Mother and boyfriend arrested after missing toddler's body is found in trash

[Caladona]

Apparently, the death penalty is on the table for this one. I'm not particularly attached death penalty, but in a case like this I wouldn't be sympathetic with the accused at all.

Mother and Boyfriend Arrested After Missing Toddler's Body Is Found in Trash

Police found the remains of 2-year-old Ezekiel Harry in a duffel bag disposed of in a trash can, according to reports.

people.com

Police found the remains of 2-year-old Ezekiel Harry in a duffel bag that was placed in a trash can, according to reports

Maya Jones, 28, and 36-year-old Jermaine Robinson have both been charged with first degree murder and evidence tampering, jail records show. The pair were denied bond, jail records show.
Citing Houma Police Chief Dana Coleman, Houma Today reports surveillance cameras allegedly captured Jones and Robinson carrying a black duffel bag from their home on the day Ezekiel was reported missing.
Hours later, the couple was seen in video footage returning to their home without the bag.

The toddler's cause of death is still under investigation, but Coleman said signs of physical abuse were evident.

Jones reported Ezekiel missing earlier in the day. She claimed he was abducted by a person in a grey truck while she was out walking with her four children.

"This is absolutely a death penalty case," Terrebonne District Attorney Joe Waitz said, according to WAFB-TV. "What happened to this little 2-year-old shocks the conscience."
Jones' other three children are now with their father, Trey Harry, reports Houma Today.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Heart breaking.

 

[Mr Person]

This is why religion exists. You want there to be a hell and you want the rest to somehow be ok in the end. I should not have opened this thread.

 

[Caladona]

This is why religion exists. You want there to be a hell and you want the rest to somehow be ok in the end. I should not have opened this thread.

Right, and murders don't want there to be a hell and want to somehow be okay in the end.

That's why denialism thereof exists.

 

[Mr Person]

Right, and murders don't want there to be a hell and want to somehow be okay in the end.

That's why denialism thereof exists.

What?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What?

Dude posts about sky mothers and earth daddies. You can safely ignore him.

 

[Caladona]

Dude posts about sky mothers and earth daddies. You can safely ignore him.

No, it was earth mothers and sky daddies.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, it was earth mothers and sky daddies.

Oh sorry

 

[Caladona]

What?

Wicked people want there to not be a hell more than decent people want there to be one.

Not to mention that speculation on life after death isn't necessarily "religious", and is only a very small component of what qualifies as "religion".

 

[Mr Person]

Dude posts about sky mothers and earth daddies. You can safely ignore him.

Ok.

The linked story is...bad. Heavy-left source, I think, but I don't recall much in the way of misinfo

 

[Bodi]

This is why religion exists. You want there to be a hell and you want the rest to somehow be ok in the end. I should not have opened this thread.

This is why religion exists... so that people can repent and be forgiven and live forever in bliss.

 

[Court Jester]

We need to punish people the way the Romans used to do it.

These people deserve the brazen bull.

 

[reinaert]

Blood magic still doesn't right wrongs.

 

[Ortegas]

This is why religion exists... so that people can repent and be forgiven and live forever in bliss.

Oh please, no one believes that except molesters themselves. What a silly and rather uneducated strawman.

Unless God was viewed as very incompetent - less competent than the average person - , there would be some type of "fail safe" in place so that if a person spent their life torturing children, they wouldn't be able to suddenly feign "repentance" at the last minute with the sole intention of avoiding consequences.

Likewise, one who wants to imagine that they'll experience no life after death wouldn't have any reason to worry about "forgiveness" - that would only be a consideration if they acknowledge any possibility of life after death to begin with. So, naturally, they would blindly and emotionally hope for the former conclusion rather than the latter.

 

[Ortegas]

Blood magic still doesn't right wrongs.

What is "blood magic"? I don't understand.

 

[Bodi]

Oh please, no one believes that except molesters themselves. What a silly and rather uneducated strawman.

Others do as well...

Unless God was viewed as very incompetent - less competent than the average person - , there would be some type of "fail safe" in place so that if a person spent their life torturing children, they wouldn't be able to suddenly feign "repentance" at the last minute with the sole intention of avoiding consequences.

Who said anything about feigning it?

Likewise, one who wants to imagine that they'll experience no life after death wouldn't have any reason to worry about "forgiveness" -

Then they are not religious...

that would only be a consideration if they acknowledge any possibility of life after death to begin with. So, naturally, they would blindly and emotionally hope for the former conclusion rather than the latter.

Religion is a Morality Opt-Out.

 

[Ortegas]

Others do as well...

Others who are lying to themselves, naturally.

Who said anything about feigning it?

Maybe your comprehension is a bit daft, but the argument is that a person capable of committing such acts would never be capable of genuine repentance to begin with.

So the only option would be to feign it - since anything else would be oxymoronic and impossible under the laws which govern the universe.

Then they are not religious...

What a silly assertion. Ideas about "life after death" have little to nothing to do with "religion".

What Quantum Physics Can Tell Us about the Afterlife - Swedenborg Foundation

Swedenborg’s descriptions of how space and time work in the afterlife parallel new discoveries from the world of quantum mechanics.

swedenborg.com

Just as various recognized religions make no mention of "life after death" whatsoever.

Religion is a Morality Opt-Out.

No rather, religion is a morality opt-in - since without religion, there could be no morality. Much as how every modern moral or ethical law is rooted in older, "religious" sources of law to begin with. There is no effective difference between punishing a person for a crime such as murder under contemporary Common Law than there is punishing murder as a "sin" under Biblical law.

And of course, any true religion would say that it would be impossible for a person to commit heinous acts and still be capable of "genuine repentance" - or that God would ever acknowledge a silly, ritualistic prayer for "forgives" done with the sole intention of escaping harm to begin with. You're very ill-informed, apparently.

Lack of religion, is naturally the moral opt-out. Since denying the reality of life after death is simply a convenient way to escape any potential consequences, just as it's a means for denying "morality" altogether - since there is no subjectively "immoral" behavior which humans commit - such as rape or murder - which isn't rooted in the same biological drives and impulses as the behavior of other animals.

So since animals do those things without needing to "repent" for them, there's no reason that humans should abstain from doing them either - unless they just believe based on "blind faith" that humans shouldn't engage in the same instinctive behaviors as animals despite no empirical evidence of notions like "morality" existing whatsoever. (Which, of course, is no different than "blind faith" in God).

 

[Bodi]

Others who are lying to themselves, naturally.

Not if they believe.

Maybe your comprehension is a bit daft, but the argument is that a person capable of committing such acts would never be capable of genuine repentance to begin with.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with people that find religion later in life... and those on Death Row, etc.? Maybe your knowledge is doofy.

So the only option would be to feign it - since anything else would be oxymoronic.

Wrong. Rapists go to prison and find God... repent and are forgiven and allowed an eternity of orgasmic bliss with God.

What a silly assertion. Ideas about "life after death" have little to nothing to do with "religion".

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.' ” - John 11: 25

What Quantum Physics Can Tell Us about the Afterlife - Swedenborg Foundation

Swedenborg’s descriptions of how space and time work in the afterlife parallel new discoveries from the world of quantum mechanics.

swedenborg.com

Just as various recognized religions make no mention of "life after death" whatsoever.

Just as various recognized religions do make mention of "life after death".

No rather, religion is a morality opt-in - since without religion, there could be no morality.

That is historically ridiculous. People had morality prior to religion.

Since of course, any true religion would say that it would be impossible for a person to commit heinous acts and still be capable of "genuine repentance" - or that God would ever acknowledge a silly, ritualistic prayer for "forgives" done with the sole intention of escaping harm to begin with.

It is not about escaping if they believe... and I guess that Islam and Christianity are not true religions?

Lack of religion, is naturally the moral opt-out. Since denying the reality of life after death

You can prove the reality of life after death?

is simply a convenient way to escape any potential consequences, just as it's a means for denying "morality" altogether - since there is no subjectively "immoral" behavior which humans commit - such as rape or murder - which isn't rooted in the same biological drives and impulses as the behavior of other animals. So since animals do those things without needing to "repent" for them, there's no reason that humans should abstain from doing them either.

Huh? That just looks like a mess of Gobbley Guuk.

 

[Ortegas]

Not if they believe.

No, they can "believe" that "2 + 2 =22" if they want, but it doesn't make it so. It would be metaphysically impossible under the laws of the cosmos.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with people that find religion later in life... and those on Death Row, etc.? Maybe your knowledge is doofy.

Wrong. Rapists go to prison and find God... repent and are forgiven and allowed an eternity of orgasmic bliss with God.

No, their repentance isn't acknowledged by God. They never "found it" to begin with regardless of whatever charade you're so easily fooled by.

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.' ” - John 11: 25

Correct, and it would be impossible under the metaphysical laws of the cosmos for such people to believe or to find God.

Saying that "they found God" doesn't make it true or possible.

That is historically ridiculous. People had morality prior to religion.

All morality is "religion". It's based on blind-faith that certain actions are morally "right or wrong" specifically for humans, but not for other animals despite humans biologically being members of the animal kingdom.

It's not "morally wrong" for a chimpanzee to kill the previous offspring of their mate - such things are merely rooted in survivalistic, evolutionary drives and impusles. So why is it "morally wrong" for a human to do the same things as any other animal?

Adult chimpanzee kills baby chimp in front of shocked Los Angeles Zoo visitors

Monkey screaming was so loud, some people were scared enough to leave zoo; Mother chimp held baby's body all night to grieve

www.cbsnews.com

It is not about escaping if they believe... and I guess that Islam and Christianity are not true religions?

Christianity and Islam are true religions, and under Christianity and Islam it is metaphysically impossible for such people to genuinely "believe".

The only way they could genuinely "believe" and have it recognized by God is if they had never become such heinous people to begin with.

You can prove the reality of life after death?

It is easily proven and has been proven multiple times through history, though this would naturally be lost on those who are less intellectually-inclined or merely want to deny the reality for their own emotional reasons, such as wishing to escape any moral consequences for their actions.

But of course deniers have existed since the days of the sophists of ancient Greece, and were just as easily debunkable then as they are now, so it's barely worth the trouble of casting the pearls in question.

Huh? That just looks like a mess of Gobbley Guuk.

Facts are simply facts, they're not "gobbly-guuk" just because they require some measure of reading comprehension. Let's try again:

There's nothing "immoral" that humans do which is any different than the behaviors which other animals do.

Animals kill each other and engage in sexual violence for instinctive, survivalistic reasons - and it's not "immoral" for them to do so - only for humans?

In fact there is no physical or empirical evidence of "morality" at all. It's just based on blind-faith.

 

[Bodi]

The only way they could genuinely "believe" and have it recognized by God is if they had never become such heinous people to begin with.

Wo we can not believe things unless it is recognized by God?

It is easily proven and has been proven multiple times through history,

Life after death has been "proven" multiple times through history? Examples?

though this would naturally be lost on those who are less intellectually-inclined or merely want to deny the reality for their own emotional reasons, such as wishing to escape any moral consequences for their actions.

Blither...

But of course deniers have existed since the days of the sophists of ancient Greece, and were just as easily debunkable then as they are now, so it's barely worth the trouble of casting the pearls in question.

Are you going to try to debunk something next?

Facts are simply facts, they're not "gobbly-guuk" just because they require some measure of reading comprehension.

I could not comprehend it because it was written as Gobbly Guuk...

Let's try again:

Thank you...

There's nothing "immoral" that humans do which is any different than the behaviors which other animals do.

Animals kill each other and engage in sexual violence for instinctive, survivalistic reasons - and it's not "immoral" for them to do so - only for humans?

Why are you asking me a question?

In fact there is no physical or empirical evidence of "morality" at all. It's just based on blind-faith.

Except for all of the evidence in the reactions of people, you mean... right?

Billions and billions of instances...

 

[Bodi]

No, they can "believe" that "2 + 2 =22" if they want,

Take out the plus sign... 22 = 22. Sometimes it takes a fresh way of looking at things.

but it doesn't make it so. It would be metaphysically impossible under the laws of the cosmos.

You are saying that it is metaphysically impossible for a person change what they believe in? That is wacky.

 

[Bodi]

No, their repentance isn't acknowledged by God. They never "found it" to begin with regardless of whatever charade you're so easily fooled by.

So if they find God and believe and live a life of love, helping people, teaching about Christ, etc. they are merely lying to themselves because God may not acknowledge their change? What is the point then if priests and other God Folk bless them or forgive them for their sins, etc.? Why would anybody waste their life hoping when God can just pull the rug out from under a person?

Correct, and it would be impossible under the metaphysical laws of the cosmos for such people to believe or to find God.

Metaphysical laws of the cosmos? Are you going to talk about Astral Projection next?

Saying that "they found God" doesn't make it true or possible.

You saying that they can't doesn't mean that it is not possible.

All morality is "religion". It's based on blind-faith that certain actions are morally "right or wrong" specifically for humans, but not for other animals despite humans biologically being members of the animal kingdom.

So Cave Mom that thought it was wrong when Cave Dad hit the Cave Child was not basing that off morality since she was not in a religion?

What Doofy logic.

 

[Bodi]

It's not "morally wrong" for a chimpanzee to kill the previous offspring of their mate -

It is 100% morally wrong for Chimp Boy to do that... they just don't realize it since they are animals. Be better than a Chimp.

such things are merely rooted in survivalistic, evolutionary drives and impusles. So why is it "morally wrong" for a human to do the same things as any other animal?

Adult chimpanzee kills baby chimp in front of shocked Los Angeles Zoo visitors

Monkey screaming was so loud, some people were scared enough to leave zoo; Mother chimp held baby's body all night to grieve

www.cbsnews.com

Are you saying that it is not morally wrong to murder the children of your new girlfriend so that you can pass on your genes in an evolutionary drive?

