[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi] …..

I personally think that driving down from Lakeside to Hillcrest and killing a gay person because the killer hates gays is more heinous than killing the neighbor who slept with the wife.

. . .[/quote]

Why? And let’s add a wrinkle – what if the neighbor who slept with the wife was a woman? Which aspect of the neighbor would be considered most important, if you were the judge? Your preconceived notions kept you from identifying the gender of the “offender” . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]”Nonsensical” is a little strong.

Let’s say we were back in the 1960’s and rage against blacks was still strong in the south. Would it be “nonsensical” to punish crimes against blacks a little stronger, in order to achieve the desired social goal of a society where people of all colors can be safe and secure?

Probably not.

reasonable people can disagree about who should be protected a bit more when to further which societal goal, or even if it shoudl be done, but it’s not irrational.[/quote]

If hate crime laws were used as a logical response to discriminatory crimes, they would have been promulgated ages ago in response to the violence that is routinely inflicted upon women by men. I don’t hear anyone speaking up for such things. I don’t believe in concepts that are selectively applied.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Justice should be rehabilitative, not based on rage. Or should we go back to midnight lynchings where the victim’s family strings the perp up from the nearest oak tree?

I didn’t say 15 years with a possible reduction for rehab. I said 15-life, meaning fifteen years hard time minimum, with possibility of parole every ten years after that, depending on state of rehabilitation.

Note that possibility of parole doesn’t mean actuality. Look at Charles Manson, who’s been up for parole several times, and each time the pardons board said “no.”

I’m the opposite of heartless. I’m a bleeding-heart, criminal-hugging, pinko liberal in this respect.[/quote]

No. I get the impression that you like telling everyone how much you love the underdog, but mostly because you like people to think well of you. You work hard at it, at least on this board. Your posts bring to mind the following:

“It is easy to sympathize at a distance,’ said an old gentleman with a beard. ‘I value more the kind word that is spoken close to my ear.”

E.M. Forster

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]That’s why I said that the sentencing judge should have some discretion. This being said, I don’t actually think that killing a cop should be considered worse than any other murder. Not until cops are routinely subjected to much higher punishments for crimes committed by them in the line of duty, which isn’t the case right now. Fair is fair.

Personally, I’d be OK with a general sentence of say 15 (25 in particularly heinous cases) to life for murder, with parole boards having discretion to decide on release depending on how the convict’s rehabilitation is going.

Death penalty should either be abolished or reserved for military, police, and government officials who misbehave flagrantly. (i.e. the cops in NM who were basically party to the repeated rape of some poor man, or people like Lt. Calley of My Lai infamy) Maybe also for convicts that murder a guard or kill during an escape attempt, but that’s about it.[/quote]

I’m not sure whether you are young, or heartless or both. Don’t you have anyone in your life whose loss would enrage you? 15 years for murder, with a possible reduction for rehab? It sounds like you don’t understand what loss is. I’m not in favor of the death penalty, but you have to understand that laws are made with people in mind who aren’t robots.

[njtosd]

Yes – hairline is almost perfectly horizontal. Can’t be real. Maybe mustache is attempt to prove ability to grow hair.

[njtosd]

Don’t know whether it’s still true, but at least as recently as the late 80s, people who needed dialysis in the Netherlands only received state provided services until they turned 50. After that, you either had to prove you had dependents or pay for it yourself or die. The mother of a friend of mine counseled these people – nice touch to help people feel better about their impending death. So today you’re saying that we shouldn’t worry about 80 year olds. How old is going to be too old next year?

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar]Nice bluff,

I think you could do some more reading. The scientific debate does involve the things I mentioned. We don’t know everything Darwin or not. We do know that all primates exhibit homosexual activities and always have. Making this a moral issue comes from the church(well before darwin) and some state’s agendas. I am sure some of us can be free from influence of those institutions ,or think we are, and be prejudiced too.[/quote]

Nice bluff? I’m trying not to be too harsh about your, well, hand waving. Just to clarify – since you want to talk about homosexuality (which I told spdrun I wasn’t) there’s significant support for the proposition that there are likely both genetic and developmental factors influencing homosexuality, and that the increase in fertility among gay men’s female relatives “makes up” for their lower level of reproduction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2158795/Gay-gene-survives-generations-female-relatives-homosexual-men-babies.html
Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the maternal immune response to the fetus may also play a part.

