LIFE in prison for arson!?!

[vaped]

Ok I couldnt even read this whole post Anyone who thinks a guy should get 10 years in prison for burning 10 churches with out anyone in them is fucking sick. Life in prison Should be a thing for rapist and murderers. I read far enough to hear well he could have caused a fire jump and burnt down appartments well lets see he didnt. If you try to shoot someone and miss its not even the same as murder you will get 5 to 10 not life. Here in michigan CSC hardly ever carries life even with minors and penetration not saying it shouldnt but it dont. So because a guy torches a few christ lover centers he loses his life you guys are pathetic as the prohibitionists.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Tiller was assassinated at church.

 

[whodair]

who would win in a fight ??

who would win in a fight ??

arsonist or volunteer firefighter ?? trick question, its the same guy !!!

 

[HempKat]

First of all, nice to meet you, HempKat

Likewise

I know what you were responding to, I read it. I apologize if I was taking the thread off-topic.

Well the topic is about Serial Arson and the Punishments it gets in Texas. Since it involved Churches being burned it's real easy to see how it could drift into religion but yes religion is off topic. Marijuana however is not even closely related to the story this thread is based on so clearly shifting to discussions of marijuana and or it's effect on the brain is way way off topic unless of course you could somehow connect marijuana'a mind altering effects to making people become serial arsonists. If you did that though you'd really piss alot of people on this site off.

You know nobody who fell for this propaganda and perpetuates the rumor that Cannabis fries your brain? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5gBJGnaXs You should meet more people or ask around. I promise you, they exist.

I never said they didn't exist just that nobody I've ever known in my 50+ years on this planet ever believed that propaganda. I'm sure some gullible idiots that never tried marijuana believe it. I meet plenty of people it's just that they're intelligent. If you run into so many in your circles maybe you need to stop hanging around such stupid people?

Again, I know what you were talking in terms of, I read the whole thread.

Okay if you say so but your posts sure weren't indicative of that.

An argumentative objection is raised as "badgering the witness." --- wiki

Are you accusing me of badgering you? lol. I'm not "going out of my way" to do anything. I just found some of your on-topic statements to be curious and wanted you to expand on them.

Of course the topic is not about marijuana. You said

No I'm accusing you of being argumentative. In other words it felt like you were going out of your way to argue about things rather then have a discussion about things.

I guess it's ok to compare arson to homicide, but not to compare religious majority and belief to other kinds of majority and belief. The point of my reply was not about marijuana, the point was "majority" and "belief" means nothing. That and a dollar will get you 1/3 of a gallon of gas. You talk about minority and majority as if that equates with right and wrong. Instead of assuming that's what you mean, I asked questions because

No you assume I equate majority/minority with right/wrong. I live in America and in America, being that it's a democracy, it's majority rules, even if the majority is wrong. You made a blanket statement about religion. I pointed out that the majority of the world disagrees with that blanket statement as at least 2/3rds of the world's population believe in one of the major religions covered by your blanket statements. Perhaps instead of assuming I equate majority/minority with right/wrong you should have asked. I mean you say here "clarification good, assumptions bad" yet you sought no clarification of what I meant you just came out with your opinion of religion replying to a post made to someone other then you.

It's easy to call someone off-topic and question their reading comprehension when they ask you to expand on your points (which may or may not still be on topic). It's a lot easier than addressing the questions head on. If that's what you prefer, no problem. I apologize for trying to engage you in dialogue. If you don't understand my points, that's another issue. Just ask and I can try to explain them further.

It's even easier to do when their posts are off topic and/or seem to indicate a lack of comprehension. You didn't ask me to expand on points. I made comments to other people, before you were even active in the thread and then you came along and latched onto aspects of my posts that you clearly have a bias towards, such as religion.

lmao, funny stuff. I don't have a problem with you, bro. You've made some good points in this thread and the gas thread. Points I was too lazy to make myself. No hard feelings?

How could I have any feelings for you, hard or otherwise? I've just met you. I don't know enough about you to have feelings about you. I just like a good honest debate and it irritates me when people come into a debate and get all hung up on something mentioned such as religion and yet they pretty much ignore the topic.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

TBO, I'm a little curious whether those who would waste these criminals consider the religious aspect.

Not trying to pry. But if anybody wishes to offer [at least] I'm open.

