| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 100:17:39 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 905 |
| Messages: | 76,507 |
On 12/29/2024 8:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 17:15:11 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Dec 28 12:46:43 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:16:50 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Dec 26 14:42:12 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 09:51:59 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
I don't find the need to persuade anyone that child murderers should be treated with kid gloves.I have been on the jury for pediphiles
Sure ya were - was that before or after your career as a business >>>>>> development manager?
Tom claimed he was a "professional management consultant".
08/13/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/os7AghdvUBA/m/-i474K9uBAAJ>
"I was a professional management consultant - remember? Companies that >>>>> ignored my advice failed rapidly."
Then you wouldn't mind quoting that fake claim of yours.
What fake claim might that be?
You are not even capable of following a conversation.
Is that opening insult intended to make me angry so that I might say something regrettable? It didn't work.
Flunky is so incompetent that he has never been on a jury so he thinks that no one else has either.
I wasn't aware that not having served on a jury is a sign of
incompetence. You might want to check your assumptions and logic.
So his fake claim is that I was never on a jury to judge a pedophile. His memory is also short term since at the time of that case I wrote about it here.
My memory is equally short. I don't recall you mentioning behind on
such a jury. Google search was a big help, but only before Feb 22,
2024. <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=pedophile+author%3ATom+author%3AKunich>
I looked at all 7 articles. Unless I missed something, you mentioned "pedophile" and "homosexual pedophile" a few times, but none of the articles mentioned you serving on a jury. Scanning for the same terms
in my personal archive finds 3 of your articles between Jan 2010 and
Feb 22, 2204 that mention "pedophile". None mention you being on a
jury.
To be fair Jeff, he did. Your problem is that you searched using the
correct spelling. If you look further up in this post you'll see where
he wrote
"I have been on the jury for pediphiles".
As we've been trying to impress on our addled antagonist, spelling matters.
As usual with tommy, Occam suggests bullshit. Of course, he could settle
this by giving us the case information. And for what it's worth, his
claim "at the time of that case I wrote about it here" is also bullshit.
Tommy never wrote any messages in this forum about serving on any type
of jury before december 26, 2024, and your search confirms that.
IOW, Just another kunich lie like "I was a professional management consultant".
On 12/30/2024 12:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:50:02 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/29/2024 8:16 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 17:15:11 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Dec 28 12:46:43 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:16:50 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Dec 26 14:42:12 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 09:51:59 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I don't find the need to persuade anyone that child murderers should be treated with kid gloves.I have been on the jury for pediphiles
Sure ya were - was that before or after your career as a business >>>>>>>> development manager?
Tom claimed he was a "professional management consultant".
08/13/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/os7AghdvUBA/m/-i474K9uBAAJ>
"I was a professional management consultant - remember? Companies that
ignored my advice failed rapidly."
Then you wouldn't mind quoting that fake claim of yours.
What fake claim might that be?
You are not even capable of following a conversation.
Is that opening insult intended to make me angry so that I might say
something regrettable? It didn't work.
Flunky is so incompetent that he has never been on a jury so he thinks that no one else has either.
I wasn't aware that not having served on a jury is a sign of
incompetence. You might want to check your assumptions and logic.
So his fake claim is that I was never on a jury to judge a pedophile. His memory is also short term since at the time of that case I wrote about it here.
My memory is equally short. I don't recall you mentioning behind on
such a jury. Google search was a big help, but only before Feb 22,
2024.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=pedophile+author%3ATom+author%3AKunich>
I looked at all 7 articles. Unless I missed something, you mentioned
"pedophile" and "homosexual pedophile" a few times, but none of the
articles mentioned you serving on a jury. Scanning for the same terms >>> in my personal archive finds 3 of your articles between Jan 2010 and
Feb 22, 2204 that mention "pedophile". None mention you being on a
jury.
To be fair Jeff, he did. Your problem is that you searched using the
correct spelling. If you look further up in this post you'll see where
he wrote
"I have been on the jury for pediphiles".
Thanks. I just automatically used the correct spelling. When I use
his spelling errors, I wrap them in quotation marks.
As we've been trying to impress on our addled antagonist, spelling matters.
I've been wondering why Tom seems to be increasing the number of his spelling mistakes. Since his goal is attract as much attention to his favorite topics, increase his production output of mis-spelling seems
to be effective. Since the spelling errors appear to be intentional,
he already understands that spelling is important and has accordingly weaponized his spelling checker to attract the most attention.
As usual with tommy, Occam suggests bullshit. Of course, he could settle >> this by giving us the case information. And for what it's worth, his
claim "at the time of that case I wrote about it here" is also bullshit. >>
Tommy never wrote any messages in this forum about serving on any type
of jury before december 26, 2024, and your search confirms that.
