of Deterrent
September 19, 2011
Awww...so cute!! Can we keep him??
So,
If you might get their attention, long enough to get him to turn the wood chipper off and put the shotgun down or get her to lower the gallon of petrol and book of matches…ask them if they know that what they are about to do may end them up on a gurney, at some distant date, with needles in their arms and three colour coded plungers on the wall, primed to end their lives.
I have a feeling, in the heat of passion, as it were, they would reply…yes please.
I happen to think there are situations that might, if not excuse murder, explain it. I do not think that the threat of capital punishment would stay their course. If I try to consider their position, it seems to me that whatever manner of lunacy or desperation has them feeling so without options, so filled with rage or…passion…preservation is likely the last thing on their minds and possibly, even, contrary.
Determining premeditation is a factor for a host of reasons. Primarily, for determining consequences. While capital punishment may not appropriate for some crimes, it most certainly is for the larger percentage of heinous ones.
Premeditated or not, I don’t think the threat carries ANY deterrent in it’s wake.
More importantly…I don’t give a fuck.
The deterrent debate is absurd. Both, for those who argue against capital punishment and those in favour of it.
Of those that would commit unspeakable, violent, premeditated, life altering or life ending crimes, the argument should be more about the preservation of society, than that of the butcher. Whether or not the possible outcome may or may not have been considered, is inconsequential.
Put em down.
If they take the innocence of a child, with proven inability to be rehabilitated, the inevitability that they will foul again…put em down.
If they could be so callous as to consider (or even worse, NOT consider) that bottle of wine, that $80, that Snickers or rite of passage, above that of another’s life…put em down. If they kill or are in any way responsible for the death of a police officer or fireman, that have been sworn to protect me from THEM…put em down
I don’t care where they came from, how long they have been addicted to drugs. I don’t want to hear how their Fathers beat them or how their Mothers put cigarettes out on them. I’m not interested in their Faith or lack of it, where they came from and where they might have ended up.
All that…is personal and THIS ain’t. It’s business. The business of preservation. My life, yours and ours.
That ball of fur, was once a puppy, some child’s best friend, perhaps. Sweet, loving, loyal and cuddly…till it began frothing at the mouth.
Your dog is rabid.
Put em down.
ofREH 
Hello Roland,
I’m not sure if this is the right place to post as it is not a comment per se on what you have written here. I have been thinking of a couple things, trying to clarify what you’ve said and as I may be missing your points, I’ll just mention the 2 main things that keep churning in my brain.
1. Are you saying that any choice made by the majority of the group that affects an individual member of that group (who may not agree with such a measure) is tyranny? For example taxes, how those taxes are spent, etc. Does this objection to “group decisions” apply to public groups only, such as students, residents, citizens? I assume that once one chose to become part of a private group (such as a club) you’d say that person had to abide by the rules of that group. I’m just trying to get down to brass tacks and if I’ve misunderstood please correct me.
2. I do not see how you, as a professed Christian (Catholics are still Christians right?), could be a right winger. I look at the words of Jesus and I see love and compassion – revolutionary compassion – for the other. He even says to love your enemy. I simply don’t understand how anyone who believes in the words of Jesus could be so cold toward strangers in their own land. Which is how I see a “sink or swim on your own merit”s philosophy. We will all be fine if we work hard, etc., Unless you hit hard times (by which I mean a wide specter of ill that can come to us) and then you better hope you have the money or the friends to help you —- but if you don’t have money, and if you don’t have friends or family, then shouldn’t we put something in place – in the government – to help such a person? If you do not judge a society by how it treats its weakest members (infants, the elderly, the disabled) how do you judge it? I simply don’t know how you square the words of Jesus (not the Old Testament, not Revelations) with your political views.
This may be somewhat rambling but I just wanted to get it out.
Cheers,
K8
BTW: Juries have put innocent people on death row before. The justice system is good but it isn’t perfect. Do you allow for a few innocents to be killed so that many evil-doers die?
BTW: How can suicide be wrong in the context of natural selection? Wouldn’t it be a good thing considering the whole over-population thing?
K8,
Again, I’m grateful you thought to engage here and for the time spent doing so.
As I do my best to clarify, I hope you might return with your own thoughts as well.
Honestly, I am conditioned to, and for, majority rule. Until recently, I was in support of that premise and all its inherent ramifications. That included decisions made and impressed upon any willing participants. Even those that may not agree. I’ve long held that, as a willing participant, there are processes I might pursue for redress of any dissent. Though that I may, and that I am willing, also has me complicit in their implementation.
Recently, though, I was made aware that tranny, in it’s classic definition, might be in the form of tyranny of the majority UPON the minority. That an under, or ill represented minority might be oppressed by the will of a majority, in effect, for lack of majority cause and concern, seeing the delusion of basic equal opportunities and human rights. There may be those who’s willing participation is gauged and determined by the environment they find themselves in and are left with little choice or options to alter.
You list a few of these in your questions, poverty, support of friends or Family, or lack thereof. While there are protections in place to thwart these conditions, the condition of tyranny, by definition, may still exist.
I am often outraged at how my taxes (that I pay, even as an Expat, because I work for an US based entity) are resourced and for the time being, I am the minority in those perceptions but a willing, responsible participant. That is not tyranny but Democracy.
I hope this has my position a little clearer and would like to hear your own.
As to my Faith…
While I struggle with many dictates of my Church, they tend to be the more conservative of Church Canon that give me pause. (Life, Gay rights etc etc.). With my own tendencies leaning more Left than my Priest would prefer.
As a Catholic (yes, Christian…the original Christian, in fact) my own brand is that of an antediluvian version, prior to the Ecumenical Council commonly referred to as Vatican II. This generally has me follow a more traditional, conservative guide as far as Canon law but adhering to the New Testament (read: NOT the King James version) and the teaching of Jesus.
The teaching of love and compassion you point to as contradiction, is certainly contextual in its common use of reference by those who would see contradiction.
Yes, Jesus taught “revolutionary compassion” ( I like that) but also sought justice for those abused by consequences for the abusers. A revolutionary compassion in it’s own right.
Speaking just for myself, it is my experience that in this millennium and participating society, there is the ever increasing doctrine of “Kindness is often mistaken for weakness”. That has translated into widespread abuse by those who might have been once protected and a minority, upon the the bulk of provisioners.
Without my provisioning, my steadfast of insistence of personal responsibility, those that are truly in need, temporarily disadvantaged, are lost and overwhelmed by those that would simply TAKE advantage.
I am compassionate. Very, in fact, if reserved in it’s distribution.
Thanks for your reply. I need to think and consider, many times your answers take time to digest, parse, understand, and then my reply. I hope you understand.
As to tyranny. Yes, I agree with you. The tyranny of the “wrong” majority is a necessary evil with democracy, but I think the process does often correct itself in time, if people keep their compassion and empathy (eg: civil rights movement).
Of Faith: OK that makes sense. What you say makes sense. I repeat myself. I’m worried that when we talk in generalities it is far too easy to agree. In practice the right wing is so cold and immoral insofar as cutting programs that DO really help people who are really trying to get their shiut together (I’ve been there.) The moral responsibility then falls on that individual to not abuse such kindness. I don’t think we can remove help from a whole group of people because of some abuse. Although I suppose that is a fundamental difference between the two wings, one sees rampant abuse, and the other sees a struggling people who need help.
BTW what is the main difference as you see it between the King James Version and your version. I was educated in the protestant tradition, so I’d be curious to know.
Well then,
This might take a moment.
I had invited an old Friend as guest speaker, to further elaborate on the “Tyranny of majority” issue, he having first enlightened me on the concept and I thought he a better orator than I, on the subject. He agreed but, a Liberal himself, apparently commitments and obligations are predictably low on his priority scale.
While we wait, (help yourself to the platter of crumbless organic cucumber sandwiches to the rear) I’ll address the two lingering BTW’s.
