April 06, 2009

Do we really need fear Republicans shooting up the place?

Mr. Silver Spoon Jason Scott and the other Neanderthalic minions of Delaware Liberal are hyping the idea that those who hold Republican/conservative views -- and/or believe in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment -- are inherently dangerous to society.

But do we need fear these folks more than Democrats/liberals?

In the debates over whether felons can vote, both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree implicitly that felons will tend to favor Democrats. I have never heard anyone even hint the opposite.

That is consistent with General Social Survey data showing that the odds of a Democrat or Independent reporting having been arrested or charged with a crime are 122% higher than the odds of a Republican reporting being arrested or charged with a crime. Among those who report having been arrested or charged, only 12% are Republicans. The others are 9% Independent, leaning Republican; 18% Independent (no leans); 18% Independent, leaning Democratic; 40% Democrats. (Of course, arrest is not the same as offending or conviction, but the political makeup is likely to be in the same general direction.) (Source.)

In addition, GOPers report being happier than Democrats, and when angry, the duration is less than that of those in the opposite party.

Based on this cold logic, one should "fear" Democrats more than Republicans.

But, you see, I, like many others, dance to the beat of a different drummer. We don't take such studies and statistics and then [seriously] make broad, generalized sweeping statements that "Democrats should be feared" and "are an imminent danger to the country" (or even "treasonous") like some do (in reverse).

Make no mistake -- this is what way too many so-called "progressives"/liberals/Democrats do. And 'though they'll tell you they love the Constitution more than anyone, especially conservatives, these sort of comments demonstrate a desire to limit speech that they do not like. These same folks who screamed at the top of their lungs that George W. Bush was "trashing the Constitution" see little hassle with doing same -- all in the name of "what's 'right and just'."

For conservatives, it's usually about diminishing things like the 4th Amendment (see the "War on Terror," drug war, etc.).

For liberals/"progressives," it's the 1st Amendment. We see this notion perfected on American college campuses (which are dominated by liberals) via the "speech code." These codes restrict speech for precisely the reason behind Jason Scott's diatribe: That certain things (don't ask what they are as they're always in flux) should not be discussed because they MAY harm others. On campus they're primarily jokes or comments about race, ethnicity or gender. With simpletons like Scott, it's discussions about the role of the federal government vs. states' rights, 2nd Amendment rights, and voiced disdain over statist economic policies.

The thing is, once a little "sunlight" is shown on college speech codes (usually thanks to groups like FIRE), administrators wither faster a perennial in the Sahara. Free speech is just that; the right to not be offended is NOT part of the 1st Amendment, nor should it be. The Chaplinsky "fighting words" standard has been so "weakened" over the decades that only anything short of an imminent threat to one's person is illegal under 1st Amendment standards.

To attempt to link legitimate political discussions of Constitutional matters -- like 10th Amendment or 2nd Amendment rights -- to the dreadful actions of deranged individuals means we might as well chuck the 1st Amendment right now. After all, using this very [silly] standard, we could then "blame" Barack Obama for any anti-white/anti-Semitic crime if the perpetrator had mentioned the preachings of Jeremiah Wright. Did not our current president sit in Wright's pews for 20 years? Does that not establish a certain inherent agreement with the preacher's more hateful rhetoric -- hence, if someone mentioned Wright's teachings before, during or after the commission of a crime, wouldn't that make not only Wright but those who have followed his words for decades culpable as well?

Sound ridiculous? I concur. But that is precisely what Jason Scott has attempted (and his cohorts continue to attempt) to do against conservatives/Republicans.

UPDATE: Shouldn't we expect the DE Liberal crowd to come out denounce this symposium? Doesn't the sentiment expressed here have "consequences?"

Don't hold your breath.

