Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?
I feel that killing someone in front of a child is a pretty dickish thing to do also. Take out your anger on him, then let him rot in prison for a few years, where I hear those with child crimes are among the worst treated.
The important thing is to explain to the child what has happened, and why it was wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Father Beats Molester to Death
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was being totally realistic by saying I would try to kill the man, but then I was attacked because that seemed to be contradictory to the teaching of Buddhism.
No I pointed out that you specifically said it was moral to do so and then you deflected a bunch rather than go through the pain of forming an actual thought and vomited out your usual supply of bullshit pseudo-philosophy.
Is beating a man to death because he made you angry a moral act in Buddhism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Father Beats Molester to Death
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I pointed out that you specifically said it was moral to do so and then you deflected a bunch rather than go through the pain of forming an actual thought and vomited out your usual supply of bullshit pseudo-philosophy.Is beating a man to death because he made you angry a moral act in Buddhism?
That particular set of events is not cover in any of the Buddhist text. I would be surprised if it was.
You are so delusional, it isn't funny. There is no pseudo-philosophy going on here. You simply can't understand what I am saying. Maybe you should go to a Buddhist teacher rather then asking me.
I answered your question twice. I will one more time: There is no inconsistency.
Is it more moral to kill with a gun or your fists?
That is the problem with the idea of morality; it is so absolutely connected to Christianity, that it has no real meaning.
If you want to live a good life, it would be best to not kill people in anyway. I would call that moral, just as a way of communicating. The truth is: by killing you have caused suffering, and the karma of that suffering will become part of your karma.
Is adding negative karma to your karma moral?
Don't reply. I will never read it, I'm putting you on ignore. Goodbye...
Originally posted by focus4chumps
it's paradoxical to attempt rationalizing what you would do in a state of irrationality.
I understand your point but I am not familiar with your use of "paradoxical" in that context. How is it paradoxical?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
wrong
Unrelated but I am quite interested in where you got this information:
So it is a myth that they get treated worse? No one I know that has direct work or was incarcerated in the prison system agrees with that. But that is anecdotal. I am interested in the truth.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand your point but I am not familiar with your use of "paradoxical" in that context. How is it paradoxical?
attempting to rationalize and predict your own unpredictable irrationality.
oh wait. am i "trolling" again?
Originally posted by dadudemon
So it is a myth that they get treated worse? No one I know that has direct work or was incarcerated in the prison system agrees with that. But that is anecdotal. I am interested in the truth.
they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight. thus, they WOULD be treated the worst if that was allowed to happen.
but since this is common practice, they are NOT treated worse.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
attempting to rationalize and predict your own unpredictable irrationality.
Oh, okay.
I think you are talking about a self-deception paradox? Correct me if I am wrong. It is not quite the SDP, but it is close.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
oh wait. am i "trolling" again?
Not every question/conversation has to be antagonistic.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight. thus, they WOULD be treated the worst if that was allowed to happen.
but since this is common practice, they are NOT treated worse.
[I did some google searching of my own to see if I could prove your point. I found the opposite to be true, however:]
That may be true for some prisons, but not all and the segregation is not absolute.
"The pool of prisoners in protective custody can vary from state to state, and does not automatically include all child molesters and informants, officials and aid workers said."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90004#.T9km-1Jaweo
"'Once their crime has become known, they usually don't make it' without protective custody, said Lt. Ken Lewis, a corrections officer and spokesman at California's Los Angeles County State Prison. 'There's a lot of [pedophiles] that can successfully make it … as long as they don't brag about their offense.'
If they do talk, 'they'll get beat up,' Lewis added. 'In some places he may even get his throat cut.'"
"'[Child sex offenders] are at risk of being murdered, having their food taken, having their cells defecated and urinated in,' said Leslie Walker, a prisoner's rights activist with the Massachusetts Correctional Legal Society. 'Their life is truly a living hell.'"
My secondhand anecdotal experience runs very parallel to the following statement:
"Walker cited 'a culture of looking the other way in prison.'"
Originally posted by Barker
1. Hell no
2. Also hell no
3. First priority is getting him away from my child, not killing him.I feel that killing someone in front of a child is a pretty dickish thing to do also. Take out your anger on him, then let him rot in prison for a few years, where I hear those with child crimes are among the worst treated.
The important thing is to explain to the child what has happened, and why it was wrong.
Very well put Barker!
+1
cool article bro!
since you have taken an interest in vintage massachusetts sensationalist news articles, allow me to quote some contemporary massachusetts law:
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy12h1/os_12/h28.htm
since SECTION 28. Section 104 of chapter 150 of the acts of 1990 is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:For purposes of this section, the phrase "separate and apart" shall mean that persons committed or awaiting commitment as sexually dangerous persons, as defined by section 1 of chapter 123A of the General Laws, shall be housed separately from inmates who are not civilly committed as sexually dangerous persons; but all such persons may commingle in common areas of the treatment center, including but not limited to the dining room, the general and law libraries, the gymnasium and the recreation yard, and may participate together in sex offender treatment and other therapeutic, rehabilitational, academic education, vocational education, vocational training, and other related prevocational and employment programs at the discretion of the department of correction. The commissioner of correction shall adopt policies and procedures for the management of the treatment center population consistent with public safety and the security and operational needs of the department of correction.
now am i "trolling"?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
cool article bro!since you have taken an interest in vintage massachusetts sensationalist news articles, allow me to quote some contemporary massachusetts law:
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy12h1/os_12/h28.htm
now am i "trolling"?
Calm down. I am trying to have a normal conversation with you.
I have two questions for you:
1. Does this:
"[For all prisons] they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building)...
...they WOULD be treated the worst if that was allowed to happen.
but since this is common practice, they are NOT treated worse. "
Mean the same thing as this?
"[For Massachusetts Prisons] persons committed or awaiting commitment as sexually dangerous persons ... shall be housed separately from inmates who are not civilly committed as sexually dangerous persons; but all such persons may commingle in common areas of the treatment center, including but not limited to the dining room, the general and law libraries, the gymnasium and the recreation yard, and may participate together in sex offender treatment and other therapeutic, rehabilitational, academic education, vocational education, vocational training, and other related prevocational and employment programs at the discretion of the department of correction."
2. Why is a news article written 8.7 years a "vintage news article"?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Housed separately doesn't necessarily mean placed under protective custody, especially given that they allow them to co-mingle in so many places.
OR I could just ask the question this way. 😐
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Housed separately doesn't necessarily mean placed under protective custody, especially given that they allow them to co-mingle in so many places.
when did i say they are given protective custody? oh right. i didnt.
"they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight."
ok so "would" is a bit exaggerated in a general sense. what i meant was: a guy like this, who is essentially a baby-****er, would be killed on sight if the general population had that knowledge. maybe a date rapist, convicted on dodgy grounds (koby bryant's who could not afford a team of lawyers, etc) or a technical pedo (girl is a year or two below the legal min). remember that sex offenders is not synonymous with baby-****ers.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
when did i say they are given protective custody? oh right. i didnt."they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight."
Oh, so you're saying you plainly meant this?
"They are sent to prison."
Rather than this?
"By general population, I meant the general prison population. By separate housing, I meant they were housed in a different building, entirely, from the rest of the prison population."
Because I assumed you meant the latter and not the former. If you meant the former, yes, I would agree with that.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
dadudemon, you have a wonderful way of winning internet awards when you have proven essentially nothing.
I just don't get this. What are you talking about?
What is it that you think I was "trying to prove" but failed to do so?
F4C, why does every conversation have to be some sort of argument? Go back and read through our conversation. But get rid of the notion that I was even remotely trying to be antagonistic. It will change the tone to how you have been approaching this topic.
Also, I have several questions for you that you have not answered. It would clarify several points we are discussing if you were to answer them. This is something I never do but I am willing to do it to show how much I am willing to have a normal conversation: would you like me to re-quote the questions of mine that you have not addressed?