O�Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[seer]

Your argument was that capital punishment was a deterrent. It's not, it's vindictive revenge.

You have failed to deal with this Tass: If I steal kill and eat a man's sheep, would it be just to be required to give him one of my sheep? Is that vindictive revenge? A sheep for a sheep? Yes or no?

[seer]

However, it's common knowledge that the "deter" is intended to mean "deter others", and that's where it's really hard to make a case.

Well I'm not speaking of deterring others, that is what Tass wants to push. I'm speaking of deterring, or preventing if you will, the murderer or rapist from ever harming again.

[seer]

Emphasising:"Deter" does not mean "prevent", as your own definition indicates - you're focussing on part of the definition and pretending the rest doesn't exist.

You called Tassman a liar because he took you to be using the actual definition, not your subset of it.

You owe him a retraction and an apology.

Are you daft? To PREVENT OR discourage. Stop being such an anal twit... And no Roy, I made it very clear what I meant by deterrent - that the individual murdered or rapist could never rape or kill again (Post#252). Tass knew that and kept arguing for the deterrence of others (not the individuals in question). This is why he was dishonest.

[Roy]

And no Roy, I made it very clear what I meant by deterrent - that the individual murdered or rapist could never rape or kill again. Tass knew that ...

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

It's convenient how some-one whose intelligence is so frequently derided is suddenly smart enough to unravel your misuse of words.

I would be daft if I thought you'd ever apologise to him for your unwarranted accusation.

[seer]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

It's convenient how some-one whose intelligence is so frequently derided is suddenly smart enough to unravel your misuse of words.

I would be daft if I thought you'd ever apologise to him for your unwarranted accusation.

Roy I told Tass that a number of times and he still comes back with the same nonsense, so he certainly does know. And I did not misuse the word according to definition. Even if I did, I made it perfectly clear what I was referring to.

[Cow Poke]

Well I'm not speaking of deterring others, that is what Tass wants to push.

Got it - but, generally, when somebody talks about the death penalty as a deterrent, that's what they mean. As I've said before, the biggest problem with the death penalty as a deterrent (to others) is that the time between the crime and the punishment is so far removed (decades) that it's like spanking your adult son for stealing a cookie when he was 2 years old.

I'm speaking of deterring, or preventing if you will, the murderer or rapist from ever harming again.

Understood.

[seer]

Got it - but, generally, when somebody talks about the death penalty as a deterrent, that's what they mean. As I've said before, the biggest problem with the death penalty as a deterrent (to others) is that the time between the crime and the punishment is so far removed (decades) that it's like spanking your adult son for stealing a cookie when he was 2 years old.



Understood.

Right, but I made clear to Tass from early on what I meant, but he kept ignoring it.

[Cow Poke]

Right, but I made clear to Tass from early on what I meant, but he kept ignoring it.

Perhaps he was too busy hunting down Southern Baptist preachers (living, dead or otherwise) to assault.

Tass is a very special kind of special.

[seer]

Perhaps he was too busy hunting down Southern Baptist preachers (living, dead or otherwise) to assault.

Tass is a very special kind of special.

On that we agree!

[Charles]

Perhaps he was too busy hunting down Southern Baptist preachers (living, dead or otherwise) to assault.

Tass is a very special kind of special.

Assult? He is telling the truth that some of them were pro choice. Unfortunately that is the truth.

[Cow Poke]

Assult? He is telling the truth that some of them were pro choice. Unfortunately that is the truth.

Well, actually, I said 'assault', but...

It was NOT the truth that Criswell was President of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time of the ruling, and it's balderdash that he was represented as the official spokesperson for the SBC.

Tass has this nasty habit of elevating somebody to extreme importance so he can pretend that's the official position....

Like I said - he's a special kind of special.

[seer]

Well, actually, I said 'assault', but...

It was NOT the truth that Criswell was President of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time of the ruling, and it's balderdash that he was represented as the official spokesperson for the SBC.

Tass has this nasty habit of elevating somebody to extreme importance so he can pretend that's the official position....

Like I said - he's a special kind of special.

Like with the Slavery issue, the vast majority of Christians never owned slaves, but because some did, and supported it, he broad brushes all Christians. And he refuses to concede that Christians spearheaded the Abolition movement in the West.

[Cow Poke]

Like with the Slavery issue, the vast majority of Christians never owned slaves, but because some did, and supported it, he broad brushes all Christians. And he refuses to concede that Christians spearheaded the Abolition movement in the West.

Then he'll just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over -- like he expects it evenutally to suddenly become true.

[Roy]

Got it - but, generally, when somebody talks about the death penalty as a deterrent, that's what they mean. As I've said before, the biggest problem with the death penalty as a deterrent (to others) is that the time between the crime and the punishment is so far removed (decades) that it's like spanking your adult son for stealing a cookie when he was 2 years old.

Isn't the biggest problem with it as a deterrent* that those committing those types of crime aren't deterred because either they don't think they'll get caught, they are too drunk/high/mad/dumb to consider consequences, or so far gone that they simply don't care?

*to others, natch.

[Cow Poke]

Isn't the biggest problem with it as a deterrent* that those committing those types of crime aren't deterred because either they don't think they'll get caught, they are too drunk/high/mad/dumb to consider consequences, or so far gone that they simply don't care?

*to others, natch.

I actually researched this for a college paper many years ago, but times have drastically changed since then.

While what you say may certainly be factors, at the time I did my study, the primary reason was based on the disconnect from the time of offense to the actual application of the punishment. But, yeah, now that you mention it, also the improbability that it will actually be applied due to seemingly endless appeals.

I remember back when I was very much pro-death penalty, the argument was that the constitution guaranteed you the right to a trial by jury and the right to "an" (singular) appeal. (much simpler times back then)

My strongest case FOR the death penalty is, for example, a guy robbing a bank, and a cop gets in the way. Without the "aggravation" of capital murder of a police officer, the guy gets the same penalty for robbing the bank as he does for killing a police officer trying to stop the robbery. Unlike your "drunk/high/mad/dumb" examples (legitimate), the bank robber tends to be much more focused, and has done much more research, and actually weighed the risk/benefit. If he kills the cop to increase his chances of getting away, and incurs no more penalty than "jail time", it may well be worth the risk.