Posted by Hube at April 6, 2009 04:14 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Ran into one commenter (anon) who expressed support for the idea of murdering all Republicans -- with not one word of condemnation from other commenters. The closest you got was a suggestion from one that he would stand by and watch, but not participate -- but only due to his potential legal exposure, not because of any moral objection. And not one commenter (besides me) called anon on engaging in the sort of "eliminationist" rhetoric that DL often condemns conservatives for (for much more benign statements, btw).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 6, 2009 08:12 PM

Republicans are the ones with all the money and power; of course they're happier. So if they commit violence, it's their fault. The Democrats represent the oppressed of society. What other choice do they have? The violence is not their fault, it is the fault of the society that oppresses them.

(Did I really write that?)

Posted by: soccer dad at April 7, 2009 10:12 AM

Rhymes, of course that kind of talk is to be condemned, and I condemn it.

I ask you, likewise, to condemn state sanctioned murder, otherwise known as the death penalty. If you don't, instead stand idly by, you are then guilty of the same morality flaw that you condemn!

Posted by: Perry at April 7, 2009 03:32 PM

Bullshit, Perry.

Lawful execution after due process of law is an entirely different thing morally from cold-blooded murder.

Your equating them is the equivalent of equating forcible rape with a blow job.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 7, 2009 07:06 PM

That's what Perry does, Rhymes. He somehow believes it a virtue to see things "gray." He cannot see right from wrong if it punched him in the face.

This is why he is a morally depraved "person."

Posted by: Hube at April 7, 2009 07:29 PM

Rhymes just said: "Lawful execution after due process of law is an entirely different thing morally from cold-blooded murder."

Wrong, Rhymes (and Hube). Lawful execution is cold-blooded murder because it is premeditated, therefore morally indefensible to anyone who considers himself/herself "pro-life". You have made the patently false assumption that that which is legal is also moral -- Oh my goodness!!!

Posted by: Perry at April 7, 2009 08:35 PM

Perry: Why do you persist? Why go through this again? If what you say is accurate, then why do you have NO PROBLEM with women "making the choice" to have an abortion? Your personal preference on the matter is irrelevant. You have said "it's ultimately up to the woman." Up to the woman to ... engage in premediated killing.

Once again, you prove yourself to be a morally inconsistent buffoon.

Posted by: Hube at April 7, 2009 08:54 PM

Excuse me, Perry, but I can't help but be struck by the arrogance of a pro-abortion cretin like yourself daring to tell me what is and is not consistent with my own view on the issues of abortion and capital punishment.

Let's spell it out for you, in the hopes that you can wrap your reptilian brain around it.

1) The intentional taking of innocent life is always wrong.

2) Abortion is the taking of innocent life, and is therefore wrong.

3) Capital punishment is not the taking of innocent life, given that it is punishment for a crime (ordinarily murder, which is the intentional taking of innocent human life) inflicted after rigorous examination of the case to ensure due process of law. Even in cases in which the crime is not one of murder, it does involve the individual who is executed being adjudicated as guilty of some offense that gravely harms society. As such, capital punishment is clearly NOT the taking of an innocent human life.

4) As for the argument you have made in the past from the mistranslation of the Hebrew word "ratsach", the Hebrew Decalogue does not ban capital punishment, but only murder. Indeed, the same books that contain that commandment go on to explicitly insist that certain offenses are to be punished by execution, indicating that the Judeo-Christian tradition from which I come does not in any way reject the death penalty as murder (though some segments of both argue against capital punishment on other bases).

As such, there is no inconsistency in my position on the two issues. It is intellectually and morally dishonest for you to claim otherwise, for you are quite aware of how and why those two types of taking of human life differ.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 7, 2009 09:41 PM

Hube, Rhymes, let me put it to you, again, as simply and basically as I can: I am personally against abortion; I am personally against capital punishment. That's consistent! You two are likewise personally against abortion, you two are personally for capital punishment. That is inconsistent!

And about capital punishment, one more point: It is obviously irreversible! How do you respond to that?

