Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[ok doser]

We're not Israel. We don't live in a theocracy. How would you convince the atheist or the secular Jew living in the US that we should base our laws on biblical laws?

do we demand 100% approval before changing law?

was there 100% approval from Christian organizations when US law was changed to enable immorality in the past?

The Islamic fundamentalists are likely the only ones you could get on board with executing adulterers or homosexuals. Strange bedfellows that.

and i would applaud their support, if it was based on a recognition that society prospers when the individual's freedom is necessarily tempered by a recognition of the individual's responsibilties (in this case, the responsibility to forego acting like a lust-crazed pervert)

Now that you mention this, perhaps we have touched on some this before. If I recall correctly, you were OK with a man falsely accused of rape of being executed. Is that accurate or should I find that thread?

i have some thoughts on that - I would be in favor of a system in which a man falsely accused of rape would be executed, swiftly and publicly...


IF

that system had this corrective mechanism - that when the falsity of the rape charge came to light, all those complicit in the conviction of the innocent man would be executed as well, swiftly and publicly

that would include the accuser, her witnesses, her attorney and the judge


i'm confident that this would put an end to false rape charges

 

[WizardofOz]

do we demand 100% approval before changing law?

was there 100% approval from Christian organizations when US law was changed to enable immorality in the past?

No. Who said otherwise? :idunno:
I am curious as to how such a system would be implemented? How do you see it coming to fruition?

and i would applaud their support, if it was based on a recognition that society prospers when the individual's freedom is necessarily tempered by a recognition of the individual's responsibilties (in this case, the responsibility to forego acting like a lust-crazed pervert)

An authoritarian vision of a free society.

Are we flogging women who show too much skin in public? Who decides what is appropriate? We're back to that troubling open-back dress.

i have some thoughts on that - I would be in favor of a system in which a man falsely accused of rape would be executed, swiftly and publicly...


IF

that system had this corrective mechanism - that when the falsity of the rape charge came to light, all those complicit in the conviction of the innocent man would be executed as well, swiftly and publicly

that would include the accuser, her witnesses, her attorney and the judge

Take the case of Herman Atkins. You're the judge. Do you execute him? Cause, if so, you also would not survive your own legal system.

On April 8, 1986, in Lake Elsinore, a female clerk was working at a shoe store when, sometime between 11:30 AM and 12:00 PM, she was raped and robbed at gunpoint. During the rape, the assailant ejaculated and wiped semen onto her sweater. Investigation and Trial Following the rape, the victim was taken to the hospital where vaginal swabs were collected. Her clothing, including the sweater with the semen stains, was collected and marked for identification. She then went to the police station and was shown yearbooks from a nearby high school but was unable to find her assailant. In fact, she did not identify Atkins until she saw a wanted poster for him on unrelated charges, and was then shown a photo lineup where she identified Atkins as her assailant witness #1. A witness who worked at the store next to where the rape occurred was shown the wanted poster with Atkins’ picture and identified him as a man who had been in her store earlier that day witness #2. At trial, in addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with a state laboratory, who testified that the semen found on swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A and PGM 2+1+, which are consistent with Atkins’ typing witness #3. Atkins was charged with robbery and rape and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. Post-Conviction Investigation Atkins’ case was accepted by the Innocence Project in 1993. After locating the sweater and vaginal swabs in 1995, the Innocence Project began trying to gain access to the evidence for DNA testing, which was granted in 1999. After receiving the specimens, Forensic Science Associates performed DNA testing on the evidence collected at the crime scene. Testing was conducted on three separate areas of the sweater. In all three areas, the results were consistent and excluded Atkins. Based on the test results, Herman Atkins was released from prison in February 2000, after spending twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

i'm confident that this would put an end to false rape charges

And more rape victims being murdered. It's a capital crime, why leave a witness?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How do you see your particular laws actually becoming reality in the United States?

One of two ways, both extremely unlikely.

Either:

A group of Christians get elected to positions of power simultaneously and once everyone is in place, peacefully reform the government to a monarchy, after which lots would be chosen for a king, and the constitution (or similar to the one) provided by Pastor Enyart would become the new law of the land.

OR

Another nation overthrows America in a just war against us, and installs a new government.