Christianity and Islam are true religions, and under Christianity and Islam it is metaphysically impossible for such people to genuinely "believe".

They promote violence and killing contradicting your earlier statement.

 

[Ortegas]

You are saying that it is metaphysically impossible for a person change what they believe in? That is wacky.

Not at all. It's not impossible for everyone, just some - on the basis of their actions having to be in harmony with their beliefs.

So if they find God

Lmao.

They can't find God. This has been stated several times. What is so hard about this to comprehend?

and believe and live a life of love, helping people, teaching about Christ, etc. they are merely lying to themselves because God may not acknowledge their change?

Correct, it's metaphysically impossible for them to believe such things.

What is the point then if priests and other God Folk bless them or forgive them for their sins, etc.?

The priests should not be blessing them and forgiving them of their sins - they have very poor discernment.

Priests have no ability to forgive sins, it's purely symbolism.

Why would anybody waste their life hoping when God can just pull the rug out from under a person?

Why would any athlete play professional football and have a chance at winning the Super bowl, rather than not play and have no chance at all?

Plus it's a moot point, since the average person would be very unlikely to reach such a degree of personal heinousness that it would become metaphysically impossible for them to repent anyway - this would likely only be the case for the worst types of predators.

Metaphysical laws of the cosmos? Are you going to talk about Astral Projection next?

No, we're simply talking about the metaphysics of belief and repentance.

You saying that they can't doesn't mean that it is not possible.

You saying that they can doesn't mean that it is possible.

if you want to quote the Bible, for example - the book of Revelation clearly states that "the beast" (who is often identified with the "antichrist") will definitely be cast into a Lake of Fire.

There is no mention that "the Beast" can somehow "opt out of this" at the last minute simply by praying for forgiveness or convincing a priest and forgive him.

So Cave Mom that thought it was wrong when Cave Dad hit the Cave Child was not basing that off morality since she was not in a religion?

Adam and Eve, as far as Genesis goes were "not in a religion" either.

"Religion" only exists because of the fall of man, and never would have needed to exist were it not for that.

It is 100% morally wrong for Chimp Boy to do that... they just realize it since they are animals. Be better than a Chimp.

You can believe that based on blind faith all you want, but it won't change the fact that "morality" is a human social construct and there is no physical evidence that any action by humans or other animals is "immoral".

Are you saying that it is not morally wrong to murder the children of your new girlfriend so that you can pass on your genes in an evolutionary drive?

According to God and religion perhaps, but not according to nature or anything that can be empirically tested or observed.

Believing those are wrong actions is just a faith-based, "religious" belief no different than any other.

They promote violence and killing contradicting your earlier statement.

And?

Animals promote violence and killing in the name of self-preservation - humans are biologically animals, so why would you believe that humans are the only species who should refrain from their inborn, survivalistic drives?

Wo we can not believe things unless it is recognized by God?

You can have the religious belief such as that rape and violence are wrong all you want to - but simply because it's "your belief" doesn't mean that rapists or murders are going to share it.

Just as there are various religions which don't mention the existence of "a God"" at all.

Except for all of the evidence in the reactions of people, you mean... right?

Billions and billions of instances...

"Reactions" of people are entirely subjective, and not evidence for "morality" at all.

Some people have a very negative reaction to certain ice cream flavors - that doesn't mean that eating green tea ice cream is "immoral" or that there should be laws against it.

Likewise, a serial killer like Jeffery Dahmer might express delight over the thought of eating human flesh, though many might find it disgusting.

So you can arbitrarily declare some people's pleasure preferences "immoral" if you want, but it's nothing more than a faith-based or religious belief like any other.

---

 

[Ortegas]

Are you saying that it is not morally wrong to murder the children of your new girlfriend so that you can pass on your genes in an evolutionary drive?

According to the laws of God, yes. Not according to the laws of nature.

If you believe it's morally-wrong, then why aren't you campaigning to have chimpanzees who kill the offspring of their mates put on trial for it? Why do you treat humans as special and believe that humans are the only members of the animal kingdom to whom morality and law should be applied?

---

For that matter, do you honestly believe that every murderer or rapists gets "caught" and receives earthly punishment for it? Plenty of them escape any legal or earthly repercussion until their death bed. The Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele escaped to Argentina and avoided ever being tried for war crimes until he died in a swimming accident.

So, of course - the morality "opt-out" is simply to deny any possibility of life after death, and just do the best you can to avoid ever being criminally charged for your actions.

The morality "opt-in" is the acknowledgement of life after death.