The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So we come to the usual impasse.

One side cites the evidence and shows the consequences of a particular policy.

The other side says "I don't care, my new interpretation of scripture would work better", while refusing to look at the documented consequences.

Another day at TOL. And Grossnik, if you want to see the data source, just read the thread. It's in there. Not that it hasn't been shown here time and time again.

The name is Grosnick. Do you want people changing your name around?

 

[Town Heretic]

The name is Grosnick. Do you want people changing your name around?

I'm sure it's inadvertent, Gooseneck. :think:

I get that sort of thing all the time. Sometimes it's even funny...well, it could be, but the guys who tend to line up against me think Clown Heretic or Hairy Tick is funny, so what can you do?

As with what passes for Stripe's rebuttal, I guess it just comes down to hoping for better.

Speaking of...

Another day at TOL. And Grossnik, if you want to see the data source, just read the thread. It's in there.

But only by Blablablablaman after the shame became too much.

Nope. You haven't even acknowledged it. You think the woman's exoneration required Jesus to usurp the law. It didn't. You think the people trying to trap Jesus had a legitimate case. They didn't.


Anyone who thinks Blablablaian's ravings have any credibility is insane.


Nope.

It is a hindrance to turn to a lawyer when it is time to examine the law. As we've seen, you ignore it.

All that typing and the only thing you really got right was the grammar.

That's got to be some sort of record...or recording. One of those, at least.

 

[eider]

You are a moron, aren't you?

Jesus had some choice words for such as you.....

 

[eider]

Maybe you can explain how a dead person can now kill and kill again after being executed?

You just don't get it, do you.......
Once a Capital Crime with certain death sentence has been committed there is little possibility of the offender giving self up...... they have nothing to lose by killing as often as they think they need to.

But the history of innocents being executed is enough for a reasonable repeal of all death sentences. And the history of mentally disabled folks being executed is further reason for a repeal.
That's what we did, and why we did.....

 

[Arthur Brain]

Anyone who thinks Blablablaian's ravings have any credibility is insane.

Anyone who thinks The Barbarian "raves" to begin with is either dishonest or has one bile filled chip on their shoulder. You wanna look at the way you rant on on here...

Can't make this stuff up.

:rain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here's the problem with that attempt, it turns Jesus into a legalist and the law into a shell game. He didn't have to guess at her guilt. The point of witnesses was to assure justice. God doesn't need witnesses and that's who they brought her to.

Even God uses two or three witnesses, so your argument falls apart.

Genesis 19:1 1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;​

Revelation 11:3 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

If I had my way, those innocent people would never have been convicted by circumstantial circumstances because of the demand to get a conviction.

So your way would have the guilty go free and any wrongly convicted people die.

No, I am not a liberal.
I am a conservative who would have the guilty punished and the innocent live.

 

[genuineoriginal]

God knew and knows those he pardons are pardoned without merit.

God never pardons someone without merit.

 

[genuineoriginal]

One side cites the evidence and shows the consequences of a particular policy.

The other side says "I don't care, my new interpretation of scripture would work better", while refusing to look at the documented consequences.

Your conclusions falsely claim causation from a perceived correlation that was generated with faulty data.

Liberals love to claim causation from correlation.

Correlation does not imply causation In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other. That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as *** hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.

​

*** the foul language filter hates Latin.

 

[genuineoriginal]

the history of mentally disabled folks being executed

That hits you quite close to home, doesn't it?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I'm sure it's inadvertent, Gooseneck. :think:

I get that sort of thing all the time. Sometimes it's even funny...well, it could be, but the guys who tend to line up against me think Clown Heretic or Hairy Tick is funny, so what can you do?

As with what passes for Stripe's rebuttal, I guess it just comes down to hoping for better.

Speaking of...


All that typing and the only thing you really got right was the grammar.

That's got to be some sort of record...or recording. One of those, at least.

As you have already noticed, Grosnick (GM) has NO sense of humor, therefore, he (I) cannot appreciate anyone else's supposed sense of humor/wit. I expect a public apology from you and Barb for this unacceptable slight. (the VERB version of the word)

 

[Arthur Brain]

As you have already noticed, Grosnick (GM) has NO sense of humor, therefore, he (I) cannot appreciate anyone else's supposed sense of humor/wit. I expect a public apology from you and Barb for this unacceptable slight. (the VERB version of the word)

Well, you sure don't have much maturity if you're gonna go back to the lame "Hi" neg rep crap. Thought you'd actually grown beyond that garbage. My bad...

 

[Arthur Brain]

That hits you quite close to home, doesn't it?

Nice...

:rain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I am not a liberal.
I am a conservative who would have the guilty punished and the innocent live.

Not if you support a system where innocent people are executed under it you aren't.

Which you do.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Not if you support a system

I support the death penalty, not the current system of injustice we have.

where innocent people are executed under it you aren't.

Which you do.

See above.

 

[genuineoriginal]

As you have already noticed, Grosnick (GM) has NO sense of humor, therefore, he (I) cannot appreciate anyone else's supposed sense of humor/wit. I expect a public apology from you and Barb for this unacceptable slight. (the VERB version of the word)

Barb?

I have heard that every rose has a thorn (barb), but it is also true that not every thorn (barb) has a rose.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I support the death penalty, not the current system of injustice we have.


See above.

You support a system where innocent people would be wrongfully executed. Unless you agree that only 100% proof of guilt should be ascertained before sentencing then you're okay with innocent people being victims. End of.

 

[genuineoriginal]

mentally disabled folks being executed

Is there really any reason a mentally disabled person should not be executed if that person murders another person?

There is a reason for George's actions at the end of Of Mice and Men

Of Mice and Men Curley's wife enters the barn and tries to speak to Lennie, admitting that she is lonely and how her dreams of becoming a movie star are crushed, revealing her personality. After finding out about Lennie's habit, she offers to let him stroke her hair, but panics and begins to scream when she feels his strength. Lennie becomes frightened, and unintentionally breaks her neck thereafter and runs away. When the other ranch hands find the corpse, George realizes that their dream is at an end. George hurries to find Lennie, hoping he will be at the meeting place they designated in case he got into trouble. George meets Lennie at the place, their camping spot before they came to the ranch. The two sit together and George retells the beloved story of the dream, knowing it is something they'll never share. He then shoots and kills Lennie

​

 

[genuineoriginal]

You support a system where innocent people would be wrongfully executed.

I support a system where every reasonable action was taken to ensure that the people that are executed are guilty.
That is why it requires two or three eyewitnesses and the death penalty for anyone that commits perjury in a capital offense trial.

Unless you agree that only 100% proof of guilt should be ascertained before sentencing then you're okay with innocent people being victims. End of.

No, 100% proof is unreasonable.

 

[Stripe]

All that typing and the only thing you really got right was the grammar.

You're good at declaring things, but not so good at showing how they are wrong.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk