Hey, it's Frank, freshly from his geography lesson.

 

Chaean:

“Action is speech. Perhaps you have heard this before, "Action speaks louder than words." (and wow, you read dictionaries. Did it have pictures? Did they pop up?)”

Please refer back to my previous post with the definition of SPEECH. Action is NOT speech. Let me help you with the “Actions speaks louder than words” and what it means to intelligent people. Perhaps a simple example is called for in order to advance the true meaning and perception behind that specific sentence.

Words, also referred to as speech:

1. I will take the trash to the dumpster.
2. I am going to burn the flag.

Action, something that is done with no speech required to accomplish:

1. Taking the trash to the dumpster. (to simplify, picture someone carrying a bag of trash and placing it into a dumpster).
2. Putting up a lighter to a flag in order to set it aflame. (to simplify, picture someone holding a lighter, with a flame, then holding it next to the flag until the material begins to burn on its own.)

Does that at all help to simplify what I am trying to explain. I had hoped that a simple definition from a reputable dictionary would have been sufficient. Obviously I was mistaken in believing that with the educational background required to be an attorney you would have understood.

One’s first amendment rights, specifically “freedom of speech” stops when the speech becomes an action. Now that may be debatable, but no where, at least the Constitution I read, does it state anyone has a right to do any actions they wish and then have that action protected by the first amendment.

Now you can go and call me what you like be it a homosexual, sick bastard what ever it is that seems to be getting you off, since that is your first amendment right “freedom of speech” However it should be known, and I would think well known for someone in your profession that falsely accusing someone of something, in this case a homosexual, is NOT protected by the first amendment “freedom of speech”

Could you for a moment, maybe “pretty please” would help, actually give me an answer to a specific question I asked many post ago, many days ago and try not to spin it? The question was what would your recommended solution be to deal with child molesters, child rapist? You did not answer the question in your last post but rather gave me what your state has on the law books which does NOT work nor guarantee the sick bastard will NEVER do it again. In this case it is a 1 STRIKE rule, not 3 strikes, or 4, or 5, or 6.

Maybe for you it’s ok that a sick bastard gets many opportunities to have his sexual ways with young girls and boys before he actually gets punished, but for the sake of our, well one sided, educated debate here can you at least give it a shot to answer the specific question. I must admit after reading many of your post I find it very hard to believe you are actually an attorney with any type of education. Let me justify that statement, it seems as though most your replies in your post are nothing more then trying to twist what someone has said. You don’t give much detail for any of your own views, you are incapable of giving a specific answer to a specific question but rather try to find flaws in others, and when you are unsuccessful in doing so, which is the majority of the time, you either twist it into some, well goofy (that is not with a capital) I don’t need Disney on my ***, perception of what you may have wished was the originally intent. Then again I could be wrong since some attorneys do that for a living. The attorneys I have known are well educated and very capable of holding an intelligent conversation and backing there statements up with either facts, or their beliefs or both all while not twisting any position I may have had. It is very enlighten to have debates where one and the other, though they may disagree, state their position and back them up with passion.

Oh, and yes the dictionary did have some pictures in it few, but it did have some, no pop-ups. I didn't think there were any dictionaries that did not have some pictures in it.

 

01 XLT Sport:

Action has consistently been interpreted as speech, even by the most conservative of courts. It amuses me when people pull out a dictionary for a legal definition. Suffice to say, a dictionary, even Black's Law Dicitonary, has no legal significance, in that it's neither primary nor secondary, let alone mandatory, source. Dictionaries record the effect, but does not affect, so to speak. Once a term is defined, either through common usage or in a court's ruling, the dictionary dutifully copies it down to its page. It plays no role in itself in defining the word. Therefore, it is an entirely passive and static source. And that's where you get in trouble, relying on a passive, static, essentially dead source. It's fine for a 3rd grade book report but not anymore. That's on par with pulling up a case but failing to shepardize it. (checking to see if the case is current and has not been overturned) At very best, it's sloppy. At worst, well, I've not been immune to that metallic taste in my mouth.

You probably understood about half of the above, and I guess I am forced find solace in that half is more by half than what you would normally have.

And forgive me if I have not parsed my answer in small enough chunks for you to digest, but that's hardly my fault. I believe we have an adequate punishment in the books in Georgia, 5-20 for first offense, and I believe 10 to 30, or life and that cannot be suspended, probated, deferred, or withheld. Sorry, no ginsu chop-choppery. I don't believe in dismemberment (haha) or physical castration. The punishment leaves the judge who is privy to the facts particular to the case with discretion to impose a range of years that is appropriate, with opportunity for both side to argue in aggravation or in mitigation. I think that's called due process which is a Constitutional right, or something like that. I'm not sure if you've read that far. I guess most people read up to 2, **** themselves in delight, forget about 1 and just go home to fondle their guns without reading the rest. Ah well.

 

chaean

I seriously think XLT would be happier if you just answered one of his questions (which you have yet to do). What you have answered has been in the form of other questions that are just getting him more upset.

