McVeigh vs Death Penalty

by Amazing 272 Replies latest jw friends

AcapulcoGold

comf - you're explanation:
go to this thread and scroll down to janh's post about god disproved - please note the formatting and let me ask you a question
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=4729&site=3#59227

is there any indication in that post to suggest that janh (robot)IS NOT the author of the God Disproved Predicate Calculus "opinion"?
now let me ask you another question - do you notice any similarity in the formatting of that post and the one on creating the fourier transform on the motorala 68000?

I'd be interested to know what you think.
robot - now PROVE 51% i'm cowboy or eat shit and die!(thanks for the cool texanism Comf)
AG
i'm really getting sick of this nonsense robot and i'm sure everyone else is to but you are not going to drive me away like you do everyone else who happens to have an opinion contrary to "yours" and i will not let up up until you cease your public displays of stupidity - and shutup - that goes for all your like "minded" cronies here as well.

AG
ps. i forgot to add PETTY INTOLERANT CONCEITED MYSOGYNIST to your list of fine outstanding "charachter" traits I listed above.
Tina

Hi crossroads,
"Everyone is saying that McVeigh is sick".....uh no they're not.
I certainly didn't see that in this thread either.
The American criminal justice system uses 2 tests to determine if someone was in such a state of mind at the time of their crime.
The M'Naughten and the ALI-(American Law Institute)
M'Naughten requires a defendent to show total mental impairment while ALI only requires a defendent to show that he lacked'substantial capacity' to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
McV fell under neither rubric.
(btw the legal definition is not the same as the medical clinical definiton of 'sick'.
Just a thought here. Tina
COMF

Do I see a similarity in the formatting? Um... no. I hate to think, though, that somebody would connect me with a piece of writing on the internet because it was formatted the same as something I authored. I use HTML, which is pretty severely limited in what you can do with it; so does pretty much everybody else.
Are you referring to the use of the special font to display mathematical symbols? I think, AG, that anyone doing math at that level is going to avail themselves of a font that has characters they need in order to display their calculations.
Honestly, I don't have any idea what you're trying to show here. I don't know the history, and I can't make the guess. Could you just lay it all out for me?
Thanks!
COMF
crossroads

Patio34-"A Nation has a right to defend itself in War"
North Korea never attacked us
North Vietnam never attacked us
But the STATE saw fit to Murder students at Kent State
for protesting unfounded war.
Graneda never attacked us
Irag never attacked us
The whole mess in Southeast Eroupe never attacked us
Germany did not attack us. They sank our ships that were
carrying war goods to there enimies. Like you said
didn't they have a right to defend itself in war.
The Indians did not try to exterminate the white man.
According to the constitution none yes none of these
things were STATE sanctioned.
Ah I left out Japan yes of course that one was sanctioned
but the war was over and we only dropped the bombS
because we wanted Stallin to see are new toy.
Killing McVeigh is wrong
Killing is always wrong
Exception--protection of family members
Hopefully in time after Tim is gone people will start
reading the constitution again and there will be no
more wars or State sanctioned killings.
That way his death and the deaths of the INNOCENT
he took that day will in time become American Hero's
Lets us Pray that tomorrow the world is going to be
a more loving and kind place and let each one of us
start making it so TODAY.
"Tradgedy is a tool for living to gain wisdom,
not a guide by which to live"
BOBBY
Peace and Love
Mark
AcapulcoGold

yea sure comf, guess it's one of those things where if you aren't involved it's hard to know the full story
but it's pretty simple - robot tried to bignote himself & make himself look like the author of the god disproved post when he wasn't.
He's already admitted he stole the info without crediting the real author down another thread but the search engine on this site is next to non existant so retrieval would take hours - i can find it if you want though (i wish we could search by author but until then if you dont remember the subject name it's a slog)
robot hasn't been game enough to try & pull the same stunt again since i brought it to his attention the first time.
robot will be jumping to his own defence here sooner or later so that should also offer further clarification.
my main gripe is being told i'm really everyone else on this site robot randomly and paranoically chooses and accuses and assumes without a shred of evidence.
he'll make those accusations in one post and then in the next spruik off his morally/intellectually "superior" BS about 51% burden of proof before guilt etc. - dont try and make sense of it comf because there is none.
essentially whats going on with robot (and allies with the same illness ) is he can't admit to himself he was stupid enough to make the mistake of becoming or being a witness just like everybody else here and somehow feels he has to justify/deny his stupidity in making that decision with displays of absurd "intellectualism" in a pathetic attempt to try and seperate and segregate himself from us even more stupid moronic fools who made the exactly the same mistake robot did despite having no "scholarly" qualifications.
i think i'm finally starting to understand the (INTOLERANT SELF DENYING) agendas here.
it's a joke, it makes me sick but thanks for asking.
AG
AGuest

