Brain differences in political orientation

Status
Not open for further replies.
airportcop said:
And you attempting to manipulate and use a deaf forum for no other purpose than to further your own liberal agendas is completely unethical.:ty:
Click to expand...

I am a long time and welcomed member here. I do not use this forum to further any agenda. I interact with others who are, in every way, my friends and a part of the culture in which I live the majority of my life. And I make many contributions in terms of time and professional expertise to the community. You have yet to establish yourself as anything other than an opinion spouting newbie hearie.

Obviously, your narrow mindedness and inability to see a wider perspective also prevents you from making wise decisions regarding the way in which you present yourself. If you intent is to alienate others, you are on the right road.:cool2:
 
airportcop said:
And you attempting to manipulate and use a deaf forum for no other purpose than to further your own liberal agendas is completely unethical.:ty:
Click to expand...

And trying to further your own conservative agenda is somehow ethical? Yeah, right.


As far as I can see, no one is trying to push a liberal agendas here.
 
airportcop said:
Apparently you didn't even read my entire short post! Figures! I was asking a question!

You are quite wrong indeed once again. As soon as a baby is born in the USA it is considered a child. Because if you kill it it will be considered murder! Playing God again aren't we?
Click to expand...

No, I am not wrong. But let's pretend you are right, and as soon as a baby is born, it is considered a child. Still means that your terminology "unborn child" is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Murder of an infant is known as infanticide, not child murder.

Why would you suggest that I am playing God? You are the one that seems to think you have the right, the power, and the religious justification for determining the course of other people's lives.

Thanks for doing such a wonderful job of illustrating how that conservative, restricted thinking permeates every aspect of your life and is not just limited to your political orientation. You are a disturbed individual.
 
jillio said:
No, I am not wrong. But let's pretend you are right, and as soon as a baby is born, it is considered a child. Still means that your terminology "unborn child" is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Murder of an infant is known as infanticide, not child murder.

Why would you suggest that I am playing God? You are the one that seems to think you have the right, the power, and the religious justification for determining the course of other people's lives.

Thanks for doing such a wonderful job of illustrating how that conservative, restricted thinking permeates every aspect of your life and is not just limited to your political orientation. You are a disturbed individual.
Click to expand...

No, last I checked killing a newborn child is still murder. You libs like to do anything you can to soften the tone. Call it whatever you want but it is still murder and in many states if you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with two murders. As far as I'm concerned and I'm not alone, an unborn child is a baby from the moment of conception. That is why God says He knit us together in our mother's womb. Now start the Bible andd anti-Christian bashing!
 
jillio said:
I am a long time and welcomed member here. I do not use this forum to further any agenda. I interact with others who are, in every way, my friends and a part of the culture in which I live the majority of my life. And I make many contributions in terms of time and professional expertise to the community. You have yet to establish yourself as anything other than an opinion spouting newbie hearie.

Obviously, your narrow mindedness and inability to see a wider perspective also prevents you from making wise decisions regarding the way in which you present yourself. If you intent is to alienate others, you are on the right road.:cool2:
Click to expand...

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks!
 
jillio said:
I don't recall ever discussing the issue of abortion with you. You are assuming quite a bit for someone who has only been around for a week.:hmm:

An "unborn child" is a mistake in terminology. If a fetus is unborn, it is not a child. Once it has been born, it becomes a neonate. It doesn't reach the "child" stage for some time following birth.

But it's okay. I understand that you, and others like you, don't want to bother with medical and scientific fact, but prefer to use emotion as the way to some sort of understanding. Unfortunately for you, it makes you appear for all intents and purposes, to be willfully ignorant.

Frankly, you have no business meddling in the confidential relationship that I, nor anyone else, shares with their physician. And, as a man, you most certainly have no business dictating my reproductive rights.

You are beginning to look more and more like Steiny. So many parallels in the things you post.:hmm:

And you attempting to manipulate and use a deaf forum for no other purpose than to further your own conservative agendas is completely unethical. Don't they teach you about ethics in your "cop" training?
Click to expand...

Don't they teach you ethics in your training?
 
jillio said:
I take it back. Given the tone of your responses, you have definately begun to develop greater volume in one area of the brain than another. That is what lifelong plasticity is all about.

Manson was convicted of first degree murder. Manson did not participate in the actual murders. Technicality is all that allowed him to be charged.

It used to be generally accepted that a suspect could not be charged with murder of their wasn't a body proving the death. Recently, in Ohio, a technicality was used to charge and convict a man of murder without a body.
Click to expand...

