Slashdot Mirror

Though it is unconstitutional, this is the sort of crime I think should be punishable by flogging. Say, one lash per human hour wasted--to be administered at medically-safe intervals over his lifetime at a lot less expense than imprisoning him.

2400 * 100 people inconvenienced for four hours a piece per incident (WAG) is almost a million man-hours wasted because of this guy. A year has just 8760 hours, so he took up 109 man-years of human activity.

This strikes me as both fair punishment and strong deterrence, but I won't be debating the point because I'm trying to finish A Clash of Kings this weekend.

Yup that sounds about right, "here is my opinion stated as facts but I won't listen to proof against me"

In the US prison is claimed to be a deterrence, yet everyone placed in prison is a data point against such a claim.

In some middle eastern countries flogging is a standard and common sentence also claimed to be a deterrence, yet with the exact same problem that there are plenty of data points showing it isn't.

The person you were replying to was commenting on the extent of the sentence, not so much the type.
More specifically that the extent (80 years aka life, vs 5-10) not to change any deterrence factor but to have a non-zero chance of getting a functional human being out at the end.

I was originally going to mention that your suggestion of 8760 lashes is in essence a death sentence, something we in the US perform already for two specific crimes, so why all the fucking around with torture too?

But I looked it up, and not only has a Saudi Arabian judge sentence two men to 7000 lashes as recently as 2007 and they didn't die from it, but such insane and extended torture sentences are issued pretty commonly over there. They do 100 every week for months or years and there are thousands of such sentences each and every year.

So I guess I'll limit my response to just the deterrence factor. Let's see.

A 1500 lashing sentence didn't seem to deter a doctor from giving a princess a pain killer for an injury who happened to already be a junky drug addict.

A 200 lashing sentence didn't deter a 19 year old girl from being gang raped by 7 men.

A 7000 lashing sentence didn't deter two men from being gay either.

This is really the type of behavior and treatment you are wanting, all in the name of "it would be a good deterrence"

Why not just take the man up north a couple of states where they still refuse to criminalize burning people alive at the stake? Why not cut his feet off with a saw live on tv?
Why not an actual life sentence in prison? Not agonizing enough for your tastes? Even if you throw in the trope of prison rape?
Why not just say fuck it to any semblance of a legal system and suggest anyone should be allowed to torture and kill anyone else as they deem required?

The very fact a single sheet of paper is, as you have stated, the ONLY thing keeping you from torturing others like this is frankly far more terrifying than the abuses that the US prison system has become.

Nothing pedantic about remedial civics.

It's pedantry when you ignore that states and cities routinely cooperate with federal officials in other areas, and that the Democrats explicitly made cooperation over immigration illegal.

Ice Is will happily take note of undocumented school board officials et all and will arrest their asses.

So where has that happened? Go on, post your link. Also explain how ICE is going to round up illegal voters when "sanctuary" cities/states run the local elections. I'm noticing a pattern in you, that you ignore major points, repeat yourself, and post stupid YouTube links.

What part of "Obama deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined" are you having a hard time understanding?

Hey look, you did it again, minus the dumb YouTube link. I've already addressed this. Your claim was bogus, you ignored the Obama-enacted "DREAMers", you ignored the Democrat "sanctuary" cities and states, and you ignored the Democrat fuss about a US citizenship question on the census.

You're engaging in the same willful denial of reality as Obamabots who think the main was sainted before birth - you guys hang out for coffee?

You accuse me of what you do: willful denial of reality.

Nothing changed. Obama, the first black president, had a full "states rights" position on another minority

You forgot that Obama supported gay marriage. The "states rights" was a fig-leaf, which Biden in his typically bungling fashion knocked aside. Obama was just playing politics.

All of the gains in gay rights at the federal level have come from the courts, in spite of Democrats.

It was the Obama administration that backed the US Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage across the land. Gay marriage was a Democrat issue, even if many of them were reluctant to be on the bleeding edge.