Could you give me a few of the most important steps describing the process of the implementation of these laws?

Well, a new government would need to be established, the current one is unusable.

With the new government would come a new justice system, and a new constitution.

Bob's book "The First Five Days" goes into a bit of detail about this, and the proposed constitution of his details the steps for choosing a king and his successors.

You and fundamental Islamists would like to see adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, etc, etc executed. What other group has this in common? It's not a stretch at all to see the relation.

Please explain why you feel it is unjust? Your legal ideals have more in common than you do with the current US Constitution.

I did not come here to discuss Islam.

I came here to discuss the current legal just-a-system of America and a replacement for it based on God's law.

The shadowgov constitution is a perversion of His Law. That's my point. It's a cherry-picked, jumbled mess.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

In what way is it a perversion? In what way is it cherry picked?

Let's get into greater detail and discuss the similarities and differences.

No.

How was it more effective?

There was less crime. :think:

What about the law was more just then?

I didn't say it was more just.

I said that it was more effective.

Here

Herman Atkins was innocent. Yet, you still said...

Taking what I said out of context doesn't help you.

What did Atkins do that deserved execution?

Nothing.

Yet, at the time, he was shown using multiple witnesses to be guilty. He should have (justly) been put to death.

And since he was later found to be innocent, the case should have been reopened, the false accuser found, tried for capital perjury, and then executed.

:dunce:

This isn't hard, WoOz.

If someone is shown to be guilty on the testimony of two or three witnesses, then they are punished according to the crime committed.

If evidence comes up later that exonerates them, then the judge is removed from his position and the one who bore false witness is punished according to the crime committed, along with whoever actually committed the crime (after a trial, of course).

The law against perjury (bearing false witness) would deter false accusations (and accusations that while they may be true do not have enough evidence to back them up). A man would be very cautious of accusing his neighbor falsely, why? Because the punishment for perjury is whatever is at stake in the trial.

Falsely accuse a man of theft? The accuser pays restitution to the accused according to what he was accused of stealing.

Falsely accuse a man of beating his wife? Up to forty lashes for the accuser.

Falsely accuse a man of murder, rape, adultery, or any other capital crime? The accuser is put to death.

All that to say, the number of innocent people wrongly accused would be VERY, VERY low, almost non-existent.

Now, under your system, an innocent man and a judge are executed.

Please stop twisting my words.

I didn't say the judge was to be executed. Nor did I say he was NOT to be executed.

I said the false accuser would be executed, and the judge would lose his standing as a judge.

That doesn't raise any red flags for you? You even conceded that there were more than the required 3 witnesses. Would you have also sentenced Atkins to death were you the presiding judge?

Cause, then we would have to execute you too. You wouldn't even survive your own legal system.

False premise.

No, it's my opinion. I debated it in that thread. Start with post 82

And you voicing your opinion is defamation.

It's an appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy.

By the way, that thread was made and ended well before I made my account.

:idunno:

I may be mistaken but it seems to have been down since 2008.

:idunno:

 

[WizardofOz]

In what way is it a perversion? In what way is it cherry picked?

Refer to my posts in that thread starting here.

Nothing.

Yet, at the time, he was shown using multiple witnesses to be guilty. He should have (justly) been put to death.

And since he was later found to be innocent, the case should have been reopened, the false accuser found, tried for capital perjury, and then executed.

:dunce:

This isn't hard, WoOz.

If someone is shown to be guilty on the testimony of two or three witnesses, then they are punished according to the crime committed.

If evidence comes up later that exonerates them, then the judge is removed from his position and the one who bore false witness is punished according to the crime committed, along with whoever actually committed the crime (after a trial, of course).

The law against perjury (bearing false witness) would deter false accusations (and accusations that while they may be true do not have enough evidence to back them up). A man would be very cautious of accusing his neighbor falsely, why? Because the punishment for perjury is whatever is at stake in the trial.

Falsely accuse a man of theft? The accuser pays restitution to the accused according to what he was accused of stealing.

Falsely accuse a man of beating his wife? Up to forty lashes for the accuser.

Falsely accuse a man of murder, rape, adultery, or any other capital crime? The accuser is put to death.

