It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do any of you who are singing the praises of Williams and his gang even care about those people?
Since we have established that you do indeed oppose the death penalty in all cases, and that you do understand the need for consistent application of the law, then do you not see that pointing at one man and saying, in effect, "This man, because of his repentance and because of his contributions to society, does not deserve to be executed," does not serve, and actually conflicts with, your (and my) values?
The law, for good or ill, exists as it does. So long as it exists as it does, it MUST be applied fairly and equally, or at least as much so as is possible considering the vagaries and failures of human nature. If there was some sort of exception being made in order to execute him, then opposing that execution would probably be valid, but to attempt to make an exception to avoid that execution is to attempt to subvert the law.
The law itself must be changed, but until it is changed, it must be followed.
If it is not to be followed-- if the rule of law is to have no weight-- then changing it will accomplish nothing.
My question was in response to people who are up in arms and crying about Mr. Williams' plight. My question was to try and help me understand how there can be such pity and vocal protest when discussing the death sentence of a man who murdered innocent people who were guilty of "being there that day" and not much else.
My question was where the loudmouth "celebrities" are to protest and flap their lips about the victims of violent crimes. Where is Mr. Doggy Dogg to protest on behalf of the people that Mr. Williams murdered? How about the brave hero cop that was shut by a thug recently in Brooklyn? Where is Mr. Dogg then?
My question is why the bleeding hearts when it comes to a murderer but not when it comes to the murdered?
You call that trollish? Oh well. I call it a question that the same vocal protestors choose to ignore. When one ignores a question they usually don't have an answer. Call it what you will.
Originally posted by cantfoolme...in certain instances (that is why it is called an objective point of view) it is okay to execute a person. this is actually one of the few that i believe it would be unjust. normally if a person kills another i feel as though the same should happen to them. but in this case 24 years later after he has devoted his time and effort to an extremely important cause is not the time to execute him.
Originally posted by FredT However since his incarceration, he has...been nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Literature award.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Subverting the law is completely necessary when the law is broken and twisted into an unrecognizable bramble patch of contradictions and loopholes.
If the law stated that you must beat yourself in the head with a hammer on every second tuesday, to comply would be insane. The only intelligent thing to do would be to disobey.
The law itself must be changed, but until it is changed, it must be followed.
Nonsense, see above example. I understand the philosophy of law, in the sense that some venerate it as a god. I do not. It's a tool like any other, and if improperly assembled or applied, it will maim the user.
Justice is a fine ideal to venerate, but the legal system of men doesn't begin to approach that standard of fairness. I see no sense in venerating a broken idol, while ignoring the perfect ideal.
It's unjust to follow unjust laws. So it follows that in the pursuit of true justice, one must occasionally bypass, bend, or break the laws of men.
...
One of the ways law evolves is when large numbers of people stop obeying and start protesting. This is the power citizens have over their government, because we retain the power of decision at all times.
I understand your argument, regarding the virtue of infallible law, but the reality is that laws are made by men, who are by nature imperfect. The law will always be imperfect and lacking in one area or another. It's up to the individuals to obey those laws that are just, and to disobey those laws that are unjust.
The laws are given their power by the people, and when the laws are dangerous or foolish, the people should follow their inner compass to insure they remain on the right path.
Originally posted by Odium
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, why were the crips founded?
Where did these gangs come from?
Connect all the dots and before you run your mouth, I lived in a 'hood' as you like to call them. In a very poor area, where nearly everyone I grew up with is in prison or has been so I know what these areas are like.
So please, why were the crips founded?
Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Exactly. You just emphasized my point.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Well, for the record I hate celebrity causes, and for the most part I hate celebrities. But that's besides the point.
However, I have found that in quite a few of your posts (if you prefer I quote them back I will, but im sure if you just examine your own writing methods you'll see what i mean) you seem to display quite a bit of racial bias toward black folk which is no way to get a point across in a neutral fashion IMO.
The reason I did, though, quote the above line is in particular when touting non-violence, and a peace loving community the last thing i would think you want to do is use words like hate, be biased one way or another, or show too much negativity, it tends to take away from your credibility.
Again, im not picking on you but just saying it because i DO so much agree with your points that I would hate to see them lose credibility by poor choices of wording.