I thought we are discussing death penalty, ironsides. How did the discussion move on to incest?
New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
I thought we are discussing death penalty, ironsides. How did the discussion move on to incest?
Obviously you have never read posting on such sites as the Washington Post, Foxnews, CNN News Blog sites and so one. I am not even listing those that are fringe.
Has it occurred to you that it is not what you say but how you say it that may get people banned from sites ?
RE #75
Answer
Re # 59
I never talked about LOOT and neither did I talk about televengalist but you were quick at lumping me into the same category.
Personally I have said I do not believe in the Death Penalty. Hence why would I want anyone dead ?
Now your beef is ?
Answer
Re # 59
I never talked about LOOT and neither did I talk about televengalist but you were quick at lumping me into the same category.
Personally I have said I do not believe in the Death Penalty. Hence why would I want anyone dead ?
Now your beef is ?
SirJosephPorter, ot is only YOUR pseudo-science that does not support the idea of life in the womb - in spite of visible and undeniable evidence - because you are hooked on baby-killing (aka abortion) as much as a heroin addict is hooked on his/her daily dope.
Yukon Jack, it doesn’t matter how you dance around the facts, but when you say that life begins at conception, you are stating your opinion only, and not the scientific consensus.
If you want to call scientists who say that we don’t know when life begins pseudo-scientist, that is your problem (and I assume those who agree with your religious beliefs are the true scientists).
I know I would ask in vain for proof that shows that I called Newton, Lavoisier (oh heck might as well add Faraday, Volta, Mendeleev, Bell, Harvey, Fulton, Franklin etc, etc) and Priestly quacks.
Sure you did, you called all the scientists of yesteryear quacks. This is what you said in your previous post.
Your defense of those scientists of yesterday who are nothing but quacks by today's standards
So in effect you called all the scientist of yesterday quacks, that includes Newton, Priestly, Faraday etc.
You and I both know that those whose wisdom prevailed through the decades (centuries?) are not the ones that I meant.
Perhaps. But Newton’s’ wisdom did not prevail through the decades. Einstein proved Newton wrong. There are many instances where Newton’s laws, his theories break down. So he is a quack by your definition.
It is the same with Priestly, Lavoisier etc. While they did indeed make significant contributions to science (in my opinion anyway), some of their ideas were proved to be invalid. So that makes them quacks according to you.
Indeed, take almost any scientists from the past, at least some of their work is invalid today. So they are all quacks by your definition. Of course, Newton’s’ theory was flawed big time, so I assume according to you, Newton is the biggest quack.
So yes, you called Newton, Faraday, and the whole lot quacks.
And those who prevailed by their wisdom were at the time supported by the Church (Pope) much the same as scientists of today are supported by the government.
Really? You mean like the Church supported Galileo (by persecuting him)? The way Church supported Giordano Bruno (by burning him at the stake, for daring to say that earth goes around the sun)?
Yukon Jack, it doesn’t matter how you dance around the facts, but when you say that life begins at conception, you are stating your opinion only, and not the scientific consensus.
If you want to call scientists who say that we don’t know when life begins pseudo-scientist, that is your problem (and I assume those who agree with your religious beliefs are the true scientists).
I know I would ask in vain for proof that shows that I called Newton, Lavoisier (oh heck might as well add Faraday, Volta, Mendeleev, Bell, Harvey, Fulton, Franklin etc, etc) and Priestly quacks.
Sure you did, you called all the scientists of yesteryear quacks. This is what you said in your previous post.
Your defense of those scientists of yesterday who are nothing but quacks by today's standards
So in effect you called all the scientist of yesterday quacks, that includes Newton, Priestly, Faraday etc.
You and I both know that those whose wisdom prevailed through the decades (centuries?) are not the ones that I meant.
Perhaps. But Newton’s’ wisdom did not prevail through the decades. Einstein proved Newton wrong. There are many instances where Newton’s laws, his theories break down. So he is a quack by your definition.
It is the same with Priestly, Lavoisier etc. While they did indeed make significant contributions to science (in my opinion anyway), some of their ideas were proved to be invalid. So that makes them quacks according to you.