All that to say, the number of innocent people wrongly accused would be VERY, VERY low, almost non-existent.

Eye witnesses often make honest mistakes. Who the heck would ever come forward and be a witness to a capital crime if they could later be executed themselves if it turns out what they thought they saw was in error?

This just isn't very well thought out on Enyart's end. This is probably why he removed it.

Now, under your system, an innocent man and a judge are executed.

Please stop twisting my words.

I didn't say the judge was to be executed. Nor did I say he was NOT to be executed.

You are correct. You simply said "the judge would be held responsible for the wrongful conviction." What should happen to him or her?

You did also say "AND since Atkins would have been executed (justly, as there were more than enough witnesses to convict)". You are literally and plainly calling the execution of an innocent man just.

How is the execution of an innocent man just? Is it possible for an innocent person to be executed and the result to be said to be just? I'm sure if it were your brother or father or son you wouldn't call his execution 'just'. You're just defending a system without considering the real world application.

I said the false accuser would be executed, and the judge would lose his standing as a judge.

Who was the false accuser in the Atkins case? No one maliciously identified him. Both women legitimately thought he was the perpetrator. This is a common problem with eye witness testimony. It's not as reliable as you seem to think and the majority of the time the witness truly believes what they are saying. They are not lying or maliciously accusing someone.

They are not consciously falsely accusing.

And you voicing your opinion is defamation.

No, it just isn't. What would happen to me in your legal system for saying that the shadowgov constitution is a joke?

It's an appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy.

Sure, but it isn't defamation. I've laid out detailed arguments against it in the above referenced thread.

By the way, that thread was made and ended well before I made my account.

The thread is still open...

 

[ok doser]

An authoritarian vision of a free society.

the founding fathers and the french enlightenment thinkers who influenced the thinking of the founding fathers didn't see it this way - they recognized that unconstrained freedom led to anarchy

which is the situation we find ourselves in today

i guess you could think of it as a necessary balance between authoritarianism and anarchy

And more rape victims being murdered. It's a capital crime, why leave a witness?

a dead body with dna evidence of rape is a pretty powerful witness

and disposing of a body isn't as easy as you might think



i'll come back to the herman atkins thing - gotta get back to my cement work before sundown :wave2:

 

[WizardofOz]

the founding fathers and the french enlightenment thinkers who influenced the thinking of the founding fathers didn't see it this way - they recognized that unconstrained freedom led to anarchy

They were breaking free from the authority of A) the monarchy and B) the church.

These are the two things the shadowgov constitution would return to. The enlightenment thinkers wanted to separate church and state, believed in religious tolerance, etc. They didn't believe in this misguided notion of the 'divine right of kings'.

which is the situation we find ourselves in today

i guess you could think of it as a necessary balance between authoritarianism and anarchy

Balance is great. I don't think going back that far in the direction of authoritarianism is bringing any kind of balance.

a dead body with dna evidence of rape is a pretty powerful witness

It rape and murder are both capital crimes why would a rapist leave his victim alive?

and disposing of a body isn't as easy as you might think

Any experience in the field? :chuckle:

i'll come back to the herman atkins thing - gotta get back to my cement work before sundown :wave2:

Get to work :sibbie:

 

[WizardofOz]

For future reference so I don't have to search for them again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060805...v.com/constitution/constitutionofamerica.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20060522...ov.com/Constitution/americascriminalcode.html

 

[Crucifer]

:think:

my spidey senses are tingling

perhaps this noob is a familiar face?




hey "crucifer" - what do you think about modern feminism?

>Can't face down a fact
>Instead makes weird insinuations

I answered pretty plainly that the reason for the crime increasing is because courts and law enforcement mince the true meaning of a 'crime'- people are sitting in jails and awaiting trials for pretty much nonsense in which the 'crime rate' makes no distinction of.
You obviously know that this is true and just don't want to admit it, presumably because it just doesn't do well with your draconian inclinations.
And
You've stated as well that I 'do not respect women'- but here's the thing.. the Bible doesn't call for men to protect the virginity or purity of women, it's something that they have to take care of themselves. Why should men be so much more concerned for them when men have their own problems? They are exponentially murdered and assaulted more than women, and the Bible doesn't vindicate your bias there.
It's a subject I don't get into, because you see what you're doing right now is dragging it out- you've taken a small part of a post from yesterday and are stringing it along. Don't go contradict yourself now- you're the Old Law remember? Stop trying to play from both ends.

