I don't think he was insane, and I don't think the fact that he thought he was doing what was right make any difference to me (since I know he was wrong. Had he simply assassinated Jeff Jamar or Lloyd Bentsen or something, maybe I could see where he was coming from. He'd still be very wrong, and still need to be punished, but at least I could see the point he was trying to make. I don't get the actions he took at all and will never understand what he did or how he could think that was the right course of action). I think it's probably more that I've seen more of McVeigh the person than I usually get to see of people put to death. We see pictures of him with his family and hear from his father. Because I've learned so much about him, I see the person beyond the monster. I don't usually get to see that. The only things I know about Kennth McDuff, for example, are things related to his crimes and criminal past. The only things I really know about J. Kelly Pinkerton are about how he terrorized my city for months on end. I don't know anything about these people as people. I think it was the fact that I could see him as a person that made it harder for me to support his execution. If I knew more about other people put to death, I'd probably feel the same way about them (maybe). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
rimbaud: there's different kinds of stupid. I've qualified for several of them so I know about what I speak! Ever heard of stupid drunk, for one? Completing a higher level of education is fine for what it's worth, but yeah you would still be eligible to do stupid things. Some here want to live by long-ago penned philosophies. Well, we kant all do that. Some consider the zenith of wisdom to occur at the peak of idealism. I prefer a good blend of experience with that, thank you. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
I believe many of them had slaves, but felt it was wrong. We hear that a lot, but it's hard for me to believe. Seems a bit like rewriting history to make these people more "hero-like" and politically correct. If you accept the premise that they were against slaves but had them anyway, then there's a question of "why?" They had the choice of releasing them. Since they didn't, it seems that they kept them against their moral values because it benefitted them personally or professionally -- not exactly a ringing endorsement of their character. The other answer is that they really weren't against it so much as we like to think. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
RichRocket: Some here want to live by long-ago penned philosophies. Well, we kant all do that. How cute. Would you like to be any more trite and rude? How about some "christian" benevolence. Funny how you like to yack about the importance of religion, but then don't let it affect the way you treat other people. I don't live by long-dead philosophy. I read work by people probably smarter than me, and amalgamate what I like best into a distinctive code of ethics. Elevating thinkers is certainly better than the founder-worship that you seem to engage in - at least I'm interested in ethics, instead of hero worship. I'm really getting sick of your back-handed compliments, condescension, and insults. You're seldom able to argue on the merits, so you cop out with "I have a real life and kids" so I can't read as much." "You'll know more when you get older." And "you just like long-dead philosophers." Spare me the pointless platitudes. And how about acting according to your creed. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Just for fun: By 1820, Jefferson advocated the expansion of slavery to the western territories. By 1820, he owned 267 slaves. During his life, he freed 3, with another 5 coming upon his death...all were blood relatives. this during a time where it was common to free slaves, either during the Revolutio to fight, many outright during life, or freeing all upon death, as Washington did. In 1829, David Walker, a black man, said that Jefferson was the greatest enemy to his race. In 1801 he reversed US policy (established by Adams) toward Haiti to allow France to re-colonize and re-enslave the island. Rich, So are you saying that McVeigh was a case of being intelligent in general, but stupid in politics? He should temper idealism with experience? ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
haven: Founder worship? Hero worship? Back-handed compliments? Insults? Condescension? All I did was use the word "kant" instead of "can't." Don't take this or yourself too seriously, okay? It was a joke petite, that's all. I think I argue on plenty of merits, I just don't drag up references while protesting that I " don't want to promote my resume!" I talk little, if at all, about religion. I meant what I said, but it is a simple disagreement in values. Are you so insecure about your "beliefs" that you swallow it as a condemantion of all that you are? You are the one with the posting strategy of seeming-annhialation, remember? Yeah, I'm not a professional student. I don't have the leisure of study as you do, but "perhaps" you don't have the long and varied experience that would (if given the chance) temper your idealism. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, you know. How you can reject that, I'll never understand. It is so obvious. Sorry if I offended you. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 11, 2001).]
haven: Founder worship? Hero worship? Back-handed compliments? Insults? Condescension? All I did was use the word "kant" instead of "can't." Don't take this or yourself too seriously, okay? It was a joke petite, that's all. I think I argue on plenty of merits, I just don't drag up references while protesting that I " don't want to promote my resume!" I talk little, if at all, about religion. I meant what I said, but it is a simple disagreement in values. Are you so insecure about your "beliefs" that you swallow it as a condemantion of all that you are? You are the one with the posting strategy of seeming-annhialation, remember? Yeah, I'm not a professional student. I don't have the leisure of study as you do, but "perhaps" you don't have the long and varied experience that would (if given the chance) temper your idealism. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, you know. How you can reject that, I'll never understand. It is so obvious. Sorry if I offended you. I'm not offended that you disagree with me. I'm not insecure in my "beliefs." What I don't like is when you demean what I say with little, sarcastic jokes. They don't make an argument, but they're dismissive of someone else. They also preclude meaningful debate on the subject, and just cause hard feelings. You don't talk too much about religion? I remember the prayer in school threads, when you basically argued that the world would be a better place with prayer. Well, demeaning me with snideness isn't exactly "Christian." I like what you have to say sometimes; but you just seem to become too personally insulting on these issues. I consider many ideas to be wrong, or even silly... but I try to avoid insulting the poster. You seem to have this attitude of personal superiority: "I'm right, simply because of who I am." I don't understand what you mean by saying my posting style is one of "annihilation." You don't always act like this. You can be thoughtful, intelligent, and open-minded. I suppose that this is simply what bothers me most about your posting in the off-topic forum. Interstingly enough, I absolutely love your basketball threads... particularly your game-recaps. *shrug*... don't mean to sound spiteful, but you did seem a bit cruel, there. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
The annihilation reference was yours. I made a comment about you and shanna mocking my viewpoints me in a couple of posts (in another thread) without even addressing me. I inquired about it and your comment was something about having to annihilate the opponent to even seem like winning. By my reckoning, I've made one "little" off-handed joke; I don't see any real pattern here. Achebe and Rimbaud are the relentless ones. Ask Beto or CriscoKid or BrianKagy. You may have me confused with someone else. I live out-of-state and almost never see the Rockets play therefore I don't contribute to any game summaries. I only comment on what I think I know about: beneficial personnel moves, draft strategies, and occasional issues brought up on this forum. I don't remember contributing much to any thread about prayer in schools. I'm not a very religious person, but I do think I chimed in with some observation about the downward trend of public schooling since God was removed from any official place. Yeah, that was me, but that's not very dogmatic. I guess you think I'm arrogant because I don't support my arguments with any historical, philosophical, or judicial rationale. Yeah, I don't, but rest assured I'm not just positing a new idea. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 11, 2001).]
Achebe and Rimbaud are the relentless ones. Ask Beto or CriscoKid or BrianKagy. Aw, come on...Beto is in his 5th incarnation with the sole purpose of him attacking people, and I have really not engaged him much after that China thread. Kagy and I have never had problems, and Crisco loves me! I know you don't care for me, though...I guess I was "relentless" with you once, but I apologized for any ill perception in that thread. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
I don't dislike you; you have ruffled my feathers, though. Actually, I think I particularly liked you until I tangled with you directly. I just need to get over it. If I have maligned you, I apologize. I can't keep all of the personalities straight sometimes. We are here to stimulate our minds, have some fun, and hopefully learn something once in a while. Peace. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
Can we apply this same principle to other areas of discussion on this board? Beto: I'd like to believe that I'm able to do that, but I am subject to my own bias like everyone else. It would be a much nicer place if we could all realize that we are individuals, not groups. I wonder what we do now that our great great grandchilden would wonder why we ever did such things. Space Ghost: I've been thinking the same thing lately. I saw Gladiator the other night (hated it) and wondered what we do today that people will consider barbaric in 100, 200 or 500 years assuming we are still here. On the founders, it depends which Adams you mean. John Quincy never owned slaves. He was a fascinating guy who held very progressive, even radical beliefs. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." - Sir William Blackstone We know that we have executed innocent people, yet we continue to give government the power to kill. This fact is too much for my conscience, so I am opposed to capital punishment, regardless of the crime or the criminal. I believe that conservatives who want smaller, less powerful government should be more consistent in their views. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
rimbaud: Couldn't McVeigh have made his point by bombing the federal building after-hours? Why was he convinced that he needed "collateral damage" in the form of children? He lied about not-knowing about the daycare center. All his prime-time job did is kill 168 innocent people, permanently damage to family lives of untold hundreds of others, and strike fear and loathing into the citizenry (for whom he was fighting) NOT the government. He struck me as being too intelligent to be so mis-guided, so I'll have to vote for evil. beto: the last power that this conservative would strip away from the federal government is perhaps it's most powerful-- to declare and to wage war. Does size really matter?! ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 11, 2001).]
Time for me to disagree with EVERYONE again! I actually don't care whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent. Studies generally indicate that it's not. Victorian England, the years in the US w/o the death penalty, blah blah blah blah. On the other hand, you have places with very strict punishments and very low crime rates, namely Singapore... blah blah blah. BUT... what does viewing deterrence as a justification for the death penalty entail? Well, it means that if you kill a few innocent people, and that happens to deter crime... fine and dandy! Now, if you say... "well, if it's just a secondary justification..." then it comes to mean nothing at all. Why? Because the primary justification a priori trumps the issue of deterrence. If he's guilty, he deserves retributive justice. Executive him. If he's innocent though, NOTHING can excuse the execution. See the problem here? The best you can say about deterrence is that it's a positive side-effect unrelated to justification, and therefore, irrelevant to debates about the death penalty's value. Now, if you want to debate retributive justice, there's a different story. My second favorite thinker, Kant, actually supported it . wah. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 11, 2001).]
Since McVeigh took 168 lives, he should have to live through 168 days of torture, then finally die by drowning in a pool of poop. ------------------ The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?