Of suicide. A very complex and interesting question, K8.
Again, my Faith dictates one thing and my intuition, something else entirely.
intuitively, I have no reservations concerning the rights of an individual to command their own final destiny. I say this, having very personal experiences in the matter. As to any natural selection component, I suppose there may be an impact but I think it purely idyllic, in regards to affecting any populous concern of my own. theoretically, it might be argued to cull the herd of weaker or disabled, if only emotionally, members.
I would argue differently.
Having had intimate relations with some emotionally troubled, it’s been my experience that there is a very fine line between madness and brilliance, as you probably are aware. It seems that if we could reach out and offer some solace, some answers and comfort to those afflicted, we might gain so much in their salvation. Some of those that would otherwise be ignored or even, in some circles, be encouraged to end their lives, might be Maestros or Caravaggio’s, Van Gogh’s or Hawkins’s.
Mary Wollstonecraft was a rescued suicide and was brilliant in her own right and bore Mary Shelly as well!
There are those that cannot be consoled though. Cannot be rescued. Should not, even. The Terminal.
Who am I to say?
While I could never consider it for myself, it being THE preeminent mortal sin, unsalvageable in the eyes of my Church, I would not think to change the mind of a suffering terminal patient.
If I have elaborated too greatly, it is a subject very close to my heart.
I have watched, helpless and at arms length, several take their own lives before my eyes.
I’ve seen death in a few variations but nothing compares to the lasting impression of someone so distraught, so without hope, as to take their own life.
The most significant difference between the two texts are the absence of what is often called the Apocrypha.
Books that were in the original Hebrew and Greek text. They, among other things, speak directly to Purgatory and Limbo, as well as the Intercession of Saints and Angels in Heaven.
What Protestants would consider heretical and is a large part of what contributed to the reformation and fractioning.
God help me but, yes. I would suffer the innocent deaths of a few, if to allow so many wicked their due.
Martyrdom, in some respects, I suppose.
Now where is that Godless heathen that said he would stop by???
Patrick!!!
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis
Very interesting. Good refreshments, cheers.
Oooooh no you don’t!! Perhaps you missed the part where you reply with your own thoughts on the matter. Price of admission, if you will
I will. Give me time. Anyway, I was waiting for your guest speaker.
Take all the time you need. He certainly is.
I’ll have to think about whether or not my tardiness is tied into my liberal character flaw, but it is a provocative and fun thought to consider 😉
The tyranny of the majority is a concept used to describe possible scenarios in which majority votes are used to disenfranchise minority groups, or create systems of oppression against minority interests. Madison in the federalists papers referred to it as violence of the majority faction, and the structures of modern democracies are typically setup to prevent it, such as the US separation of powers in the three branches as one example, and the structure of parliamentary democracies as another, different approach.
These discussions have been around as far back as ancient Greece where terms like Ochlocracy ( essentially mob rule ) were used to describe the perils of direct democracy. Nietzsche talked about it as well.
In the US model, Madison spent a lot of time on it in Federalist 10 to refute criticisms of a stronger central govt that it would favor certain interest groups at the time over others.
In the context of the discussion with Sir Roland, marauding catholic crusader, we were discussing the validity of the court overturning legislation that was passed under a majority to prohibit gay marriage, and my point if I recall was that the separation of powers was specifically designed to prevent majority faction ( madison’s term, tyranny of the majority if you prefer de Tocqueville or John Stuart Mill ) from elevating their preferences over the rights of the minority.
Hope that helps… Happy to discuss…
And I am always pleased to see the maintenance of conflicting concepts and apparent embrace/rejection of absolutes in your thought process, Sir Roland, although I might warn you that it is often considered part of the liberal flaw 😉
Thank you kindly, Mr Glennon. Better late than never, I suppose.
That you recognize the flaw, at all, is a beginning. Warning that absolutes are the exclusive division of conservatives, is absurd. I hate you. absolutely.
K8, the conversation Patrick refers was not settled. We still disagree but I can say I came away with more knowledge than when it started.
It was and remains my position that for a minority knot, such as the pro gay marriage one in California, to attempt to sthawrt the established will of the People by soliciting the court (only the 9th circuit, which is notoriously biased) to overrule the majority will, is in it’s fashion, a tranny of the minority. Patrick adroitly contends that the courts are, as an afore mentioned, separate but equal branch, specifically designed for this measure. In theory, we might agree. In practice, by targeting a established biased Justice…we do not.
You will find your bottle of http://uncrate.com/stuff/the-glenlivet-80-year-old-whisky/ at the door. Consider it swag.
Heh. Just kidding. always grateful for your time.
*BY the minority.
Sorry for the confusion.
Phew…that was close.
Hmmm… Looking back I do think Sir Roland expressed it well. It is *not* a condition where minority interests are voted ( Sir Rolands irritation with the use of moneys paid in taxes ), such as large scale disenfranchisement or even smaller scales where specific protections are in place, such as freedom of speech or religion. SR frequently uses the example of Klan parades. The majority of the country are apalled, but we so desire the protections against majority faction ( or from a tyranny of that majority ) that systemic protections like freedom of speech and public gathering are codified, and legislatures state and federal are prohibited from enacting laws that abrogate those protections. The enforcement of which falls to the judiciary branch. It’s why the term “activist judge” is so offensive to me. It implies that the court is doing something wrong in reviewing laws and legislation rather than doing specifically what they were designed to do, by the founders, as discussed in the federalist/anti-federalist debates and papers. If all factions are annoyed at least some of the time, then the system is working.
Hmm… The consequence of posting from a phone. The first part should be “not a simple condition where minor interests are voted down”. And then “but more the case where systems of oppression of minority interests are put in, such as…”.
Sorry for the confusion
Ah. And my “SR said this well” refers to his earliest statement on tyranny of the majority, not his later restatement of his weak argument mistitled “tyranny of the minority”.
Yes yes…we got all that…thank you again…watch that step…we’ll be in touch…ta ta.
Ah, yes, well I suppose I could just stay a … Ouch! Oh, yes, well, it is late is should… Oh here we are at the door, did I leave my hat on the.. Yes, so you’ll send anything I may left behind, right so good ni…
Well, I’m sorry Roland but I don’t feel particularly inspired to respond. I have a feeling that the soft points of agreement are also the easy things to put into long paragraphs, but the heart of the matter, what I truly believe and what you truly believe can’t be argued about. It comes down to something at a very core level. Maybe the believe comes before the dressed up explanations.
I, am sorry, for having failed inspiring an or eliciting any passion. I’ll try harder.
BTW my brother is married to his husband. What’s right is right and it doesn’t matter how we get there, as long as we do. I’m talking about civil rights of all kinds. I find the very term “activist judges” to be somewhat stomach-turning. Don’t forget the battles the US South had with getting rid of Jim Crow laws. I see it in the same way.
It seems that you and I, and your Brother might believe fervently on a point and it’s assured there will be as many who believe as fervently, contrarily. To determine the right of a matter is then in the hands of the populous.
You are the weirdest right winger ever. Catholic (but discard big parts of it), Right wing, but left on some important issues. Libertarian but Catholic. I’m starting to have trouble keeping track.
I would describe my beliefs as socially left: pro-gay marriage, pro-helping those in need, pro-government programs to help those in need (need covers a lot of stuff). Pro-regulation of capitalism, pro-environmental checks on industry.
Make it easy to do business bureaucracy wise.
Leave the individual alone to make his/her choices about anything in his/her own life. Hands off my body whether I want to destroy it or what. Self determination.
OK that’s all I can think of right now.
Maybe I’m weird too, but you with that Catholic thing. All religious people make me feel kinda ick with the whole HELL thing. I’m afraid I have to say I’m one of those people who say: I’m not religious I’m spiritual. What a cliche right. But I was raised in the church, so I did my time.
