Thought about it really, really hard.

LOL – Doubtful.

Ashpenaz, I’m against the death penalty. But not because God allegedly said that vengeance was His. (Besides, putting people in prison is vengeance). Or because of dubious self-defense arguments.

If Iran was “only” putting these gay persons in prison for life instead of executing them, I’d still have a major problem with Iran’s sense of justice.

Ok, can anyone explain to me on this one how adding ‘hate crime’ to ‘murder’ is going to enhance his punishment?

“We’re going to give you life w/o parole for murder, + 10 years for hate.”

Livewire, murder is already by it’s definition, an example of a hate crime, although the hate does not necessarily have to target a class as provided by hate crimes laws. The penalty is much more severe for murder than it is for manslaughter.

Yeah, taking on 10 years to a life sentence doesn’t make sense, but I’ve heard of sentences that are even stranger.

“Therefore, we [each] delegate our right [of self-defense] to the government. The government, in the form of the justice system, peer juries and so forth, is supposed to act as an **objective** third party, determining the objective **facts** of the matter and (depending on the exact case or situation) whether an individual **truly** killed someone in self-defense; whether a **victim** would have had a **right** to kill in self-defense that society should now exercise in rational anticipation of future heinous crimes from the same criminal; and so forth.”

Operative words: SELF-defense, i.e., defending oneself from actual harm; VICTIM, as in a crime that actually does have a victim; delegation of one’s individual RIGHT to self-defense against said victimization; a right that would exist TRULY and a criminal who is guilty of violating it TRULY, under FACTS that are determined under laws and court processes that are OBJECTIVE.

In a reprehensible perversion of English, you had the nerve to write:

Iranians utilize this process in condemning gays to death

Here is the big, big hint, Ash: NO – THEY – DO – NOT.

Oh, what the heck, I’ll throw in still another hint. You further wrote:

They believe that their executions are in self-defense

And here’s the further hint: SO WHAT? Belief is not truth.

Now take some time really, really, really think hard on those hints, Ash, before you make any further replies.

I am paying just as much as you are into the system.

I’m afraid that’s not true, either.

That’s where you logic leads.

Nope. Again, you’re not even remotely close. But you’re clearly too… something, I won’t presume to say what… to engage in rational conversation.

Incidentally, I am not “raping your pocketbook.”

I never said you were raping -my- pocketbook, Ash.

I said, rightly, that you are *proposing* to rape *everybody*’s pocketbooks.

And Ash, it is *morally* *wrong*. Clear?

“Therefore, we delegate our right to the government. The government, in the form of the justice system, peer juries and so forth, is supposed to act as an objective third party, determining the objective facts of the matter and (depending on the exact case or situation) whether an individual truly killed someone in self-defense; whether a victim would have had a right to kill in self-defense that society should now exercise in rational anticipation of future heinous crimes from the same criminal; and so forth.”

Iranians utilize this process in condemning gays to death. They believe that their executions are in self-defense against a deadly plague.

There are those who would argue, in our country, that the shooter at the Holocaust museum, the shooter at the military recruiter’s, and the shooter at the abortion clinic were all acting in self-defense. And acquit them.

That’s where you logic leads. But you’ll say I don’t understand you–probably because I read your words for exactly what they mean instead of what you want them to mean.

Incidentally, I am not “raping your pocketbook.” I am paying just as much as you are into the system. As flexible as I am, even I can’t masturbate and rape at the same time.

So, if the justice system says it’s OK to execute Jews or gays in what they consider to be self-defense, it’s OK?

No. That’s not even close to what I said. But it doesn’t surprise me, that you don’t (or won’t or can’t) understand what I say.

Iran believes it’s executing gays in self-defense, to protect itself from moral decay and disease.

You’ve talked in previous discussions, Ash, about collective morality, or judgment of people as a national collective rather than as individuals; logically, then, you should approve of it. (I don’t, of course.)

This man killed the guard at the Holocaust museum because he believed he was justified in taking a human life. If that belief on the part of one man is evil, that belief on the part of a society is even more evil.