 

[HempKat]

I also lift my bong regularly. I may have been over zealous there, my mistake. The followers of Wotan/Woden/Odin were pretty savage, other than that I've got nothing I can say.




I never said the bible was evil, it's the church that uses fairy tales to control the masses that is evil. I think part of what you said came out wrong because the word IT I marked above refers to religion the way its worded. I agree the bible does not teach subservience to clerics, but the clerics themselves do. This can only be to gain their own ends; power and money. The ignorance and stupidity of the flock is a priest's bread and butter, literally.

Nor did I say you said the bible was evil. You do talk of fairy tales though and all the fairy tales of religion come from the Bible or books similar to it in other religions. In all the mainstream churches what the clergy teach comes from the bible or similar holy book. They usually go to some length to indicate that by quoting chapter and verse of what they feel supports their point. Now based on the story you linked to in one of your replies you fold into your blanket coverage of religion, all these made up religions of modern times such as The Inspirational Tabernacle Church of God. When I speak of religion I don't include those. To me they are like the Churches of Jim Jones or Sung Myong Moon. Self made self serving religions. Yeah with those kinds of religions I would agree that the leader would count on people's ignorance. In mainstream churches however the clergy get paid very little or nothing at all and they have no real power other then what people in their congregation choose to give them or not.

 

[HempKat]

I would account for... according to statue, not hypotheticals.

The serial arsonists in Texas didn't injure or kill. But they apparently stacked up enough church arson in Texas to get life. But it wasn't violent crime because nobody was injured or killed. Texas threw the proverbial "book" at them, not the "good" book.

Maybe, maybe not. But since I'm discussing church burnings and whether they're considered violent crime or just punished harsher according to state, night/day home burning has nothing to do with what's on the jurisdiction's statue.

But I'll go ahead and respond to your scenario. If the jurisdiction has written statue that states what you hypothesize, no harm no foul. If the jurisdiction relies on moral dilemma when sentencing, were fucked.

Hemp, you're a fine fella. But the conclusion you draw is a stretch of the imagination.

I would expect the judge to say, "Guilty as charged."

If the criminal says "sorry, I didn't mean to injure or kill," tough shit.

Actual crime committed vs hypothetical and or moral dilemma.

Overruled - speculation. Now if you talking an actual crime committed according to statute, we have no disagreement. In the above scenario, nobody got hurt or killed. It's a hypothetical. My argument is, put it on the books before throwing it at the perp.

If your hypothetical actually injures or kills = violent crime, regardless of intent. In this case, intent might determine capitol murder as opposed to lesser degree.

But suggesting that I advocate lesser or no sentence for "I'm sorry" isn't reality.

"huge potential" = hypothetical

IMO, charge and sentence according to statute, not the above. Or, incorporate the above into statute so one guy doesn't get significantly more or less depending on who he/she is or isn't.

Okay first of all, as I pointed out to you and others have pointed out, the charge was according to statute in the jurisdiction in which the Arsons were committed. In Texas the law on the book reads that if a person burns a place of assembly or worship then it will be treated as First Degree Arson and subject to a life sentence which in Texas is 30 years. Also it's not that they stacked up enough charges to get life, they could have gotten that from just one charge. In fact they did get life for each of 5 charges. Now if Texas wanted to be harsh or put the Godly hammer down on them because they love their churches so much then they would have made then serve the 5 life sentences consecutively rather then concurently.

Additionally the point about daytime vs nighttime breaking and entering is that laws do take into consideration potential harm and sentence more harshly for it. The breaking and entering laws are examples of that. You made a comment suggesting that laws don't do that. I was proving you wrong. The differences between daytime and nighttime breaking and entering charges is real, I have first hand experience. With nighttime breaking and entering the penalty is harsher because of the potential of running into the homeowner is greater but if it turns out the homeowner isn't there you still get the harsher sentence.

Oh and just for the record huge potential doesn't even come close to being the same thing as hypothetical.

 

[HempKat]

In your hypothetical, the person won't get capitol murder unless the system convicts on gut reaction. In your scenario, the person applies to the statute, regardless of intent. Give them the statue.



Charge according to statute. Or addendum and or modify the statute according to the legal process.

They did charge according to statute though. No need to modify because it's already spelled out. It's been posted twice now by me and someone else so I'm not sure how you keep missing it but here it is again

the offense is a felony of the first
degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that:
(1) bodily injury or death was suffered by any person
by reason of the commission of the offense; or
(2) the property intended to be damaged or destroyed
by the actor was a habitation or a place of assembly or worship.

 

[HempKat]

"First degree", did you get that from the jurisdictional statute? Greensub pasted some info that might interest you.

We already discussed my and others' impression on the surface (Texas = arcane sentencing in this particular case) was wrong. I admitted my narrow view and since reconsidered.

Hemp , the only thing I may or may not disagree with are your potential hypotheticals and whether they follow or don't follow respective jurisdictional statute.

I've dropped lots of posts in this thread. You may have to consider they pretty much reflect the same thing, even when I was under the impression these two were unfairly sentenced:

Sentence according to statute. < Nothing there suggests I recommend my personal preference over law.

They did sentence to statute. They commited their crime in Texas and were sentenced according to the laws on the books in the jurisdiction they commited the crimes in. I'm not throwing out hypotheticals I'm telling you that's the law on the books in Texas.

 

[HempKat]

Actually, I reached that conclusion after I found out that the sentences are concurrent... I almost went back and edited the earlier quotes and responses in my post, as they were no longer relevant, but I got lazy. I would still argue if the sentences were consecutive instead of concurrent (125yrs Vs 25 years).

Everyone (or at least me) has been arguing from the point of view that this was "Life" sentence... not 15-25yrs. As that quote and link was the first time I'd finally come across the specifics of the sentencing I had to change my opinion as new evidence was introduced.

I guess the poll should have been is 20 yrs (with good behavior ) to harsh a sentence for serial arson?

That's not what we've all been arguing about. Now that it is... I guess I have to switch sides to agreeing that 15-25yrs is a fair sentence for serial arson. That guy who only got 6 in an earlier post became a repeat offender.

Just to clarify 15-25 is just when they become eligible for parole, they may or may not be granted parole though. The actual time of a "life" sentence in Texas I believe is 30 years. Whenever people talk about life sentences it's always 25-30 years. I don't think any state has a life sentence that is literally the rest of someone's natural life.

 

[HempKat]

Speculation. I happen to disagree with weird, Hemp. A public forum doesn't necessarily have to address an individual to receive difference of opinion. I quote weird for reference, nothing more.

But I'll split this hair so you don't have to....

So which is it? Do you disagree with weird or you're just quoting him as reference? You can't have it both ways.

You're welcome to address any comments I make. Whether I address you formerly or not. It's not an invitation to personally insult, which neither weird nor I have done.

Thanks but I don't need your invitation. Last time I checked this is a public forum and as such I'm free to respond to or address whoever I please. I'm not sure why you bring up insult, I haven't insulted you and you say that neither you or weird has insulted each other so why are you even bringing that up?

You may disagree with my opinion but I'm referencing the original post with weird, not getting in the middle of the religious (or personal) argument he and another member engaged.

It's not as easy to make sense of a rebuttal that doesn't reference another point of view. Sorry if you think orderly address has anything to do with an opinion I wish to make.

Ya thinks? I don't take issue with their personal squabble. If you wish to reference what I do engage with weird, it's your privilege.

Call it what you will but you replied to Weird's reply to another post from someone other then yourself. It was clear to any with a grasp of the english language that wierd was replying specifically to the other poster who suggested people believing in religion are less then intelligent. Yet you crticized his comment out of context as if he was addressing everyone in the thread which clearly he wasn't. Now I don't have a problem with a person expressing an opinion but I do have a problem when the opinion isn't expressed evenly. Hence me pointing out how you left the poster weird was replying to out of your criticism and he was the one actually calling people ignorant and immature.

You're welcome to your impression Hemp, so am I

I never said you weren't so I don't know why you felt the need to say this?

Speaking of ignorance, I chided weird for taking on comments that appear hateful. It's similar to the negative political rhetoric that goes on since the Tucson tragedy. IMO, doesn't serve any purpose other than lending the appearance of hate.

I know but the problem I have is you didn't chide the person who was also being hateful but shares your opinion of religion. I mean if you are going to take it upon yourself to judge and chide people then you need to do it evenly and fairly without bias or prejudice. If you can't then you shouldn't go around judging and chiding people.

I invited weird to debate:

Church arson with no injury or death doesn't constitute violent crime.

Now wait a minute, were you chiding him for being hateful or inviting him to debate? If you've assumed the role of judge and jury you really shouldn't be taking part in the debate. If you want to be in the debate then you shouldn't be taking it upon yourself to be judging if people are being hateful. When you participate in a debate you're going to find yourself in opposition with those taking the opposing view. As such it's too easy to see their opposition as hateful especially if the point you're making isn't a strong one.

Your welcome to think as you wish, Hemp. For the record, I happen to disagree and I expressed. Not much different than you're doing here, choosing an opposing view and expressing your opinion.

Again my problem is that you have taken it upon yourself to judge weird and yet you leave the person he was talking to out of the judgement. Had you been more fair and just in your judgement I likely wouldn't be having this discussion with you now.

If I keep making (what you consider) knucklehead comments, how you respond may be a good thing. It not so much about me vs weird or yourself. I happen to accept difference of opinion and simply want to know how it's formed. And weird doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want.

I never said any of your comments were knucklehead so don't go around implying that I think something about your comments that I do not.

He's religious and I'm not so I don't argue religion with weird. No harm no foul.

Oh okay you're against religion so now your prejudice is revealled. No wonder you criticized weird but had nothing to say about the poster who also doesn't like religion but was throwing out insulting hateful terms. You may not argue religion with wierd but that's what he and the other poster were arguing when you stuck your opinion in the middle. So there definately was a foul but it's not my place to judge harm as that's up to weird to decide. Judging from his replies to you though I'd suspect he didn't appreciate your input much.

 

[HempKat]

FOR THE RECORD - Sorry to cap, you'd have to read more than a few of my posts to get this...(I'll borrow your phrase)

In Texas they do according to law.

If it's according to law, doesn't matter what state. I don't take issue with jurisdictional statute. According to the info that Greensub posted, the serial nature of the church burnings influenced the sentence.

Hemp, I think you entered this horse race on the final stretch. I'm attempting to assume you're not taking things out of context, not making word battles or not splitting hairs. But I don't think you borrow my gist as much as suggest I'm saying something different.

I don't really mind repeating but can't help it's a little boring.

Well sorry it's boring but you're the one who keeps saying sentence according to statue and not feelings and I'm just trying to show you that's what they did. You made an assumption from Greensubs posting but the serial nature didn't really influence the sentencing. According to the laws on the books, because the targets were a place of assembly or worship even one count of arson of a church was enough to get a life sentence. If they were really taking the serial nature into as much consideration as you think, they would have been more likely to run the sentences consecutive rather then concurrent.

Oh and for the record I was involved in this discussion well before you were, so it is you coming in on the final stretch of the horse race not me.

 

[mocs0]

Well the topic is about Serial Arson and the Punishments it gets in Texas. Since it involved Churches being burned it's real easy to see how it could drift into religion but yes religion is off topic. Marijuana however is not even closely related to the story this thread is based on so clearly shifting to discussions of marijuana and or it's effect on the brain is way way off topic unless of course you could somehow connect marijuana'a mind altering effects to making people become serial arsonists. If you did that though you'd really piss alot of people on this site off.

Like I said, my point was about belief. Not about religion, not about marijuana. Just like the gentleman who brought up "If those were grow houses instead of churches" wasn't going off-topic and wasn't talking about marijuana. You were discussing belief, and I was discussing belief. I'm sorry you can't make that connection, but maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you start telling people they're ignoring the topic and don't understand the context of it.

I never said they didn't exist just that nobody I've ever known in my 50+ years on this planet ever believed that propaganda. I'm sure some gullible idiots that never tried marijuana believe it. I meet plenty of people it's just that they're intelligent. If you run into so many in your circles maybe you need to stop hanging around such stupid people?

You don't have to be best friends with sheep to have contact with them. They're everywhere. Acquaintances? Co-workers? Customers? The cable guy you talk to for 5 minutes? I call BS. Either you have asked every single person you've ever met whether they believe it, you have read everyone you've ever met's mind, or you're the luckiest man on the planet to have never met a stupid person.

No I'm accusing you of being argumentative. In other words it felt like you were going out of your way to argue about things rather then have a discussion about things.

In other words, you think i'm screaming like a mad man with no valid points while you wax eloquent on-topic. Gotcha. Sugar coat it if you want, but that's what you're saying. You're entitled to your opinion. I think you'd rather avoid my questions than answer them, so you accuse me of not trying to have a discussion at all.

No you assume I equate majority/minority with right/wrong. I live in America and in America, being that it's a democracy, it's majority rules, even if the majority is wrong. You made a blanket statement about religion. I pointed out that the majority of the world disagrees with that blanket statement as at least 2/3rds of the world's population believe in one of the major religions covered by your blanket statements. Perhaps instead of assuming I equate majority/minority with right/wrong you should have asked. I mean you say here "clarification good, assumptions bad" yet you sought no clarification of what I meant you just came out with your opinion of religion replying to a post made to someone other then you.

I assumed nothing. That's what asking questions is for. People who make assumptions don't need to ask questions because they assume they already know the answers.

Happy 7 made a blanket statement, then you made a blanket statement. Then I said "Feelings and belief don't give you a leg to stand on." Then I asked a series of questions which clarified why feelings and belief don't give you a leg to stand on. Questions are a way of seeking clarification. I've asked you a bunch of questions to see if you really meant what you said. You have made a bunch of assumptions and ignored my questions.

not have a leg to stand on to be in a situation where you cannot prove something

Do I need to cut and paste a definition of "proof" too or can we agree that proof is a matter of right and wrong?

You might have a leg to stand on if anything more then an infintesimal minority felt the same way about it as you.

It doesn't matter if you were talking to me or somebody else. It doesn't matter the context in which you said it. Can this sentence be true in some cases and false in others? It's words from your mouth. If you meant them, then you mean to equate majority/minority with right and wrong. If you didn't mean them, then just say so.

It's even easier to do when their posts are off topic and/or seem to indicate a lack of comprehension. You didn't ask me to expand on points. I made comments to other people, before you were even active in the thread and then you came along and latched onto aspects of my posts that you clearly have a bias towards, such as religion.

How could I have any feelings for you, hard or otherwise? I've just met you. I don't know enough about you to have feelings about you. I just like a good honest debate and it irritates me when people come into a debate and get all hung up on something mentioned such as religion and yet they pretty much ignore the topic.

Everybody goes off topic, including you. Big deal. Report me to the moderators if it bothers you that much. Otherwise, stop hiding behind it. Stop bringing it up.

Everybody has biases. Everything in nature has a bias. It means nothing in the context you are using it in.

Ok, I didn't ask you to expand on anything. I haven't made any points. I'm trying to incite a riot. If you say so.

You say "it felt like you were going out of your way to argue" so stop acting like you don't know enough to have feelings about me.

My style of debate is dishonest and jibberish, so I'll make it a point not to ask you any more questions ever. You have answered some of my questions indirectly though, so I have closure.

It was nice meeting you. Have a long, safe, happy life.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Okay first of all, as I pointed out to you and others have pointed out, the charge was according to statute in the jurisdiction in which the Arsons were committed.

(old quote)

I don't take issue with jurisdictional statute.

I invite weird (and you) to justify your comments.

Yeah you are because each of these cases is not a reflection of the Church or it's doctrine but rather a reflection of sick twisted individual's that should be taken out back and have a bullet put in their skull.

I ' l l t y p e r e a l s l o w . . .

What's your justification? Weird couldn't/wouldn't answer and neither will you, apparently.

In Texas the law on the book reads that if a person burns a place of assembly or worship then it will be treated as First Degree Arson and subject to a life sentence which in Texas is 30 years. Also it's not that they stacked up enough charges to get life, they could have gotten that from just one charge. In fact they did get life for each of 5 charges. Now if Texas wanted to be harsh or put the Godly hammer down on them because they love their churches so much then they would have made then serve the 5 life sentences consecutively rather then concurently.

Additionally the point about daytime vs nighttime breaking and entering is that laws do take into consideration potential harm and sentence more harshly for it. The breaking and entering laws are examples of that. You made a comment suggesting that laws don't do that. I was proving you wrong.

Let's break it down again...

*OP - Texas looks like an arcane, knee jerk... whatever

*Since then, statue has been acknowledged

*Yet weird and you toss arcane, knee jerk... whatever

So you're invited to tell us how you come up with that kind of stuff.

The differences between daytime and nighttime breaking and entering charges is real, I have first hand experience. With nighttime breaking and entering the penalty is harsher because of the potential of running into the homeowner is greater but if it turns out the homeowner isn't there you still get the harsher sentence.

Repeat after me - There were no victims, there were no victims....