 

[ok doser]

just in for a minute to get some feeling back in my fingers (and ears)

They were breaking free from the authority of A) the monarchy and B) the church.

and in the case of the french, it most decidedly led to anarchy - an anarchy that didn't resolve until the military coup of Napoleon and the authoritarian state that formed

Any experience in the field? :chuckle:

:think:

actually, i do

both in terms of being faced with a body (non-human) I wanted to dispose of discretely, and in terms of the forensic work I did many years ago

 

[ok doser]

You've stated as well that I 'do not respect women'....

ummmmmm

no

those were the voices in your head

 

[ok doser]

A hundred years ago, people weren't being prosecuted for touching someone's shirt sleeve or looking at someone the wrong way.

:think:

my spidey senses are tingling

perhaps this noob is a familiar face?




hey "crucifer" - what do you think about modern feminism?

... men have their own problems... They are exponentially murdered and assaulted more than women...

hey "crucifer" - what do you think about divorce settlements? Are they generally fair to men?

 

[Crucifer]

ummmmmm

no

those were the voices in your head

In your big, extravagant post earlier you insinuated that I do not respect women. It was your response to my response of the 'pop quiz' concerning crime and punishment.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In your big, extravagant post earlier you insinuated that I do not respect women. It was your response to my response of the 'pop quiz' concerning crime and punishment.

:dunce:

That was ME, you dunderhead.

 

[Crucifer]

I wonder why....

:think:

Maybe it's because we had stricter laws and harsher punishments back then? :idunno:

Thanks for proving my point though.

Maybe try thinking a bit more thoroughly- the crime has increased because 'crime' has become more of a technicality than being actual, real crimes.
It's fairly easy to end up in a courtroom these days. Maybe it just takes somebody with a bit more life experience or someone not dealt the best hand of cards to understand that, but people go to jail for pretty much anything in today's world.
It's not an influx of criminals, it's just an overzealous system. In which case, your point is wrong.

 

[Crucifer]

:dunce:

That was ME, you dunderhead.

Well, it's not like you an ok doser aren't basically a reflection of each other so.. there's that

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, it's not like you an ok doser aren't basically a reflection of each other so.. there's that

You should apologize to [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] for your false accusation.

 

[Crucifer]

You should apologize to [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] for your false accusation.

Ever since I began making posts, you and ok doser have basically been peas in a pod.
How about you apologize for double teaming against a poster :think:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Maybe try thinking a bit more thoroughly- the crime has increased because 'crime' has become more of a technicality than being actual, real crimes.
It's fairly easy to end up in a courtroom these days. Maybe it just takes somebody with a bit more life experience or someone not dealt the best hand of cards to understand that, but people go to jail for pretty much anything in today's world.

I was AGREEING with you, Crucifer.

:dunce:

And then I explained WHY it is that there are so many cases.

It's because there are TOO MANY LAWS, so that no one knows hardly any of them.

What I'm proposing is a SIMPLIFICATION of the law, so that ALL people can know it and can abide by it.

It's not an influx of criminals, it's just an overzealous system. In which case, your point is wrong.

Overzealous? The system we have is lax, not overzealous. It's not doing enough... because it isn't capable of keeping up with all the crime, which leads to more crime, which leads to higher strain on the system, and rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ever since I began making posts, you and ok doser have basically been peas in a pod.
How about you apologize for double teaming against a poster :think:

Something something public forum.

:think:

You should apologize to [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] for the false accusation.

 

[Crucifer]

Overzealous? The system we have is lax, not overzealous. It's not doing enough... because it isn't capable of keeping up with all the crime, which leads to more crime, which leads to higher strain on the system, and rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

No, it's overzealous.
When you see people getting shut down selling lemonade, but reject the fact that this extends to people getting charged with crimes due to the same outrageous technicality, you are perpetuating a loaded bias.
Such matters shouldn't even be recognized by 'the law' as criminal- the problem isn't the Left being overly liberal but rather the Right trying to be fascists.
You're embracing the very thing we fought against.