Dearest Tina and Amazing... may you both have peace!
I would like to comment, if I may:
The common operative word in your respective posts is 'we', which I take you both to mean the human race (sorry to those who dislike that terminology; it was 'handy'). And that right there should kinda answer the question for you, Tina. Those who 'belong' to this system of things... those who consider themselves a part of 'we'... are a law 'unto themselves'. Tim McVeigh, by even having issues with 'we', and by placing himself as judge and avenger over the 'we', has put himself under law to 'we'. Thus, he was judged and condemned... and will die... at the hand of 'we'. 'They' are no better than he... and by his actions, he, no better than 'they'.
There are some, however, who are not a part of the 'we', and no, I am not talking about the WTBTS, for in truth, they constitute themselves a part of 'we' whenever it benefits them. If they NEED something from the 'we', you can bet they will demand it, and even join forces WITH the 'we' in order to obtain it.
I am speaking of those who truly believe my Lord words, 'let the one WITHOUT sin... cast the first stone.' Since I am a sinner and so are my family and friends, and I want to be shown MERCY... for myself and my family... I truly cannot judge and condemn another. If that one ASKS for mercy, I must extend it.
However, IF that one constitutes him or herself as a part of 'we'... if that person shows themself to BE a part of 'we'... and if that person's lack of repentance PROVES that they are not a part of 'us' and therefore a part of 'we'... then I am in my full right not to concern myself with whether such one is judged... and condemned... BY 'we'. Such one becomes 'as the world and a tax collector'.
Do I hate such one? No. Do I judge such one? No. Condemn. Uh-uh. Wish ill-will? Nope. If I see him/her hungry and I have the means, I WILL feed him/her. If I see him/her naked, and I have the means, I WILL clothe him/her. But, as long as he/she is a part of 'we'... I can do nothing to stop 'we'... from carrying out THEIR laws.
This is quite different from the 'no part of this world' that the WTBTS 'sells'. They use such phrase as a means of isolation to their convenience and benefit, turning it on and off as they see fit: 'we're no part of the world, so the world's judgments mean nothing to us', as they seek decisions to their advantage from worldly courts.
When my Lord said that we were 'no part of the world,' he did not say we were to BE no part of the world. He said that the world would HATE us BECAUSE we were no part of it. But Timothy McVeigh, the FBI, the United Nations, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, etc., etc., do not 'hate' me. The ONLY people in THIS world that hate me... are those who still associate with the WTBTS. And they 'hate' me, because I am no part... of them. For they ARE indeed 'fond of their own.'
Tim McVeigh put himself in the hands of those considered 'we', by his acts. He was not wrongly judged and condemned because he committed no sin, nor was he wrongly judged and condemned for the sake of the Christ and giving witness to him and God. The Law Covenant said 'an eye for an eye... a life for a life.' Tim took that Law... into his own hands and avenged a life... for a life. Now, he, too, will face the very Law HE lived by... and pay for it... with his physical life.
As regards his spirit, however, my Father shows mercy... to whomever HE wishes to show mercy. Whether Tim McVeigh is condemned eternally, and receives judgment rather than life at his resurrection, is a decision that belongs to God and has not yet been revealed to us.
I hope this helps and as always, bid you love and peace.
Your servant (your sis, Tina), and a slave of Christ,
SJ
crossroads

Hi Tina,
For the most part you were right about people calling
McViegh sick(which he is not)I went back and looked .
Roamingfeline" He's the worst kinda of human being
soulless" Bigboi"His own sick , wacked out, militia, redneck agenda" I have been in other discussions on
this broad were many have called McVeigh sick. So
sorry for the combining of scriptures but I was well
taught it that. I always take McVeigh's side on the issues
posted. I'll take a man who is willing to die for a cause
(which McVeigh has always been ready to do)
Over a man that has no cause any day. How Tim got
his message out was wrong.But the U.S. government has
done and will continue to do more damage and KILL
more INNOCENT people than McVeigh could ever dream
of . No President (Nixon-Kent State) Governor(Rockafeller-
Additca) I'm sure there are more(these just automatically
come to mind) will ever face the death penalty for using
there power wrongfully.
"I would like to be able to love my country
and still love justice"--------BOBBY
Peace and Love
Mark
terraly

