The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Arthur Brain]

Gotcha........!
I thought you believed in a humane (quick and painless) death penalty?

You're beginning to leak your true mind, methinks?

Interesting.....





Gotcha.......!
In your scenario it could have been any mentally disabled person who did those things.
I can see that in your World the mentally disabled would ALL have a bleak future.

Keep going......... because more folks can then see the kind of World that you would favour.
There's plenty of Christians that would want to stop your World from happening, I think.

A very unhinged World.....

To be fair, JR believes in a painful method of execution as well as a swift one so that's nothing new on his part.

 

[WizardofOz]

Watch the movie with Lon Chaney Jr. as Lenny and Burgess Meredith as George. The end is self-explanatory.

So....:idea:....explain

 

[Town Heretic]

You've not read the book either have you? Well, you might have read it bit not actually read it.

:rain:

If you walk by Steinbeck's grave about now it probably sounds like a Cuisinart. lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you walk by Steinbeck's grave about now it probably sounds like a Cuisinart. lain:

There'd probably be some grapes of wrath strewn about...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So....:idea:....explain

Nah. I think you're capable of watching it yourself. Unless you're not? In that case, ask someone to tell you about it. You know, somebody that really likes you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You've not read the book either have you? Well, you might have read it bit not actually read it.

:rain:

I found a site that has a number of reasons for why George killed Lennie.
I highlighted the ones I believe are the real reasons.

Why does George kill Lennie in Of Mice and Men? Arguably, George kills Lennie for multiple reasons. Though the most obvious reason is to save Lennie from the the mob, there are several other factors we might want to consider. The following list are some alternative ideas I have thought up. Not all of these are the most plausible scenarios, but they are interesting to think about. The reason most commonly offered is that George wants to save Lennie from being tortured by the pursuing lynch mob. This is probably valid, but it does not explain why he doesn’t help Lennie escape. Lennie is hiding on the bank of a shallow river. The two men could wade across the river and climb into the Gabilan Mountains. The lynch mob might never even think of looking for them up there. Even if the mob finally guessed they had fled into the mountains, George and Lennie would have too much of a head start, and it would soon be getting dark. According to Lennie, the mountains have many caves. A mob would have to search each cave, and in the meantime the fugitives could be getting farther away. George didn’t intend to help Lennie escape. This is proved conclusively by the fact that he stole Carlson’s Luger from under his bunk at the ranch. He intended to kill Lennie as painlessly as possible, just as he had seen Carlson kill Candy's dog with a single shot. When George saw the body of Curley’s wife in the barn, he assumed, like all the other men, that Lennie had tried to rape her and had unintentionally killed her while they were struggling. George realizes that Lennie is becoming a menace to society and that he would probably kill other girls if allowed to live in freedom. This is the first time Lennie has killed a human being (although he has killed lots of animals). George is in some danger of being charged as an accessory to second-degree homicide. He told Lennie where to hide if he got into trouble. If he tried to help his friend escape, he would definitely be an accessory to murder. George is also potentially in double-trouble. Curley suspects him of helping Lennie escape and telling him where to go. The police could arrest George just because he was a friend of Lennie and was responsible for Lennie's behavior. If they couldn't catch Lennie they might turn on George--either the lynch mob or the police, or both. After all, George was not responsible for what Lennie did in the town of Weed, and yet George's life was equally in jeopardy. George is getting fed up with being tied to an irresponsible man who could get him killed. Many of us have had the experience of deciding to break off relations with a friend who keeps causing us trouble. There are plenty of such people! George feels guilty for the death of Curley’s wife. In fact, he really is guilty because he brought Lennie to that ranch and the girl would still be alive if he hadn’t brought Lennie there. He is Lennie’s caretaker. He is responsible for any kind of trouble Lennie gets into—and he is beginning to realize that Lennie is growing into more of a problem than he is competent to handle. George wants to rid himself of a big burden. He can’t handle the stress anymore. When he kills Lennie with the Luger he has mixed feelings, which include pity, sorrow, and remorse, but also a vast relief. He frequently abuses Lennie verbally, telling the childish giant that he could enjoy a much happier life if only he were free of him. Lennie is a burden because he is always getting into trouble and also because he has to be watched all the time. Lennie has caused George to lose jobs, and jobs are hard to come by. Lennie almost got both of them lynched by assaulting a girl in Weed. George is angry at Lennie. He feels sorry for Curley’s dead wife. She was just a girl. She should have had a chance to live out her whole life and not have it snuffed out the way Lennie had killed his puppy and so many other small animals. George kills Lennie for the same reason that the lynch mob wants to kill him. George is really fed up with his companion. George can’t turn Lennie over to the authorities with the hope that they would put him in an asylum. He doesn’t have the power to determine Lennie’s fate. If he could manage to get Lennie arrested rather than lynched, the authorities would be likely to charge Lennie with murder. There would be plenty of evidence that he had killed Curley’s wife, and there would be plenty of witnesses to testify that he was guilty. The motive would be attempted rape. Nobody saw what happened in the barn. Lennie would be incapable of defending himself, and he wouldn’t have much of a defense anyway. He wouldn’t let go of the girl, she started screaming and struggling, and he killed her. Lennie is showing many signs of rebelling against George’s control. He lies to George, threatens to run away and live by himself, doesn’t follow George’s instructions, sometimes deliberately disobeys. (For example, George told him to have nothing to do with Curley’s wife.) George may be a little bit afraid of Lennie, and with good reason. A time might come when Lennie might “accidentally” kill his keeper. Steinbeck was a realist. His characters are not all good or all bad. George shows his good side by looking after Lennie for a long time. He shows his darker side by verbally abusing Lennie, by wanting to be rid of him, and finally by executing him. Lennie himself seems like a gentle, likeable character—except that he kills everything he touches, including his little puppy. Lennie is developing an interest in sex, and because of his feeble mind and giant strength he is potentially a monster who needs to be destroyed.