I have nothing to feel embarrassed about. I absolutely have changed over my lifetime. I was a cold, logical, extremist Liberal at one time. Funny how a Liberal is often an animal lover; remember "Save the Seals" but that is not an emotional response. Got it.

Yay. Manson was convicted of first degree murder. Well done. He did not slice the throats, but there is no question of his guilt. There are not many Mansons in history, so there are not many convicted murderers that are like him. He set a precedent in his trial.
 
Last edited:
airportcop said:
No, last I checked killing a newborn child is still murder. You libs like to do anything you can to soften the tone. Call it whatever you want but it is still murder and in many states if you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with two murders. As far as I'm concerned and I'm not alone, an unborn child is a baby from the moment of conception. That is why God says He knit us together in our mother's womb. Now start the Bible andd anti-Christian bashing!
Click to expand...

oh brother.
 
:wave: Oceanbreeze--welcome back!
 
DeafCaroline said:
oh brother.
Click to expand...

Ok! Forget religion and forget about going off-topic (the thread already is).
State you position now. I say a woman who is pg and looking forward to a liftime of raising a child should she be shot and murdered and the fetus dies along with the mother, the criminal charge should be double-murder. What say you?
 
jillio said:
...Manson was convicted of first degree murder. Manson did not participate in the actual murders. Technicality is all that allowed him to be charged.
Click to expand...
Manson wasn't convicted on a technicality; he was convicted under the law.

It's a long-standing legal concept that "the hand of one is the hand of all." Example: During an armed bank robbery, committed by three men, one robber shoots and kills the bank guard. Who gets charged with murder? All three.

It's also a long-standing legal concept that whomever contracts with another person to commit a murder is equally guilty with the person who carries out the murder. That's why the wives who hire hitmen, mobsters who assign contract killings, etc., are also charged with murder.

It might behoove you to use that Google more before you make statements about events that are on the record and can be fact checked.
 
hmm... never heard of anybody convicting on technicality... only mistrial
 
rolling7 said:
Ok! Forget religion and forget about going off-topic (the thread already is).
State you position now. I say a woman who is pg and looking forward to a liftime of raising a child should she be shot and murdered and the fetus dies along with the mother, the criminal charge should be double-murder. What say you?
Click to expand...

Are you looking for an emotional response, or a logical one? Those are two different things, dude, and I don't think you can handle the last.
 
Beowulf said:
Are you looking for an emotional response, or a logical one? Those are two different things, dude, and I don't think you can handle the last.
Click to expand...

Guess being logical is just too boring. :lol:
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Or, apply the death penalty when indicated. :cool2:

We can argue this until the cows come home and I usually agree with you. I don't believe the DP should be applied in every single DP case that comes down the pike, but I do believe that there are situations in which it is warranted. I would rather see our justice system overhauled, but, that has yet to happen. Until it is, we are stuck with the system we have. It is flawed, but, it's the only one we have.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide when it is indicated?

I agree. Our justice system needs an overhaul. It is far from perfect. Innocent people being released after years in prison for crimes they did not commit, people not guilty being executed, the mentally ill and congitively impaired being treated inhumanely, bias against people of color....I could go on and on. We don't need to be executing people with the injustices that are present in our justice system. The probability of error is far too great.
 
Beowulf said:
Are you looking for an emotional response, or a logical one? Those are two different things, dude, and I don't think you can handle the last.
Click to expand...

This is not a game. Each and every person, you included, must make a serious logical decision. The problem is people see "death penalty" and immediately think of the criminal. For me it is always about justice for the victim. For anyone to say they can serve on a jury and give serious consideration to the evidence but have already made up their mind "no death penalty", that fool does a huge disservice to the victim.
The system might need to be faulty but that does not stop the need to to be serious and find justice for the victim. To do otherwise, that is an emotional and illogical respond.
 
rolling7 said:
This is not a game. Each and every person, you included, must make a serious logical decision. The problem is people see "death penalty" and immediately think of the criminal. For me it is always about justice for the victim. For anyone to say they can serve on a jury and give serious consideration to the evidence but have already made up their mind "no death penalty", that fool does a huge disservice to the victim.
The system might need to be faulty but that does not stop the need to to be serious and find justice for the victim. To do otherwise, that is an emotional and illogical respond.
Click to expand...

Dude, this is a stupid post. There is no point discussing this further with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top