Anyhoos, perhaps you could return to my question, and simply offer your personal opinion as to how we could "do better" with our children regarding corporeal punishment.

And FYI, I am from the positivist school of jurisprudential thought. I would be interested (in another thread) on your opinion of the 2000 Florida election fiasco, depending on whether you differed with me or not.

 

I will give you all an answer for child molestors. 1 yr is enough. Here is why I say this, I have a very close friend who did a very stupid thing and was sent to prison. He was in for 26 months, now he is writing a book about it. Now to my answer, the other day I was talking to him about all the stuff you see about prison life on tv and in the media, then I asked him about the old story of a big black dude coming into your cell and rapping you then making you his b!tch. He told me that it is all a bunch of hooey. The ONLY inmates that get brutally raped over and over again are Chil Molestors! He told me that they almost never make it through their entire sentance without either being killed or sent to solitary confinement.

So I guess my point is I believe the best punishment for scum sucking child molestors is to make sure that they do go to prison no matter what even if it is only for 1 year.

 

hcmq:

I could go for that. As long as the child molester is put in the general population in prison so he gets his in the end (no pun intended).

It was my understanding, which very well could be wrong, that child molesters got special treatment in prison by being separated from the general population. If that was the case what you described would not happen to them. I would go one step further and make them wear a shirt, while in the general population that says something to the affect of “I love sexually assaulting kids like yours”.

Isn’t it sad how some of the sickest people in our population get special treatment when they commit a crime, yet many of us who support the 2nd amendment (because it is a right) our made out to be some kind of back yard hick or who could care less about gun accidents or deaths because of ill-responsible people that may own them.

I found a news segment interesting the other night. A democrat political commercial (not sure where it was ran) was making out the latest sniper crimes out being the responsibility of the NRA and Republican party because they don’t support gun control. They didn’t bother mentioning the FACTS, that it is because our punishments, which are rarely carried out, are no where stiff enough nor actually deal with the problem in and of it self is the reasons these type of crimes happen.

They see other people getting away with murder so why not, is what they think. When they do get caught they sometimes receive special treatment like some child molesters.


Cpadpl:

“What you have answered has been in the form of other questions that are just getting him more upset.”

It is not so much of his other questions as it is into his liberal way of twisting things and then trying to make me sound like some sick homosexual with weird sexual fantasies. I don’t mind at all someone not agreeing with me. I don’t mind someone calling me on a statement I may have made and ask me to defend my reasons behind it. I can take legitimate criticism if it is just that legitimate.

For example hcmq does not agree with me on the child molester issue and my recommended punishment but he gave his recommendation and never once had to twist anything. You, hcmq, Frank S, Dennis, etc I have great respect for because you all make great points and have intelligent and educated answers or questions. Now I agree my recommended punishment for the molesters is extreme at the very least, but I personally feel what they do to be equally as extreme.

I will note that as much as Dennis and I disagree he has never, in my memory, ever tried to twist something so relevant into something so sick. Dennis, and for that matter, myself can get into so heated debates on here but have yet to attack the others actual character, attack ones belief is, in my opinion fair game, to attack ones character I feel is off limits unless you actually know the person.

 

Oh hell, I don't even think they should be prosecuted.

 

01 XLT Sport:

Isn't it interesting that such a large segment of society who agrees with your particular brand of justice in regard to child molesters are already in prison? And the voting public who presumably does not share your kind of fantasies (based on laws we have on the books) are not in prison? Food for thought.

cpadpl:

I am for corporal punishment! I really am. I think a good percentage of adult population grew up being physically disciplined, and they, as a whole, would not take issues with occasional spanking. But there certainly are limits. Recently, I watched a trial where a church pastor and several of the members stood accused of aggravated assault and cruelty to children. They engaged in almost ritualistic discipline of several children: four adults held a child up suspended in air by his limbs while a fifth struck with a belt. Regrettably, the defendants chosed to represent themselves and could not present a coherent defense, and were found guilty on all counts.

What I am against is an attitude "I'll beat you until you know better." I don't know, perhaps staccato beat of a stick is itself a lesson, encoded in morse some vital ethical and moral insight. What I believe is this: The punishment should accompany a message, rather than being the message itself. As I stated before, we have the capacity to learn beyond the point of a bayonet. Perhaps that's a bit much for 01 XLT Sport to comprehend - I doubt if he even understand what that means. We have to be a reasonable and moderating force in our children's lives, not a vindictive and punishing one. I had to blink at 01 XLT Sport's advocacy of classical conditioning for our children, obviously.

Is there a simple answer? No. But when you're faced with a difficult question, you answer by eliminating the false options.

And with regard to your prior question on our greatest generation having been brought up on steady diet of physical punishments, I think it would be unwise to simplify the issue to that extent. Human development is a multi-faceted and complex topic, with dizzying array of variables. Even biological twins raised together can exhibit different personalities. In order for a single variable (corporal punishment) to be significant, we would have to assume that other variables remained the same. And even that is assuming that our current generation lacks in comparison to the "greatest generation."