In anthropology we heard the example of some hunter/gatherer society (it might have been the !Kung, but I'm not sure) who had the death penalty.
When someone was found guilty of murder the entire community (only about 20-30) would all take part in the execution, which was normally done by stabbing with spears, everyone being forced to take part, thus driving home the point that everyone was a member of the society which was executing this person, and everyone was responsible for his death.
This seems at least honest- whether you respect the moral code of these people on the subject of capital punishment, I think it was very wise of them to institute this policy so that everyone knows exactly what the death penalty means, and everyone bears part of the weight and responsibility of it.
I personally am against the death penalty anyway, but if I had to physically help kill some of the criminals (as opposed to only financially) I know I would be much more firmly opposed.
terraly

Oh, and AG:
The reason the two posts look the same is that both were created using the LaTeX document typesetting environment, which is the standard for scientific paper and book writing. The formatting shown there is almost exactly the default formatting that this typesetting package provides- you'll see exactly the same thing in thousands and thousands of scientific papers.
Normally I wouldn't get involved in this fight, but I've been using LaTeX to lay-out my finals paper for the term, and I just wanted to give it some good press, because it's a wonderful layout environment. I recommend "A Document Preparation System LaTeX" by Leslie Lamport (the creator of LaTeX) for anyone who wants to learn it.
ros

Reply to JanH:
I'm sure O.J. Simpson would agree with you.
If you are 51% certain that a particular defendent "did it", he or she is probably guilty. This is how it often works in civil cases, because one or the other party is right or wrong.
You've been reading too many math theory books, Jan. You can't put a viable percentage value like 51% on guilt vs. innocence in a person's mind. If you are going to try to figure it on percentage, the closest you could get is a 58.31% opinion of probability in a 12-person jury if the vote was 7-to-5, assuming each person on the jury was 100% certain about their vote.
For my conscience, determining guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is where the clay is in the legs of the judicial system when it comes to capital punishment. I support that circumstantial evidence that is not conclusive for guilt, and should NEVER NEVER be sufficient to impose a death penalty. From all that I have heard about McVeigh, there is no room for ANY doubt whatsoever, "reasonable" or otherwise, much less a mere 51%, if that's the way you figure it. I would not impose the death penalty if probability of guilt were even only 95% if it meant 5% odds of taking an innocent life.
On the issue of freeing "probably guilty" people:
If you figure "probably guilty" (YOUR term--not a legal one) as 51%, then what percent do YOU set for "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
But let's use your percentage way of figuring these things for the sake of illustration. Considering whether "probably guilty" people should be set free, you said:
Of course, if you imprison people based on what you think they probably did, just under half the prison population will end up being innocent people.
Jan, that is a totally absurd statement! Talk about a "straw man"! That assumes that every prisoner in the penal system was sent up on 51% evidence of guilt. Ridiculous! The way you figure, if one guy got strung up on 95% certainty of guilt, that would conclude that out of every 20 executions one was innocent!
Let's put "probable guilt" (to use your term) at a little higher percent--say the 95% certainty, allowing a 5% margin that the accused could have been framed by the real killer, and therefore there is a 5% possibility that the guy is innocent. Let's say the crime is abducting, raping, and torturing 10 different kids on 10 different occasions. The accused claims to be innocent. Given a 5% margin of error, the guy is "probably" guilty, but there is no absolute proof, because that would require 100% certainty. Proof means proof.
Are you saying you would set this guy free, on the 95% chance another child(ren) would be brutally assaulted and murdered because the guy's only "probably" guilty? I'm not saying he should be executed, but are you saying he should be released?
It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. That is a principle of justice universally agreed
Then that is where the flaw in the system is. Conviction is one thing, but sentencing for capital punishment should have to go beyond the margin between "reasonable doubt" and absolute proof for my vote. In purest terms, "proof" should have to be 100% certainty. (Try to imagine the word "proof" now in the terms that you would require to believe in God. :-) Anything less than 100% ranges from "probably guilty" down to "innocent". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" requires a judgement call by its own definintion. Who decides what's "reasonable". Unless there is a strict legal definition for "reasonable doubt" to mean absolute certainty beyond any doubt whatsoever, then it allows conviction on "circumstantial evidence" which does not constitute "proof". I will say that I would never support capital punishment for anyone convicted on what is legally defined as "circumstantial evidence" no matter how convincing it might seem. That--in my opinion--is how innocent people get executed. However, if the crime is serious enough, with evidence indicating a high probability of guilt, the individual should be incarcerated. I don't believe you can put lives at a high percentage of risk in spite of the inevitability that there will be the rare unfortunate occurrence of an innocent person being unjustly imprisoned. Some things just are not perfect and never will be. Boils down to the principle of the "lesser of two evils".
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7

McVeigh vs Death Penalty

Share this