I will assume, you’ve no more love of being pigeon holed than I do. I’d like to think that, if “weird”, also not willing to embrace any predetermined notions of a political philosophy. I can easily say that I would generally be perceived to be leaning hard right but if expected to toe any “party line”, some would be sorely disappointed.
In your own detailing of positions, are there any that you think are afield of those Left? Perhaps the Libertarian slant of self determination?
Ewww…what’s that smell?…anarchy?
Heh.
Ick for ick, I think.
You said: “God help me but, yes. I would suffer the innocent deaths of a few, if to allow so many wicked their due.
Martyrdom, in some respects, I suppose.”
God better help you because you are condoning murder here. Martyrdom is when you CHOOSE to die for an idea. Not when someone chooses it for you. Like I previously said, that’s just plain old murder.
And anyway, for a believer isn’t killing for revenge a little un-Jesus like? Tun the other cheek ring a bell? Love thine enemy?
Again, you are spot on with your point about martyrdom.
I allowed, I would rephrase by saying it would be how I might view the unfortunates, certainly not how they would care to be viewed…assuredly.
I have more to say and will consider how. I’ll try not to dress it up too extravagantly.
Thanks for your candor K8.
We shall be called purgers, not murderers.
W. Shakespeare
Julius Caesar. Act 2, Scene 1, Page 8
“In your own detailing of positions, are there any that you think are afield of those Left? Perhaps the Libertarian slant of self determination?” Oh yeah, I know, I said it from the start (smoking comment). Please be assured being weird in my books is pretty much a compliment. You think through each issue separately and clearly. I respect that. More later I’m sneaking this message at work.
So what are your hard right views? shock me.
I’m soooo sure!
“You want the truth?!?! You can’t handle the truth!!!”
Seriously though, if “of Victims” or “of Women” didn’t shock you, I might be out of ammo to do so.
They don’t actually portray any defined hard right views but there much more chance the hard right would express any like them, than any moderate, even. Though, “of Women” is as adulating of your gender, as it is misogynistic.
Ill have to go back and review “of victim”s, but I remember “of women” and I felt it to be more of a personal exploration of your feelings about the women you’ve known.
The women you choose and how they treat might say more about you than about them.
And you did you go back and say lots of loving things after the diatribe so…
I guess you have lots of feeling and thoughts and generally provide your own devil’s advocate.
I can really relate.
What might shock me more would be if you said you admire George Bush, Cheney, or Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
I truly hope you do not bite on any of that rotten, stinky bait.
That I cannot abide.
Cheney’s visiting my fair town right now. I had a chat with one of his supporters while I was buying my coffee.
———My FB status update this morning:
I just talked to a guy in a coffee shop who was pro-Cheney because he believes in women’s rights. I said I believe in that too. He said did you know that women won’t be able to vote in Saudi Arabia until 2015? I said no-one votes in Saudi Arabia, it’s a monarchy. He said “Exactly, see what I mean!”.
It made my smile all day.
I believe I’ll start here. If you would, I’d ask you expand on this: “The women you choose and how they treat might say more about you than about them.”
If meant as I’m inclined to interpret, I hope to take you to task. While it’s still in my head, I’ll offer a preview…
Imagine for a moment that I am a Woman. A Woman who, because of one insecurity or another, has been known to be drawn to the asshole. Then, having picked the king of assholes, I reside and languish in a life of verbal and, occasionally, physical abuse…That’s the Man I chose, that’s how he treats me…What does that say about me?
For the record. George W. Bush will likely be regarded as one of our worse leaders. I fully advocate that impression. For me, he was not a conservative. He was a business man in wolves clothing.
Glenn Beck has gotten his just desserts and has faded into insignificance, by his own, over reaching, hand. Good riddance.
In truth, I’d not listened to Rush Limbaugh until recently. I may not agree with some of what he says but he says it well. Compared to some other hosts, he is polite and attentive to his callers and there are reasons he has capitalized on his market. And as many, that he is so reviled on the Left.
Mr Cheney. possibly the only other person more reviled. Of who, I have no outstanding opinion, other than his possibly being a camp leader in wolves clothing.