Indeed, take almost any scientists from the past, at least some of their work is invalid today. So they are all quacks by your definition. Of course, Newton’s’ theory was flawed big time, so I assume according to you, Newton is the biggest quack.
So yes, you called Newton, Faraday, and the whole lot quacks.
And those who prevailed by their wisdom were at the time supported by the Church (Pope) much the same as scientists of today are supported by the government.
Really? You mean like the Church supported Galileo (by persecuting him)? The way Church supported Giordano Bruno (by burning him at the stake, for daring to say that earth goes around the sun)?
It is safe to say that none of the "research" that was ever aimed to convert lead to gold resulted in anything lasting that in any way could be useful today.
Sorry, Yukon, you know not what you speak.
Let us see what the Wikipedia says about alchemy.
The practical aspect of alchemy generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances
Islamic alchemy was a forerunner of modern scientific chemistry. Alchemists used many of the same laboratory tools that are used today.
Up to the 16th century, alchemy was considered serious science in Europe; for instance, Isaac Newton devoted considerably more of his writing to the study of alchemy (see Isaac Newton's occult studies) than he did to either optics or physics, for which he is famous.
“They most certainly were the ancestors of modern chemistry. Chemistry owes a lot to alchemy, same as Astronomy owes a lot to the Astrologers of Middle ages (and ancient times).”
Heavens, could that be the same SirJosephPorter who ridiculed Nancy Reagan for consulting an astrologer????
Of course not! It was SirRupertMurgartroyd!
Let us see, I have already covered alchemy. As to astrology, ancient astrologers made significant contributions to astronomy. They worked out the motions of the planets, phases of the moon, working out the eclipses etc. They did considerable astronomical observations to aid them in their main objective of fortune telling.
So yes, we owe a great debt to astrologers. But anybody who believes in astrology today is a nut. So Nancy Reagan is a nut.
Stick to religion, Yukon Jack. You seem to be lost when it comes to science.
Sorry, Yukon, you know not what you speak.
Let us see what the Wikipedia says about alchemy.
The practical aspect of alchemy generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances
Islamic alchemy was a forerunner of modern scientific chemistry. Alchemists used many of the same laboratory tools that are used today.
Up to the 16th century, alchemy was considered serious science in Europe; for instance, Isaac Newton devoted considerably more of his writing to the study of alchemy (see Isaac Newton's occult studies) than he did to either optics or physics, for which he is famous.
“They most certainly were the ancestors of modern chemistry. Chemistry owes a lot to alchemy, same as Astronomy owes a lot to the Astrologers of Middle ages (and ancient times).”
Heavens, could that be the same SirJosephPorter who ridiculed Nancy Reagan for consulting an astrologer????
Of course not! It was SirRupertMurgartroyd!
Let us see, I have already covered alchemy. As to astrology, ancient astrologers made significant contributions to astronomy. They worked out the motions of the planets, phases of the moon, working out the eclipses etc. They did considerable astronomical observations to aid them in their main objective of fortune telling.
So yes, we owe a great debt to astrologers. But anybody who believes in astrology today is a nut. So Nancy Reagan is a nut.
Stick to religion, Yukon Jack. You seem to be lost when it comes to science.
Sir Francis, when you wrote ‘Praise The Lord’, that reminded me of the PTL ministries. Jim Bakker used to claim that PTL stood for Praise The Lord or People That Love. However, after his ministry was involved in scandals involving embezzlement of money and Bakker paying for sex to Jessica Hahn, people started saying that PTL stands for Pass The Loot or Pay The Lady.
Hence the reference to Pass The Loot.
Exactly, Sir Francis, I don’t think it will ever occur to him. He used to wonder many times on the Canada.com forum, why I was never banned. Yukon used to consider me quite offensive there as well. I remember once he remarked ‘no matter how offensive he (referring to me) is, he won’t be banned'. The reason I am never banned is because of the way I say what I want to say.
Yukon on the other hand, seems unable to say his piece without getting into personalities.
SirJosephPorter, go play poker. Your ability to bluff even in the face of the inescapable fact that any re-reading of posts of those who you disagree with makes you a bare-faced disregarder (?) of truth and the champion of putter-in-the-mouth (?) should make you a winner at the poker tables, since you obviously can not win - at least not honestly - using fairness in these forums.