Now let me introduce one more thought: Absolutism (i.e.,a belief) can exist as a consistent philosophy within an individual, but this concept does not necessarily hold true from one individual to the next. My point is that your absolutism is not transferable to me by suasion or by law unless I accept it.

Finally, I repeat my overall pro-life moral position: Under no circumstances should a life be taken by another, unless one's own life is under imminent threat.

I have a friend who takes this one step further, to a higher moral level: If her own life is under imminent threat, she would sacrifice her own life rather than take the life of another. You know her, Hube!

The point I make here is that we all draw the line somewhere, there is no absolute on this or any other moral issue. To help, we turn to guides such as the Bible, the Koran, the Buddah-Dharma, Confucius, .... Thus, each of us who cares makes our own moral decisions, then is left to using suasion to influence others and to make laws. Incidentally, terms like "cretin", "reptilian", and "buffoon" hardly contribute to your efforts at suasion.

PS: Rhymes, since you have now introduced the term "innocent life" in your argument, you will need to produce a general definition of that term so I can understand what you mean by it.

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 09:23 AM

Perry: You have stated that it is not your right to impose your will against a woman who makes the decision to have an abortion. Yet, you do not express same against a jury that has determined that a heinous murderer should be executed.

This is INCONSISTENT. You can insist you are consistent as much as you wish; rational people, however, see your position as the usual morally depraved stance that it is.


Posted by: Hube at April 8, 2009 09:34 AM

Hube, I modified my argument to base it on "personal" positions on the issue. Thus, you have no argument about the consistency characterization, My position is consistent, yours and Rhymes' are not.

I agree with you, we do not agree on the law and it's enforcement. I don't believe I have the right to impose by law my moral values on a pregnant woman, although if asked I would counsel her against abortion, in favor of adoption. What is "morally depraved" about that position, I ask you?

On capital punishment, my position against it is based on my view that it is morally wrong to have state sponsored premeditated killing, and, on the irreversibility of that action in case we kill an innocent person. What is "morally depraved" about that position, I ask you?

Hube, we are now at the point where it is unlikely that we will agree. If so, why not just leave it at that?

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 10:37 AM

Hube, my response to your most current post did not post. Does this mean you have cut off this discussion? If so, that is really, really weak.

I note that you have not responded to my point about the irreversibility of capital punishment and the fact that then an innocent person may be executed, as has actually happened.

Now let me repeat the post that has not yet been posted, thinking that there may have just been a glitch: "Hube, I modified my argument to base it on "personal" positions on the issue. Thus, you have no argument about the consistency characterization, My position is consistent, yours and Rhymes' are not.

I agree with you, we do not agree on the law and it's enforcement. I don't believe I have the right to impose by law my moral values on a pregnant woman, although if asked I would counsel her against abortion, in favor of adoption. What is "morally depraved" about that position, I ask you?

On capital punishment, my position against it is based on my view that it is morally wrong to have state sponsored premeditated killing, and, on the irreversibility of that action in case we kill an innocent person. What is "morally depraved" about that position, I ask you?

Hube, we are now at the point where it is unlikely that we will agree. If so, why not just leave it at that?"

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 11:17 AM

There continue to be difficulties in posting on your site, Hube, which just caused the above problem for me. So be it, my post is now posted. Thanks!

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 11:21 AM

Perry: By now you should know about the comment spam issues associated w/Colossus. Spare me your infantile rantings related to "comment conspiracies."

Thus, you have no argument about the consistency characterization, My position is consistent, yours and Rhymes' are not.

Really? Let's see:

I don't believe I have the right to impose by law my moral values on a pregnant woman

But you fail to make the SAME distinction about the decided execution of a convicted murderer! IOW, let's get right to it -- YES or NO: If a state ALLOWS capital punishment (like our own), would you favor a LAW that would prohibit it?

Again, YES or NO.

We'll soon see if you're consistent or not.