So. There. You said you’d not abide. Had I professed undying admiration for any of them…you’d have abandoned this tête-à-tête?
I’m afraid you may have bamboozled your coffee adversary. They do, in fact, have elections in Saudi Arabia. Women’s suffrage having just been allowed, last week, for 2015. A monarchy, yes, but like in the UK, with a Parliamentary system. Your Cheney ally does his position no favour in having let you so easily beat him into submission. Dick would have hung his head in shame. You have every reason to smile. Laugh even.
point 1: woman, yes that says a lot about her, of course. It says she’s insecure, low self-esteem, etc.
point 2: my opinion on the role call of the US right: GWB – nice guy but stupid pawn (and bad prez of course), Mr. Cheney – evil Darth Vader manipulator or aformentioned pawn, Glenn Beck – crazy guy who makes me want to murder him until I roll my eyes, sigh and change the channel (but yes just desserts, finally), Rush – he uses the term “Femi-Nazi” and you say that he says it well? Well I say it well too and Rush can suck my salty donkey balls. p.s. what’s a camp leader?
point/question 2: maybe I would have abandoned… I know I would have had to re-evaluate who you are (the portrait that I’m forming in my head via these exchanges) I like jousting, but I dislike any real conflict. I run away like a little girl.
point 3: elections in KSA? Really? I’ve had 100+ Saudi students and none of them have mentioned elections, even when we talked about the subject. “King Abdullah is good”, they say. Which he may well be in many respects, but a woman just got sentenced to 10 lashes for driving. Oh well, at least the women are pushing these boundaries. But thanks for the clarification.
Point 4: I gotta go. I’m shirking.
Of course he says it well. One cannot have the loyal following he does without a talent for oration. The pied piper lured the rats from Hamelin because…he piped well. You and I might have thought it noise but the rats sure dug it…to their eventual demise.
Now listen here, shirker…You quote Malcom X. An incredibly destructive force in our society who’s impact still resounds (though, for his intellectual honesty, I regard him in many ways with more esteem than MLK). Should I consider abandoning you for your respect for him? Or, will you, me, for my disdain? Unreasonable, both. I’ve no desire for conflict, but an exchange. Even one with salty donkey balls.
PS. A camp leader is a metaphoric reference to political camps, in the guise of Boy Scouts, in over their heads.
Google the recent advent of Saudi Womens Suffrage.
“our society” – OK I feel the same way somewhat. I do know far more about American politics and history than anyone who can’t vote should. I don’t support everything Malcom X ever said. Can I get some props for all the heavy lifting I’m doing on American history? You know I didn’t study it in school – mostly explorers, Hudsons Bay Company, Ancient Egypt and WW1 and WW2. And of that I remember precious little. I thought it was an interesting quote that’s all.
I have this feeling…that you are waiting, hoping, fidgeting with anticipation, in hopes of being able to accuse me of that very common and inexcusable mistake that Americans make when they lump Canada in with themselves.
You may be disappointed. I’m hardly that provincial.
I will take some responsibility for the confusion, though. I might have written “culture”, as in “Western Culture”, instead of society. Though, I do believe our societies are parallel in more ways than just language, if not French Canadian.
Of which, Mr. X had a significant impact.
Props, big props to K8 for taking interest in her neighbor to the South and even recalling some of their more obscure history.
Dunno why it asked me to approve your comment. It didn’t even ask me to do that when you first appeared.
What mischief have you been into? My blog is very sensitive and conscious of moral turpitude and responds accordingly.
oops: Malcolm
My comment is awaiting moderation? ooh that’s new.
Ahh, yes your AI blog may have picked up on some of my turpitude. Mischief follows me wherever I go.
I am not itching to say something like: “I know all about your politics and country and you know nothing of mine!”
Why? Because a) you could find out lots in a quick Internet search and b) I don’t know a ton about Canadian politics/history and find it rather boring.
American history/politics is like the WWF and Canadian politics is like…umm what’s an uninteresting thing…golf.
Fuck Chikatilo!