​

 

[Arthur Brain]

I would suggest you read the book GO but in your case it's probably a waste of time. After all, you seem to think that kids should find a "country of refuge" if they accidentally kill someone so you're not one for nuance or depth of thought...

Heck, you'd probably see Lennie's death as a "righteous pay off" no matter what.

:rain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nah. I think you're capable of watching it yourself. Unless you're not? In that case, ask someone to tell you about it. You know, somebody that really likes you.

Have you read the actual book?

 

[Town Heretic]

There'd probably be some grapes of wrath strewn about...

That fell tortilla flat.

Some people probably think The Pastures of Heaven was about a French family in the afterlife... lain: oly:

 

[genuineoriginal]

you'd probably see Lennie's death as a "righteous pay off" no matter what.

No, but I do see the need to put dangerous animals to death when they kill people.
We don't spare rabid dogs because the rabies makes them deranged, it is the danger they pose that is the deciding factor.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, but I do see the need to put dangerous animals to death when they kill people.
We don't spare rabid dogs because the rabies makes them deranged, it is the danger they pose that is the deciding factor.

I know a friend who suffers from schizophenia. He had a complete breakdown a few years ago and was sectioned in a mental health hospital for a month. He'd been kicked off sickness benefits for a completely asinine reason and came off his meds. Even during his breakdown he wasn't violent towards anybody but given his size and strength if he had been or lost control he could have quite easily put plenty folk into a hospital or a morgue. He's back on meds now and is one of the most non violent and intelligent people you could ever hope to meet.

I don't expect you to recognize the point being made here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That fell tortilla flat.

Some people probably think The Pastures of Heaven was about a French family in the afterlife... lain: oly:

Well, sour grapes an' all...

I thought it was about Armenian upholstery but I've not read all of Steinbecks's work to be fair...

 

[genuineoriginal]

I know a friend who suffers from schizophenia. He had a complete breakdown a few years ago and was sectioned in a mental health hospital for a month. He'd been kicked off sickness benefits for a completely asinine reason and came off his meds. Even during his breakdown he wasn't violent towards anybody but given his size and strength if he had been or lost control he could have quite easily put plenty folk into a hospital or a morgue. He's back on meds now and is one of the most non violent people you could ever hope to meet.

I don't expect you to recognize the point being made here.

Your point is that a person who has not killed another person should not be considered a killer.
I agree. :thumb:

However, if that person had become violent and killed other people in a schizophrenic fugue state, then I see no reason to use the very thing that made the person dangerous as the reason for not executing him for his crimes.

 

[WizardofOz]

Nah. I think you're capable of watching it yourself. Unless you're not? In that case, ask someone to tell you about it. You know, somebody that really likes you.

Your posts are a waste of time as usual. Rather than just tell us this "self-explanatory" ending, you say watch the movie.
DFT_Dave can prove the earth is flat is you just watch his youtube videos. Don't trust me? Just ask him.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your point is that a person who has not killed another person should not be considered a killer.
I agree. :thumb:

However, if that person had become violent and killed other people in a schizophrenic fugue state, then I see no reason to use the very thing that made the person dangerous as the reason for not executing him for his crimes.

I was right. You didn't recognize the point being made.

lain:

 

[Stripe]

To begin, technicality is a colloquialism. It's not a term of art with a hard definition at law. But it tends to be used to describe something more along the lines of a failure to follow procedure in the chain of evidence where that leads to the evidence being excluded even though it could establish guilt, or the failure to file a claim within time or exception could be a defeat for the filer resting upon a technicality. What you're speaking to is a lack of evidence to convict.

It was you who brought in the term "technicality." You had the law in front of you, but you did it anyway.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Your posts are a waste of time as usual. Rather than just tell us this "self-explanatory" ending, you say watch the movie.
DFT_Dave can prove the earth is flat is you just watch his youtube videos. Don't trust me? Just ask him.

Maybe we should all make videos and post them instead. lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

Your point is that a person who has not killed another person should not be considered a killer.
I agree. :thumb:

However, if that person had become violent and killed other people in a schizophrenic fugue state, then I see no reason to use the very thing that made the person dangerous as the reason for not executing him for his crimes.

By that logic, a two-year old who encountered a loaded gun and accidentally kills someone, should be executed for his crime.

That kind of eagerness to kill should bother any rational person.

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess he needs all the people on his side he can get, if he's going to have anything — even if it's just popular support — to back up his anti-scriptural ideas.

Seeing as Jesus never called for the death of anyone, that's both logically and factually wrong.

Well, given that He wrote the law — you know, the one that calls for the death penalty

Odd, then, that His one interaction with the issue during his ministry on Earth, he prevented the death penalty from being imposed. We're just going to have to ignore your modern revision and stick with the Bible.

Because of your zeal to kill people,

As you should have figured out by now, killing people is a poor way to prevent killing people.

you can't see that Jesus — in shaming the people into letting an adulterous woman go free — fulfilled the law, not profaned it, as Town has suggested He did.

Someone else here said that it was profaning the law to let a guilty person free. That person was a death penalty advocate. How do you figure that Jesus was profaning the law?

(Barbarian notes that Jesus released the woman)
Jesus never detained her.

You think one has to be the one who detains a person in order to release them?

:idunno:

Think about it for a while; it might come to you.

 

[Stripe]

By that logic, a two-year old who encountered a loaded gun and accidentally kills someone, should be executed for his crime.

That kind of eagerness to kill should bother any rational person.

No. The law covers this type of scenario.

Do try to keep up.

You still haven't figured out that you hate innocent people.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk