Poll:- life better now or in 1959?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
You have to decide once and for all which side you want to be on. I wouldn't have the slightest problem with dealing with those priests, but if I had my way you would be screaming. Unless they actually kill a child I don't think they should be executed, but they sure as hell should be castrated (and I get go for this wimpy chemical castration)
Could be wrong, JLM, but core values can change radically, even over one's life time. Or maybe it depends on what the term core values means to you as opposed to what I think it means. Core values or essential ethics are subject to change through knowledge and education. What one believes or holds true when they are young can alter considerably over their life time.
But then, that's just my opinion.
They're not T.P. I could have said 8 or 9 or 27, take your pick. The "innocense" was the point I was trying to make as I'm sure most reasonable people caught.
The point is not what you would do with them, the point is what was done with them. The answer is, nothing. For a long time all the Church did was move the pedophile priests from parish to parish and that was that.
And with good reason, in those days nobody talked about child sex abuse, that was a taboo subject. And if a mom discovered that her little boy or girl is indeed being sexually abused by the priest, first, she may not believe the child, she may very well ignore it At the very most she may have talked to the Bishop about it. And Bishop would move the priest over too the next parish, the mom is relieved that she doesn’t have to talk about it any more and everybody was happy.
This is how such problems were typically handled in those days. There were plenty of taboo subjects which nobody talked about. These days we talk about just about everything.
It would be OK to deny someone due process? I don't think so. Not only that the person advocating denial would be the first one screaming if in the eyes of the
dictatorship they were arrested. Safeguards are there for a reason, to ensure that
the law and those administering are fair, and just. The old saying if we trade
freedom for security in the end we will have neither.
Dictatorship wears thing in all societies and eventually the only way to obtain the
concept of freedom is usually by violent overthrow or societal breakdown.
In the fifties, people were bigots, and there were all kinds of drugs, used by ordinary
folks and beatniks who smoke the weed and gave us great songs.
For those who want to rid the world of all evil, remember booze, drugs, prostitutes
and all kinds of other social distractions have been around for thousands of years
even dictators of the Roman Empire couldn't win, besides we got rid of one evil
George Bush,
dictatorship they were arrested. Safeguards are there for a reason, to ensure that
the law and those administering are fair, and just. The old saying if we trade
freedom for security in the end we will have neither.
Dictatorship wears thing in all societies and eventually the only way to obtain the
concept of freedom is usually by violent overthrow or societal breakdown.
In the fifties, people were bigots, and there were all kinds of drugs, used by ordinary
folks and beatniks who smoke the weed and gave us great songs.
For those who want to rid the world of all evil, remember booze, drugs, prostitutes
and all kinds of other social distractions have been around for thousands of years
even dictators of the Roman Empire couldn't win, besides we got rid of one evil
George Bush,
And how many $million of taxpayer's dollars are being squandered on Clifford Olsen while he does "life without parole".................(if he doesn't break out or some stupid guard lets him out) Do you really think it's worth the cost or the risk?
Maybe not. But if you are discriminated against in 2009 for any reason, if you are denied service because you are black, you certainly won’t take it lying down in 2009. You would have kept quiet about it in 1959, because it was generally accepted that it was OK to discriminate against blacks.
So definition of decency changes through the ages, what is considered decent 50 years ago isn’t considered decent today.
50 years ago it was considered perfectly decent to channel your son into a career, and your daughter into a marriage. Most people would consider such behavior indecent today. On the other hand, they show plenty of sexual acts on TV today, which would have been considered indecent 50 years ago.
In “I Love Lucy”, Lucy and Ricky had separate beds, even though they were married in real life. So the kind of acts which are shown today, sexual innuendos in sitcoms such as Three is Company, Married With Children etc. would positively have been considered indecent 50 years ago.
So there is no absolute definition of ‘decent', decency is relative, like everything else.
And it's this kind of "thinking" that has caused us to arrive here in 2009 - where criminals are let back out into the streets to do it again. It's not really all that difficult to grasp, is it? Well, perhaps it is, for some.
There's no absolute definition of anything...it's just whatever we want "it" to be.
You got it countryboy, I don’t believe in moral absolutes. And what does this have anything to do with releasing the criminals early? Isn’t that the responsibility of the parole board?
But then again, as you have pointed out, core values can change over time. I've known a few to change their tunes on capital punishment, especially when a loved one is lost in a murder.
There are as many advances as there is setbacks in society over the years. I think the
parole board lets too many serious criminals out onto the street but that isn't the fault of the present society, its people in positions of power letting people out to make room for new criminals coming into the system and saving money where possible at the same time. Society wants people locked up they just want someone
else to pay for it, I support limited capital punishment based on DNA but there are
a whole slew of crimes and situations that I don't want to see the death penalty used.
parole board lets too many serious criminals out onto the street but that isn't the fault of the present society, its people in positions of power letting people out to make room for new criminals coming into the system and saving money where possible at the same time. Society wants people locked up they just want someone
else to pay for it, I support limited capital punishment based on DNA but there are
a whole slew of crimes and situations that I don't want to see the death penalty used.
Well, let's see...I'd consider the parole board to be made up of people and to be of the entire system of handling criminals. I don't know if it's called the justice system, the legal system, or the let's-all-spend-3-hours-defining-what-we-call-things system, but if you can't make the connection between handling criminals in a more effective manner (i.e. preventing crime) and a parole board, then we might be experiencing a failure to communicate.
I just don't know if it's a result of too much discussion (confusion) or an inability to put any sense out of what appears to be a gong show at the moment.