re: #19 Destro

If I was to give a negative remark I would have. For example, I could have said any religion that calls for the death penalty in its sacred laws or writtings or by one of its ‘holy men’ for violating some rule is a religion that should be mocked and shunned and not allowed to be the basis of secular law but I did not - until now.

So the idea here was to warn you off from knee jerk fight picking.

I have to be honest and say I have more than once fell into that. In fact, I came to a point where there were people on this board I wanted to strangle because they were just so wrong.

So take it from a semi-mostly- I’m working on it-repentant sinner who still has a temper when dealing with an apparent web twit. There were times when the dynamics got so f’d up it didn’t matter if I was saying that 2+2 made 4, I would still have ten angry responses fired back at me. The thing is, when I got in that position, I could normally back up what I was saying and it still didn’t matter - why because people were pissed off to the point that there was not going to be any sort of intellectual discussion and it just turned into a slug fest.

The thing for you is, that your arguments are not as tight as you think they are and you will manage to piss people off enough to give you hell.

For example, let’s revisit your quote:

If I was to give a negative remark I would have. For example, I could have said any religion that calls for the death penalty in its sacred laws or writtings or by one of its ‘holy men’ for violating some rule is a religion that should be mocked and shunned and not allowed to be the basis of secular law but I did not - until now.

Ok you hate the death penalty… ok but then you put ‘holy man’ in quotes, use sacred in a tone dripping with sarcasm, and say that rules that include capital punishment should be shunned and mocked etc…

So of course you are petulantly picking a fight. So this kiddo is a little object lesson for you.

First of all, Jewish law (and this is a Jewish thread) only allows for the death penalty in the case of an orgy of evidence and is procedurally written so as to make its application almost impossible. Please don’t try to quote at me from some inappropriate source to attempt to dispute that fact. The appropriate places to look are places like tractate Sanhedrin and Makkos etc…

Now that said, capital punishment is on the books.

Let me give you a case that if the rules of evidence were met would demand the death penalty:

A man walks up to a woman on the street, rips her baby from her arms and snaps the baby’s neck, then, he kidnaps, rapes and kills the mother.

That violates a whole bunch of rules that our holy men have laid out in exquisite detail. Is it really a code that needs to be mocked and shunned?

Oh I am sure that you can come up with a pretty movement of the goal posts, but again this is Jewish law and you did say “any law that…”

For the death penalty to be invoked, there is an orgy of evidence that this guy did it. There are multiple witnesses to the acts of murder and the brutal rape itself. There is no doubt who did it.

So is it truly uncivilized to put the beast who did such a thing down? can you truly say that with the sneer you wrote your first statement with? If you do, you will sound like an ass. If you don’t, then you are just defeated outright.