Posted by: Hube at April 8, 2009 01:02 PM

There's only continued problems commenting if you ignore the notice at the top of the comment window!

Posted by: Hube at April 8, 2009 01:03 PM

Hube, I note that you did not respond to the irreversibility issue of capital punishment. Why not?

Other than that, it is futile for me to repeat myself. Reread my post!

Finally, I will repeat my statement: ""We are now at the point where it is unlikely that we will agree. If so, why not just leave it at that?""

Just let it go, Hube!

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 02:39 PM

As if ABORTION is irreversible!!

Once again: YES or NO: If a state ALLOWS capital punishment (like our own), would you favor a LAW that would prohibit it?

Your refusal to answer this PROVES you to be the moral coward you've shown yourself to be time and time again, Perry. Therefore, do NOT speak to myself or Rhymes of "inconsistency."

Posted by: Hube at April 8, 2009 03:00 PM

Can't let it go, can you Hube?

Right, since abortion is irreversible, and you oppose it, the fact that capitol punishment is also irreversible, you still are in favor of it. You have just demonstrated your inconsistency, which I have been claiming now for how many posts?

As I said before, I personally oppose both abortion and capital punishment, therefore I am consistent.

And yes, I would support a law outlawing capitol punishment in DE, just as I support the Federal law that outlaws the abortion of a viable foetus, unless a medical decision has to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the viable foetus. So there, Hube, consistent once again.

When are you going to get your positions on pro-life to be consistent, Hube. Shall we now debate about which one of us is the "moral coward"? Don't bother, you lose!!!

Now can you let it go, Hube!

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 05:49 PM

Oh, so now it's a VIABLE fetus? What if it's 20 weeks? What is "viable" -- able to live w/o medical aid? or with aid?

It's as I said -- you're a morally depraved inconsistent loser who has to qualify and obfuscate every reply to attempt to make himself some sort of paragon.

You fool no one. Your moral relativism dictates that the lives of heinous murderers are worth more than those of INNOCENT unborn children.

Not only do YOU lose, you continue to disgust rational people everywhere.

Posted by: Hube at April 8, 2009 06:50 PM

Well, Perry, you seemingly cannot read or lack the reasoning skills to understand a coherent and consistent moral position that disagrees with your own -- which supports permitting the killing of the innocent while insisting on respect for the life of the guilty.

Were I willing to play your game (and I think it is a game because I don't believe you are really as stupid as your argument would lead me to believe), I would suggest that you are morally inconsistent in your willingness to allow the legal premeditated killing of an unborn child while punishing the premeditated killing of others.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 8, 2009 08:43 PM

What you two continually fail to accept is that I personally am against abortion, so Hube, stop twisting my position. However, unlike you, I do not have the right, nor do you two, to dictate to a pregnant woman what choice she should make; therefore, for her I support the legal Roe compromise if she so chooses, though I would advise her to carry to term.

So there is no "moral relativism" in my position, Hube. You are just full of yourself, to the point where you continue to ignore the consequence of the irreversibility of capital punishment once inflicted, and you continue to think you have the right to dictate YOUR morality to a pregnant woman.

Posted by: Perry at April 8, 2009 11:34 PM

Perry: You're a moral midget. It doesn't MATTER that you're personally against abortion. The issue is you think you have no right to "dictate" to a woman about abortion. You say you'd favor a law outlawing capital punishment, yet only outlaw abortion "if viable?" You don't want to address "viable" b/c with today's medical technology "viable" is becoming closer and closer to the time of conception!

So, to recap: Perry doesn't like C.P. and wants to ban the death penalty -- and would back a law for it.

Perry doesn't like abortion, yet doesn't feel it is "his right" to "dictate" to a woman about it. He'd favor a law banning the procedure ONLY if the fetus is "viable."

Perry's stance is WEAKEST on the life of the INNOCENT. He is STRONGEST on the life of a heinous murderer.

Perry is a morally depraved "person."