Yep. Incidentally, I did mention that I had served as jury foreman on
a voluntary manslaughter trial: <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Rf8Gtd0Q_ig/m/Yq4P64_rAQAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/6t1qDqyJtsk/m/9jaxjsYIAgAJ>
IOW, Just another kunich lie like "I was a professional management
consultant".
I was going to write an FAQ itemizing all of Tom's lies. I decided
that was too much work because everything that Tom writes is a lie. It would be much too long and therefore nobody would read it.
I toyed with the idea of writing a weekly "tommy's whopper of the week"
post a long while ago but wasn't motivated enough, tommy simply isn't
worth that much of my time.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, here's this little tidbit: "[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money: <https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:20:52 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money: ><https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life >without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
Firstly, why should there be many of these extra costs - longer to
impanel the jury, etc
Secondly cost of incarcerations isn't just how much to keep one guy. I
read that the U.S. prisons are full. full, full. In fact (I believe)
Mr. Muzi posted a reference to a criminal who wasn't imprisoned
because "there was no place for him to sleep", so higher legal costs
must be offset by cost of building new prisons.
As a good friend, who was in the cost studies business, once
commented, "tell me what you want to prove and I'll design a survey to
prove it". In other words the way you ask your questions and how the questions are worded determine the answer that you get.
By the same token I doubt very much that when a News Reporter asks
someone's wife, "do you believe that your husband's murder should be
executed that you get truly honest answer.
--
Cheers,
John B.
On 12/24/2024 7:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Justice is a subjective evaluation.Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money: <https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive, ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive, >ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
What were the arguments in favor of it?
Polling indicated that the majority is in favor of it... and yes,
that is an argument in favor of it.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/Death-Penalty.aspx
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/24/2024 7:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest >overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them >decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at >hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were >equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their >daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in >>favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly >>all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it >>exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Depends who you ask. An arms dealer suckling on the State's
teats will say NO, all wars are justified. Same for people who own oil companies.
But tell a dead soldier's family what he was really fighting
for and they will want the death penalty.
PS Iraq was never about "weapons of mass destruction". And
Afganistan was never about destroying poppy fields.
[]'s
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or >>>>> let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life >>>> without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the >>>death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive, >>>ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it >exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 18:04:46 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and >>>>>>> crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in >>>>>>> crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or >>>>>>> let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life >>>>>> without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the >>>>>death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive, >>>>>ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in >>>favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly >>>all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country >>>has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it >>>exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)
On 12/24/2024 3:53 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>>>
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and >>>>>> crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in >>>>>> crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or >>>>>> let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life >>>>> without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the >>>> death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive, >>>> ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:28:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:14:02 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:17:00 -0500, Catrike Ryder >><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 18:04:46 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder >>>>>><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and >>>>>>>>>> crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in >>>>>>>>>> crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the >>>>>>>>death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive, >>>>>>>>ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in >>>>>>favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly >>>>>>all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country >>>>>>has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it >>>>>>exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very >>>>difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war >>>>was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my >>>opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous. >>>(again, in my opinion)
Post WW II?
I believe at least the first half of the Korean War was righteous,
after that it got fuzzy.
It is said that General MacArthur thought that with China next door,
so to speak, that atomic weapons would work well but the President put
the kibosh on that ides so away they went, Up the country and back
down again and ended up in the same place with 140,000 dead bodies.
On 12/25/2024 4:53 AM, John B. wrote:
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
--
- Frank Krygowski
On 12/25/2024 3:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/25/2024 1:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/25/2024 4:53 AM, John B. wrote:
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for >>> 3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
For actual numbers:
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle- deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased, undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
On 12/25/2024 6:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/25/2024 3:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/25/2024 1:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/25/2024 4:53 AM, John B. wrote:
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in
the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality
apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people
who think one or two anecdotes are more valid than reams
of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
For actual numbers:
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000
firearm homicides per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-
topics/bicycle- deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death
per bicycle as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-
are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per
firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled
and cased, undisturbed in any way, for well over a month.
Not one of them has jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even
a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate
attempt at distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's
more risk of being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there
is a gun in the house, versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for
differences in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses
that are both in the same sorts of neighborhoods) if you
have a gun in the house, it's more likely that people will
be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that
experience. Just as there are people who smoked and did not
die of lung cancer. Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause
death, nor that 100% of gun owner households have gun
deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice as high
in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of
harm are attempts at distraction.
That's still wrong.
The number of firearms and the number of households with
firearms are gargantuan. A selected subset (per 'surveys')
is a selected subset.
Overall, the data just don't support the assertion as Mr
Slocumb has noted repeatedly, with numbers. States with
less restrictive regulation and higher ownership rates also
have lower homicide rates.
That would be a more extreme difference if one subtracted
the dysfunctional cities within them. Missouri, for example,
is extremely safe for firearms except for St Louis which has
a firearm homicide rate higher than Chicago.