Blogstar, there is no question in my mind that you’re rather uninformed on the science relating to this topic. Read before you write . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar]Go ahead and explain why bi-sexuality makes no sense on some many levels.
If I am wrong about the other that’t my fault but I read it in a peer reviewed paper, I believe.[/quote]

No, I didn’t say bisexuality didn’t make sense. I meant you didn’t make sense. Regardless of sexual orientation, genes the discourage procreation are selected against. Thats evolution 101. If you need a “peer reviewed” source, read The Origin of Species.

You are wrong about the other. Mitochondrial genes are only passed down by the mother, but we all have them.

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=njtosd][quote=spdrun]Why — the world is overpopulated as it is. Fewer breeders would be a good thing.

(OK, maybe not for the R.E. market, but places like CA will always be desirable.)[/quote]

We’ll – it sounds like you haven’t yet – so feel free to not procreate. The problem with that is that any genetic predisposition to not procreate will disappear from a population. Think about it.[/quote]

Not if most people are bisexual or if women carry the gene. Not that I am stating either to be facts ….but think about it.[/quote]

You realize that there are no genes that only women carry …….right? We all have x chromosomes – only half of us have Ys. And yes, those are the boys. The thing about bisexuality makes no sense on so many levels I’m just going to assume biology wasn’t your thing.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]You miss my point — in primitive, tribal societies, people not procreating could make or break a clan. Nowadays, we have enough people to go around, so the 10% of homosexuals that happen to exist (and not breed “naturally”) aren’t a huge survival risk.

And actually, recessive traits that don’t permit procreation don’t disappear … think of Tay-Sachs Disease or anything that causes children to die young. I do realize that homosexuality is more complicated than that, but it’s not as simple as you make out either.[/quote]

First of all, i wasnt refering to homosexuality, just your consistent anti-having kids viewpoint. And actually, given enough time, they do almost disappear, unless there is a selective advantage to being heterozygous. For example sickle cell anemia requires two recessive genes; those with only one sickle cell gene are more resistant to malaria. There is some suggestion that people heterozygous for Tay Sachs are more resistant to tuberculosis, which was an advantage for most of history. And it’s too long to go into, but natural selection acts at the level of the individual. If you have a gene that makes you less likely to procreate than the girl or guy next door, their gene will slowly gain representation in the population and yours will slowly become vanishingly small, unless there is a heterozygote advantage.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Why — the world is overpopulated as it is. Fewer breeders would be a good thing.

(OK, maybe not for the R.E. market, but places like CA will always be desirable.)[/quote]

We’ll – it sounds like you haven’t yet – so feel free to not procreate. The problem with that is that any genetic predisposition to not procreate will disappear from a population. Think about it.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]

CE, I hear you. Frankly, the environmental agenda being pushed in the schools is much heavier handed, IMO.

We only have one planet — what’s wrong with teaching children to be responsible stewards of it?[/quote]

Most environmental “lessons” learned at school are wrong. I know of perhaps 2 elementary school teachers who are interested in science and take a “prove it” attitude toward conventional wisdom. They want to provide a lesson that makes them, and parent feel good. They are the mothers who think anything “organic” is good.

[njtosd]

[quote=flu][quote=livinincali]I think the problem is we’re paying a room full of education experts to come up with with new reading assignment that are more politically correct every year. Why can’t we use the reading assignments from last year or 5 years ago. The basics of reading comprehension and math haven’t changed in centuries.[/quote]

Ding ding ding…

Winnar![/quote]

Absolutely agree. Almost none of what my kids have read much in elementary schools is about the accomplishments of men who aren’t black or hispanic (I’m a woman – there is lots about us). Like it or not, history is full of men who’ve accomplished a lot. So they’re really not learning all of history, they are being provided with the parts that people like to feel open minded about . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]You’re really equating a same-sex couple with a horribly maimed person? Really?

‘”[/quote]

No. Here is your earlier quote:

“The schools are not requiring the kids to have homosexual intercourse, just to know that homosexual couples exist. Fact. Same deal with kids learning how the plumbing works. Facts.”

What I’m saying is that all FACTS do not need to be introduced in 1st grade.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]

You decide that for your kids and yours alone. The state of CA should not have that right. Unfortunately we have left it up to our schools to feed our kids and teach them thier sense of morality.

And I see FACTS as independent of morality.

The schools are not requiring the kids to have homosexual intercourse, just to know that homosexual couples exist. Fact. Same deal with kids learning how the plumbing works. Facts.[/quote]

People burned over 50% of their bodies also exist. As do sexual fetishes. That doesnt make those things appropriate for 6 yr olds.

[Author]

Posts