed judicial system and sentencing raped 14 year old girls to life long pain and suffering brought on by child birth and bearing. Maybe she can learn to love this result of a horrific event that occured in her life? Maybe. Will she still have every health problem that comes with child birth? Maybe. Will she be able to receive any help for it? Nope. Doesn't matter though. Innocent baby gets born right? Would it matter if the child died two years later due to health complications because the mother couldn't afford it? Would you blame the mother for that?

Second edit: I said it from the start, i would be pro-life if we put women's health first..if we even cared about women...but the truth of the matter is that in politics, in the conservative party, they don't. They just care about votes. Old, white men who will never know the cost of child birth taking on the frame of being pro-life while fighting against taxes and healthcare. Fighting against taking the power away from their PAC buddies in the pharma and insurance industries. Whatever, you'll vote for them.

Third edit: You're going to respond that there is no con v lib blah blah you've said only right v wrong blah blah blah. If that were the case in politics, it'd be more clear who the better choice would be. Sadly, it's not the case in American politics and we have to choose democrat or republican..founded on the basis of whether more or less government is better. Do they all have everything we agree with? Absolutely not. So I'll say it better this time and see if you agree, the two party system of government has wrecked this once great nation.
Sorry, not discussing the healthcare system here or economic disparity. That poor people have been conned into having more unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions is the problem. Why do rich liberals target poor brown communities with abortion clinics? Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals "Accuse your opponent of that which you're guilty of." Liberal policies have decimated minority communities. The biggest issue we face in America is too many homes without a father.

And don't even suggest because I think killing babies in-utero is abhorrent, that I hate women. You're an ass if you do. Then to prove you are, you launch into every fear porn scenario you can think of, hoping something sticks. It didn't. Killing innocents is wrong. In-utero, ex-utero, the rest is all your blah, blah, blah to soothe your conscience. Problem is your conscience is seared. Don't project that onto me. I'm not the one arguing to kill innocent babies.
 
Last edited:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Please don't conflate issues that are unrelated to each other. Also stop implying that correlation equals causation, it doesn't.

Bottom line is it comes back to personal responsibility and self-governance. No one wants to talk about why the girl is pregnant unprepared to be a mother. And don't trot out the rape/incest canard. The truth is that very few abortions are performed on that basis. The primary reason is convenience. So I ask you, what woman or man is unable to afford condoms? Do condoms fail? Rarely. Certainly no where near the failure rate of bareback.

The rest of what you're saying is, "So, let's kill them so we don't have to deal with them, and we don't have to deal with the F'd up society and systems we've created that created them and we refuse to reverse, repair, or clean up." That you don't see that any argument that encourages us to kill our young is from the pit of hell is disturbing. Talk about someone who needs prayer.


Sorry, not discussing the healthcare system here or economic disparity. That poor people have been conned into having more unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions is the problem. Why do rich liberals target poor brown communities with abortion clinics? Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals "Accuse your opponent of that which you're guilty of." Liberal policies have decimated minority communities. The biggest issue we face in America is too many homes without a father.

And don't even suggest because I think killing babies in-utero is abhorrent, that I hate women. You're an ass if you do. Then to prove you are, you lauinch into every fear porn scenario you cab think of, hoping something sticks. It didn't. Killing innocents in wrong. In-utero, ex-utero, the rest is all your blah, blah, blah to soothe your conscience. Problem is your conscience is seared. Don't project that onto me. I'm not the one arguing to kill innocent babies.
Wow, lots of projection and diversion from the topic at hand. Do I think you hate women? Its possible. You certainly gave me no reason to think otherwise while saying "How dare you young man". You just shouted around that I was diverting the topic while doing the same thing yourself. You've yet to answer any of my questions. You've yet to provide any compromise to the topics at hand. Educate yourself. The largest number of abortions come from poor, minority families. Second to rape. In fact, saying its just convenience most of the time inflates my suspicion that you hate women and demonize poor people.
 
Top