It's just not a hardware phenomenon. It's a social,
cultural, moral problem as yet utterly unaddressed.
On 12/26/2024 11:49 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Some people think...
... and others don't.
On 12/25/2024 8:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
In urban areas, which vary greatly in everything, the more violent neighborhoods are where citizens are much more likely to arm themselves. And prudently so.
Again, the research I cited deliberately accounted for that.
In order to cling to your argument, you keep pretending the research
didn't take neighborhood characteristics into account, and didn't
examine homes with and without guns in the same neighborhoods.
In order to cling to his argument, the guy who rides a tricycle keeps pretending the research involves only a few shootings.
Neither of those pretenses are honest.
On 12/26/2024 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2024 3:31 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
How many homes where people got shot also had drugs and/or druggies in
the home? That could very well have been the reason for the shooting.
+1
And for the defender being armed.
So many "maybe, maybe" excuses. So much guessing and hypothesizing.
Fighting so hard against actual research, actual data.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
Again (and again!) at least one of the papers I cited compared
households that were as similar as possible, _except_ for guns.
And anyway, what do you think we should do about blacks? Pretend they're
a different species, so they don't count?
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:23:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/25/2024 6:26 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Wed Dec 25 13:15:14 2024 AMuzi wrote:
On 12/25/2024 12:29 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Dec 24 07:35:57 2024 AMuzi wrote:
On 12/24/2024 3:53 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/23/2024 10:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and >>>>>>>>>>> crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in >>>>>>>>>>> crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be? >>>>>>>>
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in >>>>>>> favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country >>>>>>> has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it >>>>>>> exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
What was its cause and what did it achieve?
Iraq invaded, pillaged, raped and enslaved the Kuwaitis.
Rather than holding a press conference and warning about
some mythical 'red line' while dithering (that really
happened, 2012) or holding a press conference and warning
the invader , "Don't" (same team, different spokesman, ten
years later), Mr Bush defined victory as 'liberation of
Kuwait', drew sensible plans, marshaled the resources to
pursue them, authorized competent military commanders,
notably Gen Norman Schwartzkopf, and routed teh Iraqui army
out of Kuwait in four days.
Not twenty years. Four days.
That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.
Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare
victory and stopped. No nation building, no social
experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
Well. Sort of.
The George W. Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. And then there was the "weapons of
mass destruction" that Iraq had developed and, of course ,Colin
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday, January 5,
2003.
Hardly a single, isolated, affair, nor an honest explanation of why.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:23:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:47:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country >>>>>>> has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it >>>>>>> exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
<snip>
Not twenty years. Four days.
So hardly an excuse for why the US has been at war for 222
years. I'd call that a tiny intervention in foreign affairs, not a
war.
That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.
Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare
victory and stopped. No nation building, no social
experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
The CIA did try to impose a massively oppressive dictatorship
in Kuwait, but it was already there. And still is. So they had to
stand down.
And yet no sanctions by the US.
Weird. Let's hope Trump is enough of a statesman to correct
the incredible discrepancies in the US's foreign policies.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 17:52:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.
<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf> "The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."
Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
On 12/25/2024 5:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 16:42:29 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/25/2024 4:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 17:52:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.
<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf> >>> "The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."
Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
It's a ridiculous notion besides being offensive.
Choose any group or nation, history is long and examples abound.
I don't understand. Do you find Tom's comments about biblical Jews
being murderers offensive, or are you referring to my comments that
under different circumstances, Tom might be considered a murderer?
Mr Kunich's misanalysis of course.
"The [group or nation] are murderers" is true, but trite.
It's just the way humans are. And were.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 17:52:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty...
From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
<https://www.usccb.org>
"The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position" <https://www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position>
Now you are aware.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:43:31 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 17:52:54 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty...
From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
<https://www.usccb.org>
"The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position" ><https://www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position>
Now you are aware.
A somewhat different viewpoint then the hundreds of years that the
Church encouraged it.... Crusades, The inquisitions, etc. The famous instruction, "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His?
was attributed to abbot Arnaud Amalric during the Siege of B?ziers.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:46:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/26/2024 11:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2024 4:30 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Believing that correlation implies causation can assist in
the
subterfuge.
Believing that correlation _never_ implies causation is
incredibly stupid.
For both of you, who don't disagree as much as you might at
first imagine, correlation does in fact imply causation.
But it's not proof of causation.
You're welcome.
Nope... correlation only implies correlation.
The simple fact is that it takes more than a correlation of two events
to even suggest there's a relationship between the two. Then, if there
is an established relationship, it requires additional facts to
suggest a cause and effect relationship, as well as knowing which is
the cause and which is the effect, and then it takes some additional
data concerning what other events might have been or contributing to
the effect.