- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Which means they aren't true Authoritarians.
ALL Felons. Period. Regardless of crime. The only way to stop crime is to make its consequences worse than its potential benefits.
>" First, let's lay out the facts. Although some felons have been legally disenfranchised, others have not. Specifically, while only four states allow felons to vote while they are in prison, 18 allow felons to vote while they are on parole and 21 allow them to vote while on probation. Only 10 states permanently disenfranchise all felons and another handful do so to some ex-offenders or restore the ability to vote after a time limit...
The simple answer to your question is that felons can't vote is because voting is a civil right and you forfeit certain rights, temporarily anyway, when convicted of a serious crime...
Convicted felons have been denied various privileges granted to other citizens going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece--this practice is laced throughout the common law that serves as the basis for U.S. law..."<
It's a slippery slope. Allow convicted felons to vote and America could end up having more incompetent Presidents like Obama. And they'll probably want more than the whole nine yards.
Democrats in San Fransisco are already advocating that illegal aliens who have been in the country after 30 days should be able to vote.
My dogs also want to vote and knowing my dogs, they'll vote for who ever will give them the biggest T-Bone.
The Straight Dope: Why can't felons vote?
Here's a question:
What terrible thing do people expect an ex-con would vote for?
Here's a question:
What terrible thing do people expect an ex-con would vote for?
Obama is for allowing pot. You think if he gets his way there will be less inmates and thus more people who can vote?
Former felons who successfully complete their probation or parole should have their right to vote restored. Being denied the right to vote is not a deterrent to crime. Having the right to vote restored can help an ex-con feel like they are part of society, which is likely to somewhat reduce the chance of committing another crime. Also, some crimes, particularly drug laws, are an attack on people holding certain world views, in other words, they are largely thought crimes or political crimes. A legitimate democracy (democratic republic) does not disenfranchise people for holding an unpopular worldview.
Yes they are. Authoritarians want to MAKE THEIR laws, not follow other people's laws. In this society, authoritarians are shrugged off and eventually they break laws that wind them in jail. Like I said before, problem solved.
So you don't find it absurd to execute people for endangering their health? Have you not heard of the principle "the parts are not greater than the whole"?
I don't find it absurd at all. I understand that a well-oilded machine (or society) must have all the parts working together. If one gear gets out of sync it can ruin the whole machine.
What is truly hilarious is that liberals have the gall to cite the "spirit of the Constitution" as a defense of their position. Wonder how you guys managed to miss that the "spirit of the Constitution" is for limited government.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/o...ans-without-a-voice.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
What I mean is that the inherent purpose of the law I mentioned is to protect the health of the person in question. It defeats the purpose to kill that person as punishment.
I am interested in the health of the SOUL and to a lesser degree the Mind, not the health of the Body. Those who cannot follow the rules must accept that they will pay the price for doing so if they are caught.
But that is an improper consideration. Or do you not recognize a distinction between the natural and the supernatural?
I believe that the only purpose for the physical human form is to provide a shell for the Soul. It is only the Soul, and to a lesser the Mind which have value, since the only purpose for this world is to serve as a proving ground for the Soul.
A 10 year life lived in abject pain, but lived properly is infinitely better than a 100 year life lived improperly, with or without pain.
So you're a gnostic?
Sort of. What I am more is a Spiritualist. I grew up in a devoutly Protestant (Lutheran) family until I was 27. At that age my eyes were opened to the failings of Christianity by the death of my father. I went on a spiritual journey trying to find answers to his death in every organized religion I could find. Some refused to even try to answer my questions. Some came back with the same answers I already knew to be faulty. It was only after I opened myself up to a much broader idea of Spirituality over Religion that I started to find answers that made sense to me and worked.
Out of curiosity, what were the specific issues you had with Christianity?
Without getting into anything too deep, my father was the most faithful, decent individual I've ever met in my entire life. At the moment he and my mother were about to start living their lives for themselves and not for everyone else (family, job, church, country, etc....) he ends up with skin cancer (from service in the US Military) and after almost 3 years dies on his 54th birthday after the cancer moved into his brain. That really struck me. The most truly faithful and decent person I've ever known and his own God can't spare 2 seconds to help him out in his time of need. That, combined with a number of issues in my own personal life really made me start wondering why I was spending all that time trying to be "good" for a God who couldn't spare any Mercy for the most faithful and decent person I've ever known. It made me start asking why a supposedly loving God would do things like that, or allow them to happen. I couldn't find/get a straight answer from clergy anywhere. Almost half refused to even try to answer it. That's when I started wondering if there really was any value to organized religion, and I came to the answer "NO".
Traditional Christianity does not promise rewards in this world. In traditional Christian thought, suffering is redemptive in nature, and can result in the obtain meant of higher spiritual goods. Indeed, death is the most grievous of earthly evils, yet it directly leads to the greatest good for the righteous. So it would not be correct to say that God showed no mercy on him.
Traditional Christianity claims to be the religion of a Loving God. The God of the NEW Testament, not the God of the Old Testament. As I said to several clergy members.... "I am not Job, to be slapped in the face repeatedly and expected to say 'Thank you God, may I have another?' with a smile." I understand that the true reward is on the other side of Eternity, but there has to be some sort of if not reward, at least a lack of repeated "slaps in the face" on this side of Eternity to help one get through life.
That's how I came to understand that the Gods don't give a **** about us as individuals. It's simply a matter of how do our Souls deal with the crap that is tossed at us on a daily basis. Do they continue to follow the narrow path, or do they decide to do what they Want rather than what they Should.
Traditional Christianity claims to be the religion of a Loving God. The God of the NEW Testament, not the God of the Old Testament. As I said to several clergy members.... "I am not Job, to be slapped in the face repeatedly and expected to say 'Thank you God, may I have another?' with a smile." I understand that the true reward is on the other side of Eternity, but there has to be some sort of if not reward, at least a lack of repeated "slaps in the face" on this side of Eternity to help one get through life.
That's how I came to understand that the Gods don't give a **** about us as individuals. It's simply a matter of how do our Souls deal with the crap that is tossed at us on a daily basis. Do they continue to follow the narrow path, or do they decide to do what they Want rather than what they Should.
One and the same God inspired both Testaments.
How do you know that God didn't protect you from graver evils during your life, or your father from evils during his life? Also, God is entirely rational and omniscient, if he deems that it will be better for the ultimate good for a person if they are allowed to suffer for the time being, this does not mean that he doesn't love them (love means to will the good of another). Look at what happened to Job after the end of his trials.
A God who went SOFT.
Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not going to tell anyone else they shouldn't believe it, or any other personal religious belief, but for me it just rings entirely hollow.
He is eternal. He didn't go soft but intended all along to do as he did.
How does it ring hollow?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?