I am tired of refuting you misquoting me. Tired of you shamelessly misquoting me. Obviously you think people here are too stupid or lazy to go back a few pages (or even less) and see that you try to distort other people's posts to suit your purposes.
I must admit, though, that you are the master of adding a word or two or removing a word or two from another person's post in order to make you look wiser and better.
I am tired of refuting you misquoting me. Tired of you shamelessly misquoting me. Obviously you think people here are too stupid or lazy to go back a few pages (or even less) and see that you try to distort other people's posts to suit your purposes.
I must admit, though, that you are the master of adding a word or two or removing a word or two from another person's post in order to make you look wiser and better.
I don’t think I have added or removed anything from your posts, Yukon Jack. The quotes that appear in red in my posts are direct copy and paste from your posts.
SirJospehPorter
"Texas (George Bush’s Texas) is famous for its anti-homosexual hatred, they have laws on the books trashing homosexuality and they are not afraid to use them."
"Until Obama was elected, religious right was running rampant in USA"
"the Americans’ love affair with death penalty continues. "
The pattern here, and in much of your posting, is that you are a rabid anti-American keen on making inflamatory statements with no supporting information.
The American love affair with the death penalty resulted in 38 executions in 2008.
News and Developments 2008: Executions | Death Penalty Information Center
Here's our latest candidate for our sivler bird:
The Associated Press - Mar 20, 2009
(AP) — A jobless shrimper who killed four young children by casting them from the top of an 80-foot-high Alabama bridge was sentenced to death by a jury ...
So allowing for a difference in population and lower crime rate, if Canada had the death penalty and executed 2 people a year, we would refer to that as "Canada's love affair with the death penalty".
"Texas (George Bush’s Texas) is famous for its anti-homosexual hatred, they have laws on the books trashing homosexuality and they are not afraid to use them."
"Until Obama was elected, religious right was running rampant in USA"
"the Americans’ love affair with death penalty continues. "
The pattern here, and in much of your posting, is that you are a rabid anti-American keen on making inflamatory statements with no supporting information.
The American love affair with the death penalty resulted in 38 executions in 2008.
News and Developments 2008: Executions | Death Penalty Information Center
Here's our latest candidate for our sivler bird:
The Associated Press - Mar 20, 2009
(AP) — A jobless shrimper who killed four young children by casting them from the top of an 80-foot-high Alabama bridge was sentenced to death by a jury ...
So allowing for a difference in population and lower crime rate, if Canada had the death penalty and executed 2 people a year, we would refer to that as "Canada's love affair with the death penalty".
Welcome to the debate, RanchHand. I was wondering how come we didn’t hear from you, seeing as it is an American topic.
The American love affair with the death penalty resulted in 38 executions in 2008.
That is 38 too many, RanchHand.
Here's our latest candidate for our sivler bird:
Huh?
So allowing for a difference in population and lower crime rate, if Canada had the death penalty and executed 2 people a year, we would refer to that as "Canada's love affair with the death penalty".
Bingo. The question is not how many executions take place, but the fact that any executions take place at all.
I will go one step further. Suppose no executions take place. It is still odious if death penalty is legal. Thus, many Prime Ministers and Presidents in Europe stopped executing prisoners long before death penalty was abolished. Hover, it was still important to abolish the death penalty. The fact that no executions were taking place was not an excuse to keep it on the statute book.
So yes, if Canada had 2 (or even 1) execution, I would consider that scandalous.
The American love affair with the death penalty resulted in 38 executions in 2008.
That is 38 too many, RanchHand.
Here's our latest candidate for our sivler bird:
Huh?
So allowing for a difference in population and lower crime rate, if Canada had the death penalty and executed 2 people a year, we would refer to that as "Canada's love affair with the death penalty".
Bingo. The question is not how many executions take place, but the fact that any executions take place at all.
I will go one step further. Suppose no executions take place. It is still odious if death penalty is legal. Thus, many Prime Ministers and Presidents in Europe stopped executing prisoners long before death penalty was abolished. Hover, it was still important to abolish the death penalty. The fact that no executions were taking place was not an excuse to keep it on the statute book.
So yes, if Canada had 2 (or even 1) execution, I would consider that scandalous.
