Jury recommends death in Peterson case...

[Guest Tony_K]

double post

 

[ 16. December 2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Tony ]

[Guest Tony_K]

Eli, your reading comprehension sucks.

 

The reference I made that you quoted was simply because there are obviously a lot of people on here who are oblivious to what are universally accepted moral/ethical/and legal standards for variety of things, obviously self-defense being one of them. You will not find a country in the Western world whose legal, social, and moral/ethical (read: philosophers, not religion) bodies will say that 1) it is fair for an individual to strike back after the incident of assault, and 2) that the government's explicit purpose for punishment is retribution.

 

After reading thousands of painfully uninformed threads on here, I realize that James' comment is reflective of many of the attitudes expressed on here. The notion of the "government carrying out what Laci was unable to do" has three seriously wrong implications: 1) it implies that had Laci been able to fend off her assailant that she would have had the right to kill him, and 2) it implies that she has the right to exact revenge at a later time and 3) that it's the government's job to exact her revenge.

 

This is stone-age reasoning. This is reasoning from the centuries gone by that you referenced in your sarcasm. The reason we are able to live in peace today as we do is because hundreds of years ago philosophers and theologians alike got over that kind of thinking. They got past "an eye for an eye" and realized that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

The funny thing about you and a couple of other people on here who don't know shit about the Catholic Church is you always like to play the Catholic card on me, but you really don't know shit about the Catholic Church, AND because I know very well that this board is full of pagans, heathens, atheists, agnostics, and ignorami, I actually AVOID at all costs injecting Catholic philosophy into things, because I know you people don't want to hear it. I'm trying to be sensitive to your points of view and not draw on arguments from sources you discredit. When I make these kinds of moral/ethical statements, I draw from secular points of view, with the specific intent of NOT BRINGING RELIGION INTO IT because you are all a bunch of atheists or otherwise mindless of such things, and I know that, regardless of how universally accepted by governments, philosophers, scientists, etc., and how much something may be a plain and founding part of the very structure of our civilization, that you automatically defame anything that has a connection with Catholicism or Christianity.

 

If I ever take a largely or purely Catholic or Christian point of view, I make it obvious by starting it with something like "From a Catholic perspective..." or "According to Catholic doctrine..." or something to that effect. You and several other people on here respond to any point of view I put forward as if I were blindly spitting out Catholic rhetoric, when in fact, I am consciously avoiding Catholic rhetoric unless I say otherwise.

 

Getting back to this thread, remember, in this country, LIBERALS are AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY. I actually provided a LIBERAL point of view, for which you will find plenty of atheist philosophers and moralists who support. REMEMBER, IT WAS CHRISTIAN BUSH WHO WOULD NOT GRANT A STAY OF EXECUTION TO THAT MOTHER IN TEXAS. As for my remarks about self-defense, that is very simply how ALL OF WESTERN CULTURE WORKS. Period. There is no argument on this. You will not find anyone of disciplined intelligence who will say it is okay to strike back at someone later who attacked you. And you will not find anyone who will say that having your life threatened gives you a license to kill that person; killing in self-defense is only for the purpose of FENDING OFF THE ATTACKER and is only a LAST RESORT. That is the only acceptable viewpoint here. Western civilization as a whole settled that one years ago. If you can fend off the attacker to the point that your life is not threatened, then you are guilty for your attacker's death. This is how civilization works. You and everyone on here have no choice but to accept that. Simple. Simple universal morality; what is best for the common good of all people. Imagine for a moment, what society would be like if you had the right to kill your attacker beyond self-defense. Imagine what would happen if everybody lived by revenge and retribution. We'd be back to where the world was during the Crusades in no time at all.

 

 

Since you brought Catholicism into it, I will correct you: the Catholic Church upheld capital punishment for a very long time. They were still iffy on it as recently as 10 years ago, and if they changed in the last 10 years (I don't know), it would have been from some initiative of JPII. I honestly don't know where they stand today. It was very ignorant of you to assume I was blindly spitting out "another hypocritical Catholic viewpoint"

 

Now for the Catholic thing. So far, every assumption about the Catholic Church that you and several other people on here have been wrong. Way wrong. Don't talk about something that you don't know about. If you want to learn Catholic teaching, learn it from a Catholic Encyclopedia, Cathecism, text with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, or from a seminary. Not from what Southern Baptists or Methodists will tell you, not from what anyone on TV will tell you, and not from what the 99.9% of the population who are ignorant of Catholic teaching will tell you. (I'm talking about doctrine, not history). And when it comes to history involving the Catholic Church, remember, there have been plenty of anti-Catholic historians over the centuries, and that even historical sources have a bias. Best to get multiple renditions of the same historical events from multiple opposing viewpoints.

 

 

Honestly, having so many arguments I make, especially those that make no reference to any religion whatsoever (where I specifically try to avoid religion out of consideration for you and others), returned with a disparaging remark about Catholicism is getting old really fast. I'm not upset, but 1) the comments are all hideously ignorant, 2) they are annoying, 3) they're not even clever, and 4) they are offensive. I'll take a lot of things on here with a grain of salt, but I'm sick of having my religion insulted. I don't apply ignorant stereotypes to protestants, jews, muslims, etc., and I expect that you and no one else apply ignorant stereotypes to Catholics. I don't drag Jews, Protestants, and Muslims into discussions for to use the terrible things they did hundreds of years ago as unnecessary examples or sarcasm, and I expect you to not do so for Catholics.

 

You may reply to me in a PM or on here that you will cut it out once and for all. If not, I'll be checking out of CR for a long time. I'm not upset at all; I'm just asking you to please stop. Thanks. smile.gif

 

[ 16. December 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Tony ]

[Mensan]

Tony, I posted "The Catholics..." not, "YOU and the Catholics". Looks like it's not my reading comprehension that sucks.

 

I find that many of your posts are patronizing and arrogant when it comes to ethics. You can be downright mean. Your points of view are totalitarian and insulting. Just returning the favor. I will stop if you will. If I never see you post "...the MTV generation..." again I think I might be satisfied.

[OGRE]

Originally posted by Mensan:

...many of your posts are patronizing and arrogant...

Define Irony

[Devils Advocate]

Originally posted by Mensan:

[QB] I can be downright mean. QB]

Fixed.

[Mensan]

Originally posted by Shrek:

Define Irony

Define "punctuation".

 

I can define irony: Posting "Define Irony" when you couldn't do it yourself.

[Orion]

joel, dont you have some shelves to tear down, or a donkey to kick or something?

 

 

for what its worth, i agree with tony. big suprise there, eh?