Oh and just for the record huge potential doesn't even come close to being the same thing as hypothetical.

This is more like hyperbole.

 

[Misuseofyou]

Yeah you are because each of these cases is not a reflection of the Church or it's doctrine but rather a reflection of sick twisted individual's that should be taken out back and have a bullet put in their skull. It's also wrong to say that because there are these exceptions that anyone wanting to be a priest, reverend, chaplain, etc. is the type of person to also be a child molester.

Generalizations are usually best avoided because they usually paint too broad a stroke. I mean you can make the generalization that all these priests and what not molesting children are men and therefore all men are child molesters and be no more accurate or inaccurate then your generalizations about Religions.

There's more to it than buggaring a few altar boys. Priests don't work, they sit around and lecture people. They tell people how to live their lives, that they're sinners, etc. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be a dandy boy in flowing robes.. but some do. That's the type of person that wishes to become a priest imo, and when we put that together with a steady stream of altar boys, you know what we get.

Here's a generalization for you: Cope are pieces of shit. I believe that, as do many others. Does that mean there aren't some good ones? Of course not. That doesn't make the generalization wrong, it means there's exceptions to it, as with any other.

Until we eliminate the parasites from our society, and get everyone working towards the common good, we'll go nowhere. Personally I gave up on trying to change anything a long time ago, and just concentrate on the happiness of me and mine. That's enough off topic talk I suppose.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

They did charge according to statute though. No need to modify because it's already spelled out. It's been posted twice now by me and someone else so I'm not sure how you keep missing it but here it is again

Sure there is reason to modify - you want to take them out back.

Lol

 

[Misuseofyou]

Ok just a bit more OT discussion lol.

In all the mainstream churches what the clergy teach comes from the bible or similar holy book. They usually go to some length to indicate that by quoting chapter and verse of what they feel supports their point.

Referencing a book really means nothing. First of all, the bible was not written in English, and is slightly different depending on which version you have. Second, 10 people can read something and give you 10 different answers as to what it means.
Third, there are things taught by Christianity that are not in the bible, such as original sin. What a novel idea, a newborn baby is already a sinner and will go to hell without the intervention of the church. Yep, god loves us so much he wants us to go to hell unless we pay tithe and homage to the priests.. right. Fourth and perhaps most importantly, there are portions that were removed from the bible, because it didn't mesh with the Church's view of things. I'll also point out that if Christ existed, those that wrote about him were not eye witnesses to his 'miracles'.

Self made self serving religions. Yeah with those kinds of religions I would agree that the leader would count on people's ignorance. In mainstream churches however the clergy get paid very little or nothing at all and they have no real power other then what people in their congregation choose to give them or not.

As far as I'm concerned that's the only kind of religion there is. Mormons have a book too you know, it was written by Joseph Smith. That ol' horndog started his own religion just to legitimize polygamy, if you ask me. But his followers are devout. On what criteria do we judge the various religions to separate them from your average cult? Is it the amount of followers? Their overall message? Who really has the right to say? Fuck it, worship a brass donkey if you want, but leave me out of it and don't tell me I'm going to hell if I don't polish him.

 

[Misuseofyou]

Hempkat, I'd also like to say in Disco's defense that he too called my opinions hateful, even though he also is not religious. If I were such a hater though, I'm probably be serving life for arson of a church.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So which is it? Do you disagree with weird or you're just quoting him as reference? You can't have it both ways.

does this have a religious bent?

Thanks but I don't need your invitation. Last time I checked this is a public forum and as such I'm free to respond to or address whoever I please.

You're slicing and dicing and picking apart wierd's post here as if it was personally addressed to you and it wasn't.

I'm not sure why you bring up insult, I haven't insulted you and you say that neither you or weird has insulted each other so why are you even bringing that up?

You're slicing and dicing and picking apart wierd's post here as if it was personally addressed to you and it wasn't.

Call it what you will but you replied to Weird's reply to another post from someone other then yourself. It was clear to any with a grasp of the english language that wierd was replying specifically to the other poster who suggested people believing in religion are less then intelligent.

this is why pot is dangerous

cause some people obviously think all crime has an innocent side to it if pot can be unjustly persecuted

wtf is wrong with you that you even have to ask that serial arson is unacceptable violent crime

yeah genius it shoudl be a fucking slap on the wrist, maybe even let it go med so arsonists who need it can make the fires that let them sleep at night

when i said something incredibly stupid my father woudl ask if it as dark up there in my ass where i was keeping my head

if your going to be a pro murder rape and pillage i suggest you dont be so coy about it and keep it on the DL

Yet you crticized his comment out of context as if he was addressing everyone in the thread...