Border wall

What border wall? Why are we having fights over a border wall, which the Democrats refused to fund, then?

plus a brutal deportation system

Oh, is that why we have millions of illegal immigrants living here, with almost no chance of deportation, unless they commit a crime? Is that why Democrat cities/states have enacted "sanctuary" policies?

You're just upset that we enforce the border at all.

You really want to raise the 'Day of Freedom' and Sargon as examples?

Twitter told Sargon that "âoeYour account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse."

Ok, has Twitter also banned the accounts of the people participating in targeted abuse against a Labour voter that was also at the 'Day of Freedom'?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/201...

I mean, is she really being oppressed when people are merely trying to destroy her career for daring to perform a drag act in front of a gay man, a lesbian woman, a Scottish communist and (because free speech is an apolitical issue) a bunch of idiots, and she ends up losing multiple sources of income?

This is not a spam filter. This is Twitter imposing specific political views and it's extremely appropriate to call them out on it.

You're not special enough to get a free pass.

I guess I'm not a "protected class" with special privileges.

Are you also going to say that transsexual women shouldn't use the women's washroom because that's a "special privilege"? That would also require transsexual mentlike these to use the same bathroom as women and girls. Do you really want to go up to any of these guys and say they're just women who had their boobs cut off? Or that they have to pee in the women's bathroom?

Some of them still have vaginas, which just goes to show that sex is more than what's between the legs.

It's not even a question of "protected class." Go up to any woman and keep addressing her as a man, using male names and pronouns. Or vice versa for any man. Everyone has the right not to be subject to your brand of harassment, whether they're transsexual or not.

you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals

True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?

Many men would, many men do. They aren't acting out of political correctness. Plus, you can't always tell that someone's a transsexual. As in the movie "transamerica" where one character said "We walk among you." It's a real hoot to watch men make fools of themselves dissing Caitlyn Jenner to someone they always knew as a woman and didn't know she used to be a man.

There's also the phenomenon of "trans-fans" - ,en who chase after women because they are transsexuals, and that makes them exotic. Plus, no worry about getting her pregnant.

you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals

True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?

You also have a fear of castration (many men do, you're not that special), and transsexuals are a problem for you.

Castration is especially repulsive, yes, but guys dressing up as women is also repulsive

You would have been a riot in Shakespearean times, where all roles, including female, were played by male actors. People didn't find it repulsive then, and it was only when the moral majority started their attacks that things changed.

Despite what you want to believe, nobody gets a free pass interfering with another's fundamental constitutional rights.

Like my constitutional rights to free speech? Thanks, I'm glad you're so concerned.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the freetard libertarians. Your right to free speech isn't absolute. Many forms of speech are illegal. For example, start making death threats, even to a third party. Start sexually harassing someone with lewd comments. Start passing child pornography around. False advertising. Try sending threats through the mail. Saying you have a bomb and are going to blow yourself up. Even copyright infringerment isn't protected, though people sure tried.

Now, lets get down to you. If you treat a transsexual at work the same way you have said you would treat Manning, even if it's only limited to not using their legal name, you can be fired for cause. There's plenty of speech that isn't protected by the second amendment, which is one reason why you would be well advised NOT

They have been removing free speech from the start.

"as far as I am aware even the old testament doesnt tell Christians to torture unbelievers or to treat women like cattle.

As I pointed out, this was a totally ignorant comment to make, since there were no christians at that time.

then you say Christians are bad because what the old testament says.

Paul (new testament writer, see 1 Cor.21-24) continued to condone slavery. His words were used to justify slavery for centuries. You can't ignore the last 2,000 years either.

And I notice you have no response to my remark about Christian leaders persecution of gays and lesbians, which called for the death penalty in places as diverse as Uganda and the United States. Ted Cruz doesn't mind it, and neither do Huckabee or Jindal.

