Left wing pinkoes control america

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Aeson
As for my opinion, it is derived from knowing a few kids who had been sexually abused. Of the 20 or so I've known in my life, strangely enough I met all of them in psychiatric hospitals, and most of them had attempted suicide at some point in their life. Not conclusive evidence of course, but certainly something that leaves an impression as to the emotional damage which sexual molestation can cause a child.

To support this argument, I've encountered exactly zero murdered children at psychiatric hospitals.

[Winston]

I suppose the above is factual?

Of course what I posted is my opinion. That was obvious, even to you initially. On one hand you say it "sounds like your personal opinion", which btw it was meant to... and on the other hand you go off and make an idiot of yourself arguing against yourself by saying it's not an opinion.

A person can have an opinion about what they think is "likely", or even "surely", or even "than anything you could ever hope to back up".

Thanks for the laughs, idiot.

--------------

As for my opinion, it is derived from knowing a few kids who had been sexually abused. Of the 20 or so I've known in my life, strangely enough I met all of them in psychiatric hospitals, and most of them had attempted suicide at some point in their life. Not conclusive evidence of course, but certainly something that leaves an impression as to the emotional damage which sexual molestation can cause a child.

Now if you want to argue that sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche, have at it Winston. I'd love to hear your "facts", *****.

Maybe you should improve on your overall attitude before you start soliciting facts - or really anything beyond a casual, disinterested "Oh hi, Aeson".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
Now if you want to argue that sexual molestation does not affect a child's psyche, have at it Winston. I'd love to hear your "facts", *****.

You know and we know that isn't what he said at all. He merely said that it ain't as bad as getting killed, so don't be putting words into someone else's mouth.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by SpencerH
At no time did the framers of the constitution envision that 5 supremes would be setting law.

Virtually all of the founding fathers were alive when Maubury V Madison occured.

[Lancer]

I honestly cannot understand all the compassion for keeping alive child rapists.

Here I want you to think of something. Think of getting a child and raping a child. Think of it! Force yourself to imagine doing that, imagine some process, some child, wide eyed and full of childish trust, and the process of raping that child. Now, how horrific does a person have to be to actually bring that about? That person needs to die, and we should do everything in our power to bring about the end of child rapists lives. Anything else is insane in itself.

What we have here is a failure of imagination, a lack of realization of what has transpired between a sick freak of nature and an innocent child.

I would kill that person like I would kill a mosquito and give it the same amount of thought after the fact.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
I would kill that person like I would kill a mosquito and give it the same amount of thought after the fact.

This is how murder happens.

[Lancer]

No, that's how justice happens.

[Lorizael]

I would contend that justice is not grounded in irrational, emotional arguments.

[Lancer]

I would contend that a raped child is not an irrational, emotional argument.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lancer
I honestly cannot understand all the compassion for keeping alive child rapists.

Here I want you to think of something. Think of getting a child and raping a child. Think of it! Force yourself to imagine doing that, imagine some process, some child, wide eyed and full of childish trust, and the process of raping that child. Now, how horrific does a person have to be to actually bring that about? That person needs to die, and we should do everything in our power to bring about the end of child rapists lives. Anything else is insane in itself.

What we have here is a failure of imagination, a lack of realization of what has transpired between a sick freak of nature and an innocent child.

I would kill that person like I would kill a mosquito and give it the same amount of thought after the fact.

The victim is better off with this attacker being alive. They are more likely to recover faster. That's what's really important.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
I would contend that a raped child is not an irrational, emotional argument.

I would contend that a raped child is not an argument.

[Lancer]

I would agree Lorizael. A raped child has nothing like it.




"The victim is better off with this attacker being alive."

What a crock of ****.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Virtually all of the founding fathers were alive when Marbury V Madison occured.

I dont know whether thats true or not. In any case, I'm not arguing against judicial review (which is what Marbury V Madison formalized) or whether the constitution trumps state laws (it does). I'm arguing that in cases where there are no clear definitions of constitutional terms based upon prior laws enacted by a legislative body i.e. "cruel and unusual punishment" that the supremes should not even hear the case. In this decision, the supremes choice was between affirming the state law or writing their own based upon their own whims, which is what they have done.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lancer
I would agree Lorizael.

You concede, then. Excellent.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I dont know whether thats true or not. In any case, I'm not arguing against judicial review (which is what Marbury V Madison formalized) or whether the constitution trumps state laws (it does). I'm arguing that in cases where there are no clear definitions of constitutional terms based upon prior laws enacted by a legislative body i.e. "cruel and unusual punishment" that the supremes should not even hear the case. In this decision, the supremes choice was between affirming the state law or writing their own based upon their own whims, which is what they have done.

So if the Legislature passes a law saying that the punishment for jaywalking should be death by slow torture, then you -- as Justice SpencerH -- would be okay with that?