Yup - There is a cult of trans people that are committing crimes across the country. Its going to get worse.
TLHLIM
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Yup - There is a cult of trans people that are committing crimes across the country. Its going to get worse.
Shocking development that the political party that is telling Christians they’re right about everything and that we need to be even more explicitly Christian has more people that believe in God.
sturg33
I
I'm more interested in the trend. quite a drop off in 40 years. then again, the party that thinks the government can influence the weather, that men can become pregnant, that the nuclear family is a white supremacist construct, and the castrating children is compassionate healthcare, probably aren't driven by a moral spirituality these days
a big part of the reason they are so miserable and hateful. communism destroys everything good
And its also a big reason why the 'yute' are changing fast and moving towards more conservative/centrist values.
sturg33
I
Well, men are
I still think you’re underselling the impact of the right essentially hitching their wagon to Christianity in viewing this trend. Hell, Donald Trump actively pretends to be a devout Christian so that he can be President (and sell Trump bibles) as a Republican. If you’re a person who doesn’t believe in God without a doubt, having one party be pretty deeply religiously motivated is going to tip the scales a bit.
…he was acquitted of murder on the grounds of insanity, and has been following a treatment program and constantly evaluated for 13 years. This isn’t someone who was ever eligible for the death penalty because he was not determined to have committed the crime of murder. Is your position that we should have the death penalty available for people not convicted of murder or that we should just shoot all the mentally ill?
My position is that the severely mentally ill should not be killed by the state when it’s determined they committed a heinous crime as a result of their mental illness. Fortunately we have a middle ground where we don’t kill those people, and instead commit them to facilities that can keep them and others safe. Perhaps they shouldn’t take the risk of him relapsing upon release, but the alternative of “just don’t let them out” is still on the table rather than resorting to killing the mentally ill of the future.
Murder has a specific definition for a reason. If my family and I are held at gunpoint and told to kill and eat someone, should the state kill me if I oblige? You’re not advocating for anything less than the violation of due process so that the government, an entity you think is universally corrupt and ineffective can kill more people. It boggles my mind that you want leftists in Connecticut to wield more power. Like you don’t think there’s anybody out there that would claim a parent “murdered” their trans child by refusing to let them transition or “murdered” a vulnerable person by not wearing a mask during COVID? I have a hard enough time understanding an anti-government stance on the current parameters of the death penalty, let alone expansions into the state killing *more* people not convicted of a capital crime.
So you are fine with governments just deciding amongst themselves who can be killed by the state. I don’t really give a **** that you didn’t support it before, I’m just interested in determining how much power you want leftist states like New York or California to be allowed to have over killing people. Apparently it’s essentially limitless, since you don’t even have to be convicted of a capital crime now.
sturg33
I
You are to twist my comment that I support executing someone who hacked up and ate a person, to "i want to allow NY the power to execute thethe bc he supports Trump"
That really doesn't justify me offering a serious conversation on the topic
But we did establish that once again, empathetic MQT is in favor of letting a psycho walk free bc he has shown some progress under a new pill
Clownshow
I’m familiar with what a slippery slope fallacy is, but you’re absolutely 100% arguing for the state to wield extrajudicial power here to kill a person who was not convicted of a crime. You’re not arguing in favor of the death penalty as-is, you’re arguing for an extension of the death penalty to account for cases in which the person was found not to have committed the crime they were accused of. This person surely committed the act of killing another person, but legally did not commit murder. I, for one, think it important to continue to have a legal system in place that does not allow the state to have someone *not* be convicted of a crime and then just be killed anyway, and I don’t think that’s so much empathy as it is a healthy distrust of governments to not abuse that type of extrajudicial power.
sturg33
I
Let me clear up the position for you
The state messed up (surprise surprise) not convicting him of murder. A bunch of leftist loser in a jury felt bad for the sob story.
He should have been convicted of murder, which you appear to disagree with.
He should be executed, which you disagree with.
He should never be allowed to walk society again. Which you, miraculously, also appear to disagree with
Thats why I don't care about institutions the death penalty anymore. There will always be Marxists who fight to the death to ensure criminals get more chances to commit crime.