And I'm not convinced that is true. True, subsequent generations have not faced the same crucible of courage and valor as those who fought against the Axis and saved our world from great evil had. But that is no reason to find faults with the next generations. I count it as a blessing that we have not had to face the test such as the ones they had. Which is not to say we slacked off. Our best men and women stood with the President in the greatest display of brinksmanship in the history of the world and brought to end the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet others composed the bulwark that under Reagan faced down the Evil Empire.

America has traditionally risen up to meet the challenge. From our revolutionary era ideals of citizen-soldiers and farmer-statesmen come a vision of ready but restrained strength that can be terrible when roused: Strength governed by reason, and projected with indomitable will. America has met every challenge and I can't in all honesty find faults with our generations on matters that count. Sure, I think kids these days have more piercings on average then most guys storming the beach on Normandy. But they probably had more tattoos than their parents. I have faith in our generation.

 

So in your attemp to prove your point you need to insult someones' intelligence? Let me just say you're a lawyer, not an engineer. Other than your insults, your posts are not much more than your lawyerly drivel.
With increasing crime rates and the maniacs I see driving on the streets of Atlanta everyday, cutting people off and what not. My generation (X), is a sad state of affairs for the most part. Storm the beaches of Normandy? Most of them can't even spell Normandy.

 

chaean:

Lets leave it at this, I don’t believe any adult that has violated a child innocence in such a profound way (molesting, rape) of basically stealing their soul and forever ruining their life EVERY deserves another chance in the free society.

You believe it is ok for an adult who has molested and/or raped a child for his sexual satisfaction deserves a few more shots at another innocent child for further sexual satisfaction.

“Isn't it interesting that such a large segment of society who agrees with your particular brand of justice in regard to child molesters are already in prison? And the voting public who presumably does not share your kind of fantasies (based on laws we have on the books) are not in prison? Food for thought.”

If that is true, of which I do not believe, but if so then I will agree to forget my recommendation and only put a child molester/rapist in jail for one week. WITH one condition, they must go to this jail/prison you mention and where a shirt that states “I love being sexually satisfied with your little girls and boys” they must live with the general population. Would you go along with that?

All I can say is GOD help the piece of sh*t that every does that to my daughter or any child I know because he won’t get another shot. If I have to serve time in prison for it I will serve it with PRIDE.

As I said my recommendation may be extreme at the very least, but I will bet there are a few people that agree with it that won’t say so and that’s fine. I just tell it like it is. I can also tell you this IT AINT NO SEXUAL FANTISY of mine, maybe for you since you continue to bring it up. For me its something I think fits the crime PERFECT.

 

cpadpl,

sorry such a delay in answering your response to my post about our right to bear arms not guns.

I believe you are correct in your statement however I beleive it is broader than just guns and arms can mean anything a pitch fork say to fight back a miss behaving government. I wanted to make the statement to show that our society has gotten sidetracked and turned the 2nd into purely a gun thing. Which as I stated before I believe it isn't.

XLT,
thanks for the compliment! One of the main reasons I like this board so much is that most of us love a good debate/dissagreement and it keeps our brains going! Oh and it is good for some good truck discussion too!

Off to work!

 

Let me throw another twist in here (just beacuse I am loving this debate and don't want it to die down) - as was mentioned earlier in this thread, most people seem to focus on the latter part of the Second Amendment ("right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". However, the often ignored second and third words ("well regulated") would seem to imply that there was some provision on the part of the authors for some sort of governing body (not necessarily a Government entity) to oversee how these arms were born. Food for thought...

 

Hey JDMnAR,
I think you hit it on the head . It seems that every phrase is being taken out of context of the whole and analyzed . Then someone , somewhere trys to make a case point on their interpretation of a selected phrase . Your "well regulated" forgot to incude "militia" . Which if you try that one the government will try to shut you down. There again you tried to misconstrue the spirit of the 2nd amendment by conveniently omitting parts of the whole ... you didn't even use the whole phrase . I agree this is a good debate and think you are just adding fuel to the fire. So I think you expect to get flamed .

 

Glad to see someone caught my point. Without the entire text, it can be spun however you want it. And you are pretty close - not exactly expecting to get flamed, more just stirring the pot a little bit!

As I have already mentioned, I am pro-gun, but hate when people have blinders on when supporting their position, be it pro- or anti-. It is good to have a strongly held position about something that is often seen as "black and white" (like this issue), but you have to be willing to at least try to look at both sides. Perhaps to put a different spin on it: there is a reason that football teams spend hours studying tapes of the opposition. It better prepares them to emerge victorious. Defeating a known "enemy" (for lack of a better word), where you know there strengths and weaknesses, and any patterns they exhibit in their strategy, is far easier than fighting someone in the dark, where you don't know what their next move is going to be. By anticipating what the next argument is going to be, you can be two (or three) steps ahead of them.

 

this is how we stir the pot, stir the pot!

I do believe "Taking it out of context" was mentioned 3-4 pages ago! And the madison papers were brought up to dispell the "out of context" statement. I am too tired to read back but maybe you can!

Imagine if you had to write a replacement constitution today to work for the next 100 years, who would you have write it??

Wow deep!