Let's say it out loud: 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟. Religion requires the believer to subscribe to tenets and beliefs which are, on their face, UNBELIEVABLE by any rational, reality-based person. Yet because religion and faith are generally considered to be positive influences on society, they are accepted and given a pass for their lack of foundation in fact.
When such delusions veer into the realm of the law, as was the case here, the fact that the delusions alleged were religious in origin or basis should have NO IMPACT on any rulings or judgments. If said delusions impact a second or third party negatively, there must be consequences, whether those involve the penal system or the mental health system. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" should be thrown out as a possible result, particularly if harm has been done.
Religion has been used as an excuse entirely too often. That needs to stop.
"I was never very religious, never a big believer in God, because God never endorsed me. So why should I endorse him?" -- Donald Trump
From the opening monologue and prelude to the opening song, It Isnt Easy Being God (c), in Dictator for a Day, the musical comedy about The Orange One playing off-Broadway this weekend only Oct 4-6, 2024 in New York City. Get tickets at
"...because religion and faith are generally considered to be positive influences on society, they are accepted and given a pass for their lack of foundation in fact."
Is this the real reason? I agree this was probably the ostensible reason once -- religious leaders promoted the idea that "religion is good for society" -- but the more people turn away from religion (and that exodus is growing annually), the more outdated this explanation feels.
At some point, the idea that "religion is generally regarded as a positive influence" may need to yield to a more up-to-date explanation, like "this is just how it's always been". It is tradition that keeps religion so deeply rooted in society. Tradition has always been a powerful friend of religion, allowing it to endure far beyond its expiration date.
Donald Trump won’t be defeated by investigative journalism. He won’t be beaten by incisive op-ed pieces. He won’t be stopped by scandals, exposés, progressive PACs, former prosecutors with permanent residency on MSNBC, books by disloyal former staffers, federal charges of treason, ironclad proof of electoral fraud, massive fines, and jury verdicts in civil rape trials. Even bullets are no match for the Orange One! Trump can’t even defeat himself.
How do we deal with an existential threat that becomes more serious the more seriously we treat it?
With 90 minutes of musical mockery!
"Dictator for a Day is a small ensemble live musical comedy built around a dozen or so original songs in the vein of Mel Brooks’ The Producers; You’re Welcome America, starring Will Ferrell; and the songs of legendary political satirist Tom Lehrer.
Dictator for a Day is MAGA meta-humor wrapped in a modern American songbook so warped Ron DeSantis won’t know whether to hum it or ban it. And it’s all delivered in about an hour and a half with a smile by a former (if you believe the fake news) U.S. President who has mastered the fine art of demented delusional stream-of-consciousness oratory that is not in any way, shape, or form constrained