Posted by: Hube at April 9, 2009 07:32 AM

Hube, you have yet to address the irreversibility of capital punishment. What do you do about that?

Life imprisonment is punishment enough, state sponsored premeditated murder is way over the line.

You have summarized my position correctly, however, of course I don't agree with your characterization of it, which is where we disagree as well.

So much for all of this; I am done with it here, as we ceased getting anywhere with this subtopic many posts ago.

Posted by: Perry at April 9, 2009 08:25 AM

Where have I not addressed the permanent nature of C.P.? It's COMMON SENSE that it's permanent.

You disagree with my characterization of your position b/c it is correct and makes you look -- correctly -- like a morally depraved individual. Why on earth would a "person" care more about the lives of heinous murderers than those of innocent babies?

Posted by: Hube at April 9, 2009 08:42 AM

Yeah, Hube, Perry's position is depraved. It is like objecting to intervention in the Holocaust due to questions of German sovereignty while opposing any effort to execute Hitler and top Nazis who perpetrated that crime against humanity because we have no right to take their lives with their premeditated execution (because you know, that nice Mr. Hitler might be totally innocent of any complicity in the murder of 6 million Jews, and even if he is what if we make a mistake in some other case).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 9, 2009 07:10 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself, Rhymes.

Posted by: Hube at April 9, 2009 07:13 PM

I feel compelled to respond again.

Let me try again to better express my views on murder and abortion.

The lines have to be drawn by each person personally, from a moral standpoint. However, for society we have constructed laws and rulings to govern our behavior. If we don't like them, we must petition for change.

I know how tempting it is to want to execute convicted murderers/killers, especially a Hitler, where Hitler is an ultra-extreme example of debased behavior.

But no, to me the moral high ground is to spare all life, therefore I favor for the convicted murderer life in prison, in solitary confinement, for a person like Hitler too. What is accomplished by our murdering anybody, even a Hitler, I ask?

The irreversibility of state sponsored murder is one extremely serious undesirable outcome with the death penalty; the other, equally compelling, is allowing the state (you and me) to commit exactly the same crime as the accused! In my view, we cannot morally/justifiably take the life of another, unless our own lives are in imminent danger -- that is where I draw the line.

The difference between Hitler and other murderers is one of enormous magnitude, of course; that, however, does not change the underlying moral principle that speaks against the commission of any murder, including that which is state sponsored. This principle is, in my view, nearly the ultimate in defining pro-life morality. The ultimate, of course, is being willing to sacrifice one's own life when threatened.

With abortion, which I also personally oppose, when committed due to the wishes of the pregnant woman, within the strictures of the Roe ruling, abortion is not a state sponsored procedure like execution, rather, it is a state sanctioned procedure because there is always a choice. That is a difference. As heinous an act as abortion is, I feel compelled to have the choice remain with the pregnant woman. This is not the place for the state to dictate, in my view, because of the unique nature of the connection between the pregnant woman and her foetus. The state, however, can assist with a compassionate solution, which is for the state (or private interests) to provide the care and counseling that the pregnant woman requires, carrying the foetus to term, including the adoption alternative for the mom and her baby.

PS: I am very uncomfortable with the Roe ruling. Even though it is a compromise which separates a viable foetus from a non-viable foetus, the line of demarcation is not precise. Moreover, it is being pushed forward in the gestation period by advances in medical science. There is no scientific test that I know of in order to determine viability, so it is based on medical experience with maintaining life for premature birthed foeti. Thus there is an arbitrariness to the Roe ruling. The alternative to Roe, however, is having pregnant women self-aborting their foeti, or having back-room quacks do it, as it was before Roe. Thus, Roe enables the procedure to be under professional medical control. It is the better choice of two evils, where the best choice of all is carrying to term!

Posted by: Perry at April 10, 2009 10:13 AM

You haven't elaborated on anything, Perry. You make the same, morally inconsistent points.

Period. Better you had just been done w/it, as you said.

Posted by: Hube at April 10, 2009 10:42 AM

In other words, you would not even allow the execution of Hitler -- but you will allow the execution of the unborn (though you feel uncomfortable about it).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 10, 2009 07:58 PM

Rhymes, yes, I am profoundly opposed to state sponsored premeditated murder of anyone. Life in solitary confinement in prison is severe punishment, don't you think.

Now on the "execution" of the unborn, again, I am profoundly against that too. I said I am uncomfortable with the Roe ruling, as I explained above.

Now here is a selection especially for you, Rhymes, for your erudition on this complex matter:

"The uniting fallacy of the anti-abortion movement is that Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion, and so the pro-life movement rallies around the delusion that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if enough conservatives can be elected to the Supreme Court.

The legal basis of Roe vs. Wade is the right to privacy, not the right to an abortion. Conservative justices are the least likely to overturn that constitutional right.

The reproductive decisions a woman makes in private with her physician are part of her medical record. No matter what religious beliefs a person may have, they have no right to legislate for another person's medical decisions or to make any kind of assault on patient/doctor confidentiality.

If such religious intrusions were allowed into matters of state, it is conceivable that a majority of Americans who were Christian Scientists could prevent Americans from seeking any kind of medical care. A majority of Scientologists could prevent Americans from seeking psychiatric care. Roman Catholics could prevent Americans from obtaining birth control.

These are the fundamental constitutional issues here, and combined with the genius of the separation of church and state are the reason why this misguided railing against Roe vs. Wade has been fruitless and always will be."
by SM Dunne

Posted by: Perry at April 11, 2009 04:44 PM

No, life in solitary confinement in prison isn't enough, says the guy whose dear friend was raped and murdered at age 13.

And as for the argument on abortion, it isn't private when you directly and with premeditation take another human being's life. That has nothing to do with a religious argument -- which I have not made. Unless, of course, you want to argue that NO law against murder can stand because of the religiously based morality of its supporters.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 11, 2009 07:45 PM

And Perry, we make all sorts of laws restricting medical procedures and decisions -- even those that some would make based upon religious beliefs. Why is it that abortion is the only such limitation you folks object to -- other than the fact that it might prevent the taking of an inconvenient life?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 12, 2009 04:32 PM

Fortunately, Rhymes, for obvious reasons, we do not allow the victim and/or family decide on the punishment for a crime, otherwise we would have a huge increase in executions.

On your point about restricting medical procedures, you are correct, though I think it is rare, as it should be. The decision should be between the doctor and patient, or legal patient representative. It should not be the business of the state. When a foetus is involved, we have a unique medical and legal situation, which is exactly why controversy persists, probably forever. Adoption is the best option, no question. However, the privacy of the doctor-patient decision must be paramount, in the context of the Roe ruling.

If you have ever read through the Roe v Wade decision, it is apparent that every single justice agonized over this one, as we continue to agonize over it to this very day.

I find it instructive to ponder just when human life does begin: egg, sperm, fertilization, blastocyst, implantation, viability, birth. One could make an argument for chosing any of these. Then the other issue is at what stage does the organism have legal rights. Thus, the complexity, the problem!!!

Consider that it is not until after birth that the foetus becomes a baby, by definition, and is totally independent of its mother.

I think some version of Roe is probably the best we will ever do with this unique dilemma.

Posted by: Perry at April 12, 2009 05:05 PM

Actually, if you knew Latin you would realize that "fetus" means "baby". So much for your argument.

And having read Roe (my Masters in political science includes a focus on the US Constitution and con law), I know that it is an abortion of a decision which was more concerned with reaching a desired result rather than a principled one grounded in the Constitution.

And nice job dismissing crime victims and their families. Proof positive that in your arrogance you are willing to dismiss anyone and any argument that goes against your position.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 13, 2009 04:22 PM