Your opinion.

Now I don't have a problem with a person expressing an opinion but I do have a problem when the opinion isn't expressed evenly.

Evenly? Is that like fair and balanced?

Hence me pointing out how you left the poster weird was replying to out of your criticism and he was the one actually calling people ignorant and immature.

Read his posts yourself, Hemp. He complains about the same thing he was doing. I pointed out the hyp and asked him to explain his knee jerk approach to sentencing.

You know all this.

I know but the problem I have is you didn't chide the person who was also being hateful but shares your opinion of religion.

F & b. I referenced ignorance bashing and religious bashing posts as "drive byes". Shares is your opinion, my religious status isn't clannish. I don't care about religious and or ignorance squabbles. IMO, weird's comments are arcane because he draws no distinction. But at least he wasn't an amoeba.

I mean if you are going to take it upon yourself to judge and chide people then you need to do it evenly and fairly without bias or prejudice. If you can't then you shouldn't go around judging and chiding people.

Read his post, judge for yourself. If he projects I'll point it out. Make all the ignorance and or religious slights you wish. I won't respond. But if you do it AND cry about it, I'll point it out.

Now wait a minute, were you chiding him for being hateful or inviting him to debate? If you've assumed the role of judge and jury you really shouldn't be taking part in the debate. If you want to be in the debate then you shouldn't be taking it upon yourself to be judging if people are being hateful. When you participate in a debate you're going to find yourself in opposition with those taking the opposing view. As such it's too easy to see their opposition as hateful especially if the point you're making isn't a strong one.

wordy

Again my problem is that you have taken it upon yourself to judge weird and yet you leave the person he was talking to out of the judgement. Had you been more fair and just in your judgement I likely wouldn't be having this discussion with you now.

...It not so much about me vs weird or yourself. I happen to accept difference of opinion and simply want to know how it's formed. And weird doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want.

Oh okay you're against religion so now your prejudice is revealled. No wonder you criticized weird but had nothing to say about the poster who also doesn't like religion but was throwing out insulting hateful terms. You may not argue religion with wierd but that's what he and the other poster were arguing when you stuck your opinion in the middle. So there definately was a foul but it's not my place to judge harm as that's up to weird to decide. Judging from his replies to you though I'd suspect he didn't appreciate your input much.

judgement [sp] is your word...

Hemp, check the definition of agnostic. I pointed out weird's projection, not his religious status. Nice of you to quote me above, it points out what I'm after.

So how do you feel, Hemp? Do you think there's a religious bent to the knee jerk reactions here? I recognize this might be a personal question so feel free to say nunya.

But it's a stretch for you to spend this much time suggesting judgment and legalese. I'm curious why you draw no distinction between this non-violent vs violent crime.

You comment much about potential but you refuse to look at the fact nobody was hurt or killed. IMO, one would infer there's no difference. Instead I get post after post of word battle. Apparently I struck your religious sensitivities by pointing out weird's projection. Thanks for clearing that up.


Would anybody else care to offer some insight so we may avoid the round and round?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well sorry it's boring but you're the one who keeps saying sentence according to statue and not feelings and I'm just trying to show you that's what they did.

I'm on page, Hemp. Bang a gong or something.

It's weird how you justify a legal opinion AND knee jerk, all in the same thread. All the fluff is a ruse.

You made an assumption from Greensubs posting but the serial nature didn't really influence the sentencing. According to the laws on the books, because the targets were a place of assembly or worship even one count of arson of a church was enough to get a life sentence. If they were really taking the serial nature into as much consideration as you think, they would have been more likely to run the sentences consecutive rather then concurrent.

I've already read your legal opinion. I'm curious of your knee jerk comment(s).

Oh and for the record I was involved in this discussion well before you were, so it is you coming in on the final stretch of the horse race not me.

Well, I've humored your interests but you dodge the same thing weird did. Such is life.

BTW, apply your legal expertise to the case record, not just the statute. Without the particular case, you don't know the details of the verdict. It's kind of silly you'd dismiss the serial aspect and embrace "potential" of violence, especially shooting them.

Kind of violent there, Hemp.