''you and I know that if the hate you displayed here had been targeting some other minority (yeah, Republicans are a minority) it would have been your passport out of this forum.''
Not so! You should have been on this forum when we used to have new Islamophobic hate threads on a daily basis. The forum mods (especially the forum admin) must have loved them because there was no letup in that hate campaign for the longest time.
In fact, several Muslims posted on the forum and tried to defend their religion. When they did so, they were sbjected to all kinds of hate from the bigots. And when they retaliated with angry posts they were the ones who were banned!
Ask any of the forum members if this is true or not.
Not so! You should have been on this forum when we used to have new Islamophobic hate threads on a daily basis. The forum mods (especially the forum admin) must have loved them because there was no letup in that hate campaign for the longest time.
In fact, several Muslims posted on the forum and tried to defend their religion. When they did so, they were sbjected to all kinds of hate from the bigots. And when they retaliated with angry posts they were the ones who were banned!
Ask any of the forum members if this is true or not.
Banning the death penalty is not a good move. A jurisdiction can have the death penalty on the books without necessitating using it all the time but it's there for the odd case like Clifford Olson or sweet little Karla Homolka. It's just like having one more wrench in the toolbox.
"Yukon Jack, it doesn’t matter how you dance around the facts, but when you say that life begins at conception, you are stating your opinion only, and not the scientific consensus." I don't think so Sir Rupe, there's many who believe that and I can accept is as a good opinion as any.
SirJoeseph
"So yes, if Canada had 2 (or even 1) execution, I would consider that scandalous. "
That's not what I said. You're responding to a question that was never asked.
You said "the Americans’ love affair with death penalty continues."
I will ask you again:
If Canada had the death penalty and 2 executions a year, similar to the 38 executions in the US, allowing for population difference, would you consider it reasonable to call the 2 exections 'A Canadian love affair with the death penalty'?
I think it's only fair that you answer the question rather than dance around it as you are the leading critic of the US on the board.
"So yes, if Canada had 2 (or even 1) execution, I would consider that scandalous. "
That's not what I said. You're responding to a question that was never asked.
You said "the Americans’ love affair with death penalty continues."
I will ask you again:
If Canada had the death penalty and 2 executions a year, similar to the 38 executions in the US, allowing for population difference, would you consider it reasonable to call the 2 exections 'A Canadian love affair with the death penalty'?
I think it's only fair that you answer the question rather than dance around it as you are the leading critic of the US on the board.
Right on Ranch hand- these gangsters are killing innocent people at the bat of an eye and no one gets too excited but we dare not have any talk of eliminating them in the same fashion. You live by the sword you die by the sword. That's justice.
I think Israel has such a system. Death penalty is abolished in Israel, but Knesset can vote for death penalty in exceptional cases. They have done so only once in the history if Israel, when they voted to execute Eichmann, the Nazi war criminal.
However, if it is kept on statute book, it is liable to be misused. Let us take the example of Texas. Texas executes several criminal every year. Now, suppose Texas legislature had to vote on each and every one of these death penalty cases. Do you think any of them would have been spared? I seriously doubt it.
Far better to abolish it completely. Israel is a rare country which uses it responsibly; they have never executed anyone in their history, except Eichmann.
As to Olsen or Homolka (or even Bernardo), I am opposed to executing them.
So you agree with me that it is his opinion only (only you think it is a good opinion, you presumably agree with him).
And yes, there are many who believe in death penalty. However, as I have demonstrated, a majority of Canadians oppose death penalty. Besides, I am pretty sure it would violate the Charter (though I don’t think there has ever been a Charter case about death penalty).
So even if by some miracle, opinion about death penalty undergoes a sea change and it receives majority support, the Supreme Court will in all likelihood shoot down any attempt to legalize death penalty.
I thought my answer was implied when I said even one or two executions in Canada will be scandalous. But if you want direct answer then yes. Any executions n Canada would be an indication of Canadian love affair with death penalty.
It is not really how many executions are carried out, but what is peoples’ attitude towards death penalty. If people support death penalty by a big margin, that can be viewed as love affair with the death penalty, even if no executions are carried out.
And for the record, I am not a critic of USA, but a critic of death penalty.