Also, when you write "As to bringing up support for repealing gay sex or whatever, thats an obvious emotional strawman that is completely irrelevant to the actual argument.", you seem to have missed that Paul also attacked gays (Romans 1:26-27). Certainly it's relevant when showing that Christians aren't all sweetness and light, and never have been since the earliest days of Christianity. Also, you have no reply

You have a very bitter and warped view of feminism - not all feminists are as abrasive and stupid as Germaine Greer. Her latest brain fart is claiming that trans women aren't women because "they do not know what it is like “to have a big, hairy, smelly vagina”.

She should see her doctor to extract the tampon she forgot to remove more than half a century ago. I'd call her a bit of a douche, but she doesn't know the meaning of the word, obviously never having used one.

The notion that Facebook supports free expression is really quite laughable. You don't even need to be a government to get Facebook to censor images for you. Their content-reporting system allows one self-appointed censor to complain anonymously about an image they don't like (such as two clothed men about to kiss, or PG13-level partial male nudity), and if the complaint gets assigned to someone equally homophobic, the image gets deleted and the person who posted it gets blocked, with no effective method of appeal. The whole Facebook content-policing system is rigged heavily in favor of bullies and censors.

You're claiming that these two nations are gladly killing non-Christians according to 2 Chronicles 15?

Where? What is the body count? This religious persecution by Christians isn't getting condemned in the media 24/7?

The 25 most shocking anti-gay stories from Russia so far. Anti-gay Ethiopia eases away from new crackdown. So, not a high body count because it's almost entirely persecution. But, then, the body count for apostasy itself is incredibly low around the globe, officially. Why? Because most people are persecuted and officially renounce whatever beliefs they have to avoid death. The same for people who are persecuted for being homosexual and being "in the closet".

Now, whether any of this actually follows 2 Chronicles 15 vs merely Christians using 2 Chronicles 15 and other versuses to justify their persecution of others.... In the end, the crux of it is not that Christians aren't inclined to have judicial law to execute those of apostasy or other "unnatural" acts but that Christians, thankfully, have had their power severely gutted after centuries of abusing that power in inquisitions, wars, and general heretic burnings. Ie, it's that most Christians are Christian in name only. Meanwhile, Russia and some African nations still cling heavily to the Bible and its justifications for serious human rights abuses.

To be charitable, your reading comprehension sucks.

To be sure, that's what I get for skimming. Having said that, your reading comprehension suck as well.

There is nothing there about God commanding to kill and/or convert.

12 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the Lord with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the Lord gave them rest on every side.

That seems a pretty clear us vs them oath. Granted, it doesn't specifically mention conversion, but the "all who would not" sort of implies that you at least try to talk and ask people to convert before you go about slaying them, as they may well be willing converts.

There isn't any documented killing/converting in this chapter ...

Right. Just an oath to effective do such in the future.

Considering your poor comprehension and non-examples, "kill or imprison" is meaningless emotional babble not based on any actual harm.

Sorry that I didn't provide examples since, I guess, I assumed you were at least partly aware of the strong anti-gay rhetoric in Russia and Ethiopia and at least the known attacks in the former and (hopefully) overbearing rhetoric in the latter. Of course even if there were hundreds dead or hundreds imprisoned, I doubt you'd care anyways. It's all "meaningless emotional babble" when you dare speak in terms of "body count" as if it takes more than a single human life to matter. There's something seriously wrong with the whole mindset of enforcing one's religious beliefs on others, even if it rarely leads to bloodshed. That you want proof that it regularly escalates in Christians? Thankfully not. I guess that makes Christians "better" than Muslims. I guess that makes Christians only 5' deep in horse shit instead of the 50' that Muslims are deep in horse shit. So much "better".

PS - For that last part, I'm speaking of true Christians--if there is such a thing--who want to live by

His signature follows bills in Kentucky and Ohio regulating funeral protests in response to the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, after they said American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people.

Search google news or read the article here

There's a difference between speech and active disruption of lawful activity; the first is protected and the second is not. Also, the First Amendment is able to accomodate reasonable time & place restrictions. The question will be whether these restrictions go too far. In any case, these protestors are about as despicable and hate filled as they come.