|
Post by annaj26 on Feb 6, 2015 15:24:24 GMT -5
Life in Prison is a far cry from 'getting away with it'. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was. I was talking about guilty people who were declared innocent when I made the comment about getting away with it. Still, that means you would rather risk innocent people being put to death than risk the guilty NOT being put to death. That's not the way I think and it never will be. IMO, that's just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Feb 6, 2015 16:24:45 GMT -5
Hitler it would not have happened. Were it not for Hitler, someone just like him would have done the same. A German. I suggest that if you have an interest in such things, that reading Mein Kampf and in particular the 1939 translation published by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York. Unlike the English translations prior to it, it is complete and unabridged. In addition it is fully annotated so that the English reader understands some of the concepts asserted by Adolf Hitler, who was not always clear as to meaning within the context of that day (original copyright 1925 & 1927 for volumes 1 & 2). I think that we can agree Joesph that a significant segment of the German population of that day were fertile ground for the ideas that Adolf Hitler published in this book concerning Aryan racial superiority. Not just due to the economic collapse and the seeking of cause, but due to the belief of many that the Aryan race 'was' superior, even though even in those days scientists believed that the term race was (is) meaningless. Even so, Adolph Hitler had a personal need to demean Jews as a way to demonstrate the rejection of Jews in his linage (here you might find “The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler” by Robert Payne [1973] quite informative). Adolf Hitler was also very good at raising the emotions of people by finding their fears and biases. Following World War I the German people had many disappointments and privations with youth groups easily prodded to detest all things not strictly German and aggravated by the economic situation. This was a fertile garden for Adolf Hitler. Yes, if not Adolf Hitler it could easily have been someone else, but it was his biases and goals which shaped the directions of Germany. It could have been someone else but it then would have been their biases and goals shaping that future, say for instance, a Billy Graham or a Winston Churchill or a Franklin Roosevelt. Yes, direct the German people but down a very different path.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 6, 2015 17:52:47 GMT -5
Were it not for Hitler, someone just like him would have done the same. A German. I suggest that if you have an interest in such things, that reading Mein Kampf and in particular the 1939 translation published by Reynal & Hitchcock, New York. Unlike the English translations prior to it, it is complete and unabridged. In addition it is fully annotated so that the English reader understands some of the concepts asserted by Adolf Hitler, who was not always clear as to meaning within the context of that day (original copyright 1925 & 1927 for volumes 1 & 2). I think that we can agree Joesph that a significant segment of the German population of that day were fertile ground for the ideas that Adolf Hitler published in this book concerning Aryan racial superiority. Not just due to the economic collapse and the seeking of cause, but due to the belief of many that the Aryan race 'was' superior, even though even in those days scientists believed that the term race was (is) meaningless. Even so, Adolph Hitler had a personal need to demean Jews as a way to demonstrate the rejection of Jews in his linage (here you might find “The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler” by Robert Payne [1973] quite informative). Adolf Hitler was also very good at raising the emotions of people by finding their fears and biases. Following World War I the German people had many disappointments and privations with youth groups easily prodded to detest all things not strictly German and aggravated by the economic situation. This was a fertile garden for Adolf Hitler. Yes, if not Adolf Hitler it could easily have been someone else, but it was his biases and goals which shaped the directions of Germany. It could have been someone else but it then would have been their biases and goals shaping that future, say for instance, a Billy Graham or a Winston Churchill or a Franklin Roosevelt. Yes, direct the German people but down a very different path. Yes, yes and yes. I wanted to type something similar earlier but couldn't find the right words. That part of the world was fertile ground (as you say) and it's very possible anyone with charisma and ability to influence could have led them down a different path. It's hard to believe the population at large would have brought about the hell Hitler (et al) led them into. It's possible one result of WWII is that people are much more cautious and less trusting when it comes to political leaders. Thank goodness! The world's better off for that.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 7, 2015 4:37:28 GMT -5
""""As for the Holocaust, Hitler was never to blame for it. The German people were -- every man, woman and child.""" when I first read that Joseph I couldn't believe what you had written...but is shows a total lack of understanding on every level...of Hitler himself.. Germany..the legacy of ww1..the international depression..politics and German society and history and the international banking system and by your words every American man woman and child as Fret pointed out are responsible for Irak add to that Korea..Vietnam..Afghanistan your pilling a huge burden onto the backs of your fellow countryman
mien kampf is a best seller even today in Turkey and the middle east
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 7, 2015 12:17:54 GMT -5
I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was. I was talking about guilty people who were declared innocent when I made the comment about getting away with it. Still, that means you would rather risk innocent people being put to death than risk the guilty NOT being put to death. That's not the way I think and it never will be. IMO, that's just wrong. I think it's the lesser of two evils. And what angers me as someone who's been a long time campaigner for prison reform and non-custodial sentences for non-violent crimes is the total lack of interest from people who are fine about trying to avoid executions but have no interest in prisoners. But it's fine; I'm used to being called weak by some people and callous by others. I'm neither of course; I just weigh up the balance and support what I think is overall the best course of action.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 7, 2015 12:20:53 GMT -5
e That's the same kind of bullshit that lets Hitler and Stalin off the hook on the grounds they didn't actually kill anyone personally. Or a Mafia boss who gives orders to a hitman. When are you going to STOP being the criminals's friend, Joe? You are the most pro-criminal and pro-murderer I've ever met online! If I may.... Try thinking logically and letting go of the emotion If you think it's logical that Joe thinks that if (for instance) I ordered a hit man to kill someone I'm NOT guilty of murder but only the guy who pulled the trigger then I'm proud to be illogical. If you think it's logical that Joe thinks (for instance) because bin Laden didn't personally attack the Twin Towers he's not guilty of murder then I'm proud to be illogical.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 7, 2015 12:24:01 GMT -5
That's the same kind of bullshit that lets Hitler and Stalin off the hook on the grounds they didn't actually kill anyone personally. Or a Mafia boss who gives orders to a hitman. When are you going to STOP being the criminals's friend, Joe? You are the most pro-criminal and pro-murderer I've ever met online! Apparently you have a learning disability. I said it was open to debate. I didn't say I debated it. I always thought Manson was guilty. Hitler and Stalin were heads of state. As such they were in positions of authority. Ditto with the heads of criminal gangs. Some would argue that Manson was not in such a position. If you had bothered to read Bugliosi's book, you'd know his followers were never held against their will. They were, in fact, given several incentives to leave, since Manson exploited them financially. As for the Holocaust, Hitler was never to blame for it. The German people were -- every man, woman and child. No, Joe, YOU have a learning disability. As well as a compassion and sincerity bypass. Saying Hitler was never to blame for the Holocaust/porajmos is exactly like saying that IS are not to blame for their murders. As it happens my second cousin was an Auschwitz survivor and both his parents, his elder brother and sister were murdered there. He was only spared because a camp guard took pity on him - he was 5 years old - and hid him and helped him escape. He was a German.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 7, 2015 16:25:55 GMT -5
If I may.... Try thinking logically and letting go of the emotion If you think it's logical that Joe thinks that if (for instance) I ordered a hit man to kill someone I'm NOT guilty of murder but only the guy who pulled the trigger then I'm proud to be illogical. If you think it's logical that Joe thinks (for instance) because bin Laden didn't personally attack the Twin Towers he's not guilty of murder then I'm proud to be illogical. Looks like love at first sight, to me.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 7, 2015 18:15:35 GMT -5
Well, Fret, you do sometimes live in a fantasy world!
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Feb 8, 2015 11:05:23 GMT -5
Lin, nobody wants to argue Hitler was anything but a monster. You're twisting it around. The point is that anybody who would pay or influence other people to kill are just as guilty as the one that did the deed. But then when the trial is over what if the jury or the judge makes a mistake and somebody that was NOT guilty is sentenced to death.
Executing an innocent person is bad enough but it lets the guilty person go free, too. So nothing is accomplished. Two wrongs make two wrongs.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 8, 2015 12:29:35 GMT -5
Lin, nobody wants to argue Hitler was anything but a monster. You're twisting it around. The point is that anybody who would pay or influence other people to kill are just as guilty as the one that did the deed. But then when the trial is over what if the jury or the judge makes a mistake and somebody that was NOT guilty is sentenced to death. Executing an innocent person is bad enough but it lets the guilty person go free, too. So nothing is accomplished. Two wrongs make two wrongs. Joe was saying that because Manson hadn't personally killed anyone but only got his fan club to do it for him he wasn't a murderer. That's not twisting his words; it's quoting them. And even in California the law disagrees with Joe. Whether you execute or don't execute if a guilty person goes free they go free. So the innocence argument is irrelevant. Execution is proportionate punishment for murder.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 8, 2015 18:46:33 GMT -5
Joe was saying that because Manson hadn't personally killed anyone but only got his fan club to do it for him he wasn't a murderer. That was not what I stated and you know it. I said it was debatable -- as in, to some, it's an open question. I can invoke a legal argument without agreeing with it. It is debate, not advocacy. deleted""""..............................................................."""" Execution is proportionate punishment for murder. Unless, of course, it's a vigilante murder, in which case it's not. More of your boring hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 9, 2015 5:03:00 GMT -5
Joe wrote """The guilt of Manson is open to debate, since he never actually killed anyone.""""
"""lin wrote That's the same kind of bullshit that lets Hitler and Stalin off the hook on the grounds they didn't actually kill anyone personally"""""
hang on..the inference form Joe is that manson never actually killed anyone so his guilt is questionable Lin answered that by the same token one could answer/debate that Hitler Stalim could also be said to be not guilty...I agree with Lin on this...it can be debated till one is blue in the face but it wont make any one of them innocent for the simple reason they killed with words/urgings etc etc as much as if they had pulled a trigger ..
and I am far from happy about this comment and no I am not offended its too purile and school boyish...its unnecessary hot air and adds nothing to the argument and could easily bring the site into disrepute...uneccesary vulgarity and the fact you have to attack a woman with sexual innuendo is frankly pathetic and shows a certain weakness and absolute bad manners """"............................................................................."""
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Feb 9, 2015 12:17:31 GMT -5
Still, that means you would rather risk innocent people being put to death than risk the guilty NOT being put to death. That's not the way I think and it never will be. IMO, that's just wrong. I think it's the lesser of two evils. And what angers me as someone who's been a long time campaigner for prison reform and non-custodial sentences for non-violent crimes is the total lack of interest from people who are fine about trying to avoid executions but have no interest in prisoners. But it's fine; I'm used to being called weak by some people and callous by others. I'm neither of course; I just weigh up the balance and support what I think is overall the best course of action. I'm not calling you anything Linda. But if you don't worry about whether the executed are guilty or innocent, then I can't agree with you.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Feb 9, 2015 16:15:42 GMT -5
I think it's the lesser of two evils. And what angers me as someone who's been a long time campaigner for prison reform and non-custodial sentences for non-violent crimes is the total lack of interest from people who are fine about trying to avoid executions but have no interest in prisoners. But it's fine; I'm used to being called weak by some people and callous by others. I'm neither of course; I just weigh up the balance and support what I think is overall the best course of action. I'm not calling you anything Linda. But if you don't worry about whether the executed are guilty or innocent, then I can't agree with you. You're making the assumption I don't worry about it. Of course I do. But do you worry about whether or not prisoners are guilty or innocent? I'm assuming you do. But you I imagine would think like me that a fair trial and an honest verdict - even if mistaken - still runs the risk of punishing an innocent person. So either you don't punish anyone at all or you accept that justice is fallible. It's still better than the alternatives.
|
|