Yet another case of religious murder

@ebrown p,

Quote:

This is what is all about-- a misguided attempt to rid our society of evil religious superstition. Sorry Setanta, it ain't going to happen.

It sure doesn't seem to me that you are laughing.

But you are certainly lying, and lying like a big rug. There is not the least reason to assume from anything i've written that i call for ridding our society of evil religious superstition. That religious superstition is evil is beyond question. That society will likely never be rid of it is also beyond question--nor have i ever said anything even remotely like that. I simply have observed that we live at the dawn of the age in which the evil of religious superstition is being revealed. It will always be with us, but it will never again rule by fiat.

You know, E_Brown, when you feel moved to lie about what i've written, there is a name for that. It's called a strawman fallacy. I suspect that's the best you'll be able to come up with, because if this thread is any example, you're way out of your depth in any ordinary debate.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It really is too bad that we live at the dawn of the age in which religious superstition is being shown for the true evil which it is.

Come on Set. Tell me how I am misconstruing this quote.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

I am sorry, tell me how I should take this quote.

In terms of this thread, that you are sorry is beyond doubt.

The quote can be taken exactly as it reads. Nowhere does it say that society should be or even could be rid of the evil of religious superstition. What is too bad is that we do not live fully in he the age in which the evil of religious superstition is fully recognized, rather than simply at the dawn of such an age.

Take it however you wish--and every time you lie about what i've written, i'm going to come along to tell you that you are a liar.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So where is the "murder"?
The woman was convicted of "reckless homocide", and that is a far cry from murder.

I think your hatred of religion is causing you to see something that isnt there.

I find myself in the odd (for me) position of agreeing with mysteryman.

A brief search on the differences between murder and homicide shows that the major difference is that of intent. Presumably, the prosecutors are competent to determine if they can show intent.

Homicide Vs. Murder: The Differences

Quote:

Most people use the words “murder” and “homicide” interchangeably, but they are not the same. Although murder and homicide are both used to describe the act of killing another human being, the circumstances surrounding the charges are different.

The easiest way to describe the differences between murder and homicide is that homicide is the killing of another human being, while murder requires the intent to kill another human being. Homicide can be used to describe any death where another person is at fault, but there are
mitigating circumstances that can influence the charge of homicide. When someone is convicted of murder, however, they are not only convicted of a homicide, but also the malicious intent to kill.

(emphasis mine)

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

ditto.

1 Reply

@dagmaraka,

LOL

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I am not whining Set.... I am laughing out loud (and having a harder time keeping my composure each time I open this silly thread).

Then you're an even more pathetic worthless scum sucking piece of ******* **** than I first imagined. Do you often laugh when kids are murdered you stinking putrid ****?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

hmm? I just meant to say I agree with DrewDad, MM, and you, I guess. I find it horrendous and criminal, but i would not call it a murder. i believe the jury knows what they're doing.

and wilso... please take that language somewhere else if you can contain yourself. i really dislike seeing such vocabulary here. of course you don't have to, just telling you how it comes across to me.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

Then you're an even more pathetic worthless scum sucking piece of ******* **** than I first imagined. Do you often laugh when kids are murdered you stinking putrid ****?

Meanwhile, you're posting on an Internet message board instead of actually doing something to help kids. Woo-hoo for your moral superiority.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

and many kids have full access and can read what we post. here's to being a shining example.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Then you're an even more pathetic worthless scum sucking piece of ******* **** than I first imagined. Do you often laugh when kids are murdered you stinking putrid ****?

Meanwhile, you're posting on an Internet message board instead of actually doing something to help kids. Woo-hoo for your moral superiority.

And what would you have me do to prevent religious weirdos from withholding medical treatment from their children? Screw you you superior prick.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

not making the other point of view look ridiculous would be a good start, wilso. you really cannot curb your language?

1 Reply

@dagmaraka,

dagmaraka wrote:

not making the other point of view look ridiculous would be a good start, wilso. you really cannot curb your language?

I like the salty language myself, but it has to be used judiciously.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Religious weirdos are hardly the only danger facing children.

If you're actually driven by concern for kids, then you should get off your ass and do something for them.

If (as I suspect) this is merely an attempt to claim the moral high ground for your anti-religious rant, then I'm sorry to say that the jig is up.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

especially if we're requiring others to be civilized and enlightened, i would say.
salty language has its place, for sure. but insults are insults, that's just cheap and unnecessary.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Religious weirdos are hardly the only danger facing children.

If you're actually driven by concern for kids, then you should get off your ass and do something for them.

If (as I suspect) this is merely an attempt to claim the moral high ground for your anti-religious rant, then I'm sorry to say that the jig is up.

**** you ****. What have you ever done hypocrite? Rot with other ******* prick.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Hey man; I agree with you on the overall issue and most here do as well. So why don't you just calm the **** down and stop being so offensive?

I get that you're pissed but it's not productive to act this way. It doesn't get you what you want.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Being logical certainly doesn't get through the thick skulls of these assholes.

0 Replies

I used to be able to talk to Wilso, Cyclo, but it seems that at some point in the last few years, he's gone off the deep end. I doubt very much that he will calm down as you ask him to do.

I've not always been thrilled with DD, but absolutely nothing he has written here justifies that response.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

The easiest way to describe the differences between murder and homicide is that homicide is the killing of another human being, while murder requires the intent to kill another human being.

wrong wrong wrongedy wrong. Murder by depraved indifference is murder. The intent has nothing to do with it. In NY (where the act took place) the murder was accomplished by reckless endangerment and depraved indifference. Posting dictionary dfinitions misses the issue since 1st, second ,and third degree muder each have different standards and intent isnt the trip point"SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" is.
We arent the prosecutors and I admitted that the choice of the charge was probably an expedient for the purpose of getting some kind of conviction

THe standard was that the parent who withheld the meds from her child and used prayer to affect a cure, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the evidence suggested that it wouldnt work and so the mother was playing with the life of her kid, just to gain some imagenary "Points to paradise". INTENT can also imply "KNOWLEDGE OF A PROBABLE OUTCOME" but acting recklessly in a manner counter to this information. That seems to be included within a charge of murder in the third degree.

As long as these religious nuts are given a pass or can have their sentences and charges commuted on appeal, we are not, in cases like these, distributing equal justice.
Its a matter of civil rights v civil rights violated.A murder charge would obviate that distinction in my mind (No matter the outcome , the jury can only vote on the evidence)

1 Reply

Yet another case of religious murder

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know