Not at all. We as individuals have a right of self-defense. That right of self-defense includes a right to take others’ lives, *if it is really in self-defense*. Determining that last part *objectively* is the hard part. Therefore, we delegate our right to the government. The government, in the form of the justice system, peer juries and so forth, is supposed to act as an objective third party, determining the objective facts of the matter and (depending on the exact case or situation) whether an individual truly killed someone in self-defense; whether a victim would have had a right to kill in self-defense that society should now exercise in rational anticipation of future heinous crimes from the same criminal; and so forth. What is wrong about vigilante killing or a person appointing themselves as executioner is that it violates objectivity or, to say the same thing in another way, it violates what is supposed to be the People’s exclusive role in determining the who, why, when, where and how of who is ever executed. The wrongness lies in *appointing oneself* as judge, jury and executioner. If, however, the People investigate a crime, objectively and impartially, and find that (1) it was really heinous *AND* (2) the criminal really did it *AND* (3) there is a very high likelihood of the criminal doing it again, then execution of the criminal is not only an ethical course, it is the only truly ethical course. It is an instance of the People exercising rights of self-defense that all citizens have properly delegated to the People: retrospectively exercising the current victim’s right of self-defense and, simultaneously with and inseparably from that, prospectively exercising the next future victim’s right of self-defense.

None of that is inconsistent with a strong ethic and, in fact, it is an expression of a strong life ethic. Because you know what? Innocents have lives, too. We must protect the lives of the innocent.

Universal health care is part of this same life ethic.

That depends on your means. If *you* want to devote *your* time and resources to giving people health care, Ash, then you go right ahead. But that isn’t what you propose. You propose to rape the pocketbooks and lives of others. That is *morally* *wrong*. It is fundamentally inconsistent with a life ethic.

(Universal health care is part of this same life ethic. We as a society can’t allow people to die simply because they can’t afford insurance.)

Translation of the translation – conservative “christian” pro-Israel stance is totally self-serving, is indeed a man made solution to a concept presented in Revelations, and has little to nothing to do with concern for the pople of Israel.

“Couldn’t possibly be because Israel is the only solid ally we have in the ME. ”

For true conservatives yes, for the properly identified religious right, no. Cheerleaders for the end days are not interested in stability in the ME.

Following the teachings of my favorite Jew…

An Ash overstatement. The Bible has as much support for the idea that Jesus favored a death penalty for the horrifically depraved *in human law*, as the idea that Jesus opposed it. Just google “Jesus death penalty” and read some of the Bible-quoting lead articles. No rational person can claim to know, in other words, that their position on the death penalty is in fact Jesus’ position, one way or the other.

We have the right to separate dangerous people from society, but we don’t have the right to take away their God-created life.

…but, also according to Ash, we *do* have the right to take away significant chunks of the lives (the work product) of people who are totally innocent of everything except the crime of having slightly better medical benefits than Ash. Yup. Such a consistent and inspiring and “life” ethic, there.

“We’re going to give you life w/o parole for murder, + 10 years for hate.”

Using your um… logic, since he was also a “birther” and anti-immigration you can add the Right to people who need to clean-up their act or “STFU about how to dissent.”

As long as we include evolutionists.

“Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office,” Wright said, according to Virginia’s Daily Press. “They will not let him … talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.”

– Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/wright-suggests-jews-white-house-wont-let-speak-obama/

Oh, and MENSA too, since he was one of theirs as well.

He painted, so there’s one more group for that list….

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Holocaust-Museum-shooter-von-Brunn-a-911-truther-who-hated-neocons-Bush-McCain

“For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.”

“James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left”

Game, set, match — the Left enjoys their Hate (and their expressions of it), and they enjoy having an Emmanuel Goldstein. The man is a registered Democrat in MD. where Steele ran for the Senate and lost.

Until the Left cleans up their own act, they should STFU about how to dissent.

(sorry, I still cannot figure out how to Blockquote :{)