Australian Politics Forum - • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #75 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49774
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #76 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Linus

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #77 - Aug 4^th, 2023 at 10:18pm

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 5^th, 2023 at 3:14am by Linus »

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 141823
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #78 - Aug 5^th, 2023 at 6:37am

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 10:18pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

That's no way to talk about Frank.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #79 - Aug 5^th, 2023 at 6:58am

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 10:18pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

Yes actually it is, Lies.

In fact ... as a woman I find your comments abhorrent, inappropriate, ill informed, distressing and disturbing.

You know what I’m beginning to think? I think you enjoy lying. That’s probably why you keep doing it Lies.

Let’s unpack your latest lie.

For starters :

In the Netherlands, the United Nations notes, “abortion is permitted virtually on request at any time between implantation and viability if performed by a physician in a (licensed) hospital or clinic”.

Also, your above comment seriously and disturbingly minimises abortion. A clump of cells ffs! As a woman I’m not going to judge those women who have lost babies by aborting them because I know quite a few of them. And each and every one of the women I know who has had an abortion has been left with dreadful life long mental health issues and inconsolable grief and loss issues which become heightened on the anniversary of the day they had an abortion. They grieve an unborn baby with no name and no grave. There’s no closure....and no support. In fact it was precisely the lack of support which saw these women choosing abortion as their only way out of a scary and lonely situation. Lack of support. LACK OF SUPPORT TO HAVE/RAISE THE BABY THEY EVENTUALLY ABORTED!

I’ve spoken with professional qualified counsellors (in an attempt to understand and support those women I know online and offline) and they themselves agree that lack of support is primarily behind many women choosing abortion as their way out of pregnancy. The actual abortion process has left women scarred for life. Both emotionally and physically. Some examples of these include women dying from post abortion processes. That’s right! Scraping a foetus but not totally removing it can and has later caused sepsis and death. Other women can’t fall pregnant again post abortion because of the damage done to them internally during the abortion process. Oh and I’m referring to abortions undertaken in hospitals. Here in Australia.

So Lies - in future ... be careful when it comes to commenting about women and babies. Why? Because unfortunately (for you) I’ll be watching what you say. And I will have no hesitation in pwning your presumptuous lying arse if I catch you posting your usual foul smelling shyte which consistently emanates from your arse.

And in future kindly use whatever unconscious clump of a few brain cells you MAY have left.

Edit : My apologies. I forgot to wish everyone a good morning (not you Lies).

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 5^th, 2023 at 7:17am by Lisa Jones »

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35770
Gender: female

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #80 - Aug 5^th, 2023 at 7:43am

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

A foetus is only the potential for life.

But let's flip your argument back at you. Are you anti-abortion? If so, why?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35770
Gender: female

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #81 - Aug 5^th, 2023 at 7:44am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 6:37am:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 10:18pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

Oh. is this a gotcha moment Frank? Is an unconscious clump of a few cells shortly after conception, a person?

That's no way to talk about Frank.

Well ..... ?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #82 - Aug 5^th, 2023 at 9:13am

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank.

So certain kettles containing fish are ok to die. The ones you think are ok of course. Once again Lies you think you’re a self appointed voice for others. You’re not. I’m tired of telling you that. Under all your ids.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12903 Armidale Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #83 - Aug 6^th, 2023 at 7:17am A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE. What's the case and the change?
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12903 Armidale Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #84 - Aug 8^th, 2023 at 9:40am FBI: "Good morning Sir. We've found 19 men in a child-abuse internet crime". Oz: "Yeah? Where is it?" FBI "In Oz". Oz " Here? Wow. Thanks mate we'll have a squiz".
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49774
Gender: male

Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE •
Reply #85 - Aug 8^th, 2023 at 1:23pm

mothra wrote on Aug 5^th, 2023 at 7:43am:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:50pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:44pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:12pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 4^th, 2023 at 9:05pm:

Frank, I was placing Scruton in context- philosopher and conservative.

I was merely commenting on his nod to Islam in that quoted paragraph. Wasn't he sacked as housing advisor for allegedly making antisemitic and Islamophobic comments?

I can't off the top of my head say where he talked about the death penalty being a deterrent and gave closure and healing to the victims' families. Whether that is a false attribution or not, the points I made in regard to deterrence and closure are valid criticism.

That some in your opinion are "guilty beyond any doubt" doesn't change the fact that innocents have been executed. At the time of execution they were deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can't look at it in hindsight, Frank. The risk of executing innocents is , in my opinion, prohibitive against the use of the death penalty.

With respect to those rock solid cases, Frank, where you want an "eye for an eye", the death penalty isn't compatible with human rights and human dignity. These concepts, in my opinion, extend to ALL human beings.The death penalty violates the right to life and is considered a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment by many international human rights organizations.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation are more preferable because they avoid the pitfalls I've already pointed out in respect of your position. Do scroll back, I don't want to waste time regurgitating and going in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You are an anti abortionist, I take it.

Different kettles of fish, Frank. That's irrelevant here.

Right to life. Sanctity of life. Must not take life.

Same kettle.

A foetus is only the potential for life.

But let's flip your argument back at you. Are you anti-abortion? If so, why?

I am not in favour of abortion on demand, no questions asked, any time up until birth.

Abortion at the embryonic and foetal stages is not the same.
Abortion at the embryonic stage, after discussion, advice and reflection is something I would support.
Abortion at the foetal stage is more problematic. I would not allow it after half way into the pregnancy unless it is a medical emergency to save the mother's life.
I would not allow it on demand at any stage as a birth control measure. Certainly not as a sex selection method.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 141823 Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #86 - Aug 8^th, 2023 at 1:42pm chimera wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 7:17am: A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE. What's the case and the change? Still waiting for those answers.
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 48896 Gender:	Re: • A STRONG CASE FOR LEGAL CHANGE • Reply #87 - Aug 8^th, 2023 at 1:57pm What a laugh: Larry “. . .as a woman” Larry is an elderly bloke!
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged