Death penalty off the table for Texas shooter

[Fawlty]

On the one hand you say it does not matter, when you know the Founders did believe so... we now have their explicit intent.

On the other hand, you say it does not matter because the language is also ambiguous, but ambiguous to protect religion.... (Christian sects being the explicit historical and living representation of their representatives, the vast majority of whom were Christian and were escaping the Reformation woes of Christian Europe, not Istanbul, or Tlaloc) we now have their explicit intent on religious grounds per Amendment 1 of the Constitution.

I would add, religion which they almost uniformly respected and said so, even for those who did not believe such as Jefferson.

If they were not referencing the God of Abraham, which was about their only point of reference at that time, and the established following of most of their subjects.

They Capitalized God, and mentioned Creator, you know they are not talking about Gaia, you also know they are talking about John Locke and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Ehecatai.

- God is explicitly stated and capitalized.

- Creator is explicitly stated and capitalized.

- with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

Powerful stuff. I do not think they mean to reference the abstract since they go out of their way to respect the guidance, existence, and good nature of a creator, based on John Locke and what was then the cornerstone, if you will, of all Western thought for the past 1,500 to 1,600 odd years.

Now as for your perhaps looking through an emotional lens:

I can "go fuck myself" and you "demand an apology."

If I was wrong I would apologize, and have before on this forum, I am not here for face saving rituals or team-honor purposes.

Many speak of riled jimmies around the internet, so I ask in what is good faith, are you really so upset and have to convoluted so much what is by intent of the:

Philosopher who founded it, the men who wrote it, the people they proposed to serve, the language they chose to use, and not only referencing God based on the context of all those people and principles, but choosing to personify Him and even his works with deference?

I don't think that's Gaia, and based on the insults and outrage, that looks more like emotion than ration.

No, you called it "bad faith." I didn't argue anything in bad faith. You will address this and you will apologize for it.

So, Fuck You still. It's not bad faith. Repair this, it's on you. I don't play that shit with people I get along with.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

Which is it, 20 is too young to buy a long gun or 17 is too young to fry ? Seems like you can't have it both ways and be consistent.

Personally I'd have no trouble the stringing him up , but we're definitely all over the place with these arbitrary #s

 

[KILL KILL]

It's crazy how if this guy was one year older, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I really see both sides of the argument as being valid, but I do feel like executing someone for something they did as a minor opens up a can of worms.

 

[InternetHero]

No, you called it "bad faith." I didn't argue anything in bad faith. You will address this and you will apologize for it.

So, Fuck You still. It's not bad faith. Repair this, it's on you. I don't play that shit with people I get along with.

If it is not bad faith; then what is it? Misunderstanding? Ignorance? Or something else?

The reason I said so, is that you are smart and savvy, and yet the best of us get riled up when our heart is involved in something.

There is an impossible logical conundrum here, as all of this should be easy to acknowledge:

- John Locke was talking about the God of Abraham and you are aware of this

- The American Revolutionaries were all Deists and Christians who oversaw a predominately Christian nation

- The words they chose did not suggest, but directly appealed to the Monotheistic God of Abraham who they chose to call God by name, Creator, and whose Providence they were in clear reverent too.

- The 1st Amendment in one breath does not want a single church, religion, or any institution to corrupt the government, and in the second breath declares the government shall not interfere with the right to practice any religious ideas. (A rather Christian thing to do, to be fair.)

One may argue that they did not explicitly mean "that" deity from the Biblical narrative, but the point at the very very least was to honor what they believed was a direct, somewhat it completely omnipresent, and peaceable God that almost all present believed was inspired/like the God of Abraham, or else they believed explicitly in the God of Abraham. A couple of radicals might have argued otherwise like perhaps Paine, but even so most would grudgingly agree with that large majority.

Deists like Jefferson and Paine, practicing Christians such as Samuel Adams, and probably more tradition minded Christians such as Washington and I believe Benjamin Franklin, though would not be quoted on that.

Speaking of, a good quote solidily attriubuted to Jefferson:

As Himmelfarb recounts it (from The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments)

On his way to church one Sunday, Jefferson was met by a friend.


“You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it.”


“Sir [Jefferson replied], no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”

The whole thought process was through a Judaeo-Christian paintbrush, the canvass which they wished to paint was a mixture of Christian groups, and that was the work they were trying to create.

If you asked "The Founders" if the 1st Amendment was meant to protect Atheists and Muslims? Who knows, and who cares? Clearly that is not a reason to rework or rewrite the narrative. Any clear minded person can say today of course they should be protected.

That said, they were clearly overwhelmingly believers in that inspiration of God and the Locke's interpretations of Natural Law* through that God is not a , and many stridently so. (That's why I say bad faith as well. You know "Natural" with God is calling to Natural Law and Locke, not herb sniffing shaman. What gives? Why attempt such a twist when "Divine Providence" and "sacred Honor" are front and center? It is a document that is meaning to be pro-religious, but pro-religious as a guide for government, not a dogma for government.)

The American Revolutionaries and Founders were not Jacobin-minded men ready to enforce "Reason," and destroy religion at any cost, and we were spared the "Reign of Terror" as a result.

I do not want to kick dust on your shoes, or steal your handkerchief, or make suggestive thumb maneuvers in your wife's general direction.

If I misunderstand you and we are on the same page I will apologize, if you misunderstand me I trust you to do the same, and if we are both a bit ignorant and blind to the others viewpoints so be it.

A handshakes always trump duels, doubly so an internet duel, and enemies lists are for Nixon's and Kardashian's.

 

[Fawlty]

If it is not bad faith; then what is it? Misunderstanding? Ignorance? Or something else?

The reason I said so, is that you are smart and savvy, and yet the best of us get riled up when our heart is involved in something.

There is an impossible logical conundrum here, as all of this should be easy to acknowledge:

- John Locke was talking about the God of Abraham and you are aware of this

- The American Revolutionaries were all Deists and Christians who oversaw a predominately Christian nation

- The words they chose did not suggest, but directly appealed to the Monotheistic God of Abraham who they chose to call God by name, Creator, and whose Providence they were in clear reverent too.

- The 1st Amendment in one breath does not want a single church, religion, or any institution to corrupt the government, and in the second breath declares the government shall not interfere with the right to practice any religious ideas. (A rather Christian thing to do, to be fair.)

One may argue that they did not explicitly mean "that" deity from the Biblical narrative, but the point at the very very least was to honor what they believed was a direct, somewhat it completely omnipresent, and peaceable God that almost all present believed was inspired/like the God of Abraham, or else they believed explicitly in the God of Abraham. A couple of radicals might have argued otherwise like perhaps Paine, but even so most would grudgingly agree with that large majority.

Deists like Jefferson and Paine, practicing Christians such as Samuel Adams, and probably more tradition minded Christians such as Washington and I believe Benjamin Franklin, though would not be quoted on that.

Speaking of, a good quote solidily attriubuted to Jefferson:

As Himmelfarb recounts it (from The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments)

On his way to church one Sunday, Jefferson was met by a friend.


“You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it.”


“Sir [Jefferson replied], no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”

The whole thought process was through a Judaeo-Christian paintbrush, the canvass which they wished to paint was a mixture of Christian groups, and that was the work they were trying to create.

If you asked "The Founders" if the 1st Amendment was meant to protect Atheists and Muslims? Who knows, and who cares? Clearly that is not a reason to rework or rewrite the narrative. Any clear minded person can say today of course they should be protected.

That said, they were clearly overwhelmingly believers in that inspiration of God and the Locke's interpretations of Natural Law* through that God is not a , and many stridently so. (That's why I say bad faith as well. You know "Natural" with God is calling to Natural Law and Locke, not herb sniffing shaman. What gives? Why attempt such a twist when "Divine Providence" and "sacred Honor" are front and center? It is a document that is meaning to be pro-religious, but pro-religious as a guide for government, not a dogma for government.)

The American Revolutionaries and Founders were not Jacobin-minded men ready to enforce "Reason," and destroy religion at any cost, and we were spared the "Reign of Terror" as a result.

I do not want to kick dust on your shoes, or steal your handkerchief, or make suggestive thumb maneuvers in your wife's general direction.

If I misunderstand you and we are on the same page I will apologize, if you misunderstand me I trust you to do the same, and if we are both a bit ignorant and blind to the others viewpoints so be it.

A handshakes always trump duels, doubly so an internet duel, and enemies lists are for Nixon's and Kardashian's.

Again, you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, which is not true. You will retract that, and apologize for it before anything between you and me can continue. That's the deal. You certainly wouldn't have to spend a whole page trying to convince me of your argument if I was arguing in bad faith. Fix it. Still on you. And last chance.

 

[OCGSC]

You kill, rape and brutally assault people you should get put down like a trifling ass dog you are no excesses.

 

[Bloodworth]

Kill him. Way too much money keeping him alive for life.

Conjugal visits are expensive to set up.

Some cop killer from ny fathered like 4 kids from conjugal visits while locked up

So wrong, so backwards. Stupid PC liberals

 

[lifelessheap]

Just boil the fucker to death. Slowly. Torture him to death, and make it a policy where mass shooters and terrorists get tortured.

 

[Satanical Eve]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but personally if I was facing 20+ years, I would 100% unquestionably rather die. To me, letting an asshole like that pass away is getting off easy. Let him waste away behind bars for the rest of his mortal life. Put him in gen pop where he might be around some family members of the victims. Let him live through the hell the victims felt, every day for the rest of his days.

Another thing to note is that it cost more to house someone who is given the death penalty than those who are given a life sentence.

I've seen time and time again individuals who have committed murder and what not as a teenager regret what they did later on in life and end up living a miserable existence in prison as they come to terms with what they did and realize they truly ruined their life. I am against the death penalty simply for the fact we had individuals in the United States who were executed only to later be found innocent. For that alone I wish for the death penalty to be abolished. It is a barbaric practice that we as a country should be above

 

[InternetHero]

Again, you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, which is not true. You will retract that, and apologize for it before anything between you and me can continue. That's the deal. You certainly wouldn't have to spend a whole page trying to convince me of your argument if I was arguing in bad faith. Fix it. Still on you. And last chance.

I asked what I feel is a very reasonable question about what I see to be an unreasonable position, you are markedly angry and took it as a question of honor, I asked again and explained all that I could, and you demand satisfaction for your honor.

I understand, but do not agree at all. You have your honor, I have my honesty and can not apologize for what I see as nothing, especially when you choose to make demands, insults, and near threats out of every form of the question.

In that case, you are right about the last part, it is as you say. Things are broken and there is nothing more to discuss in this life.

All the best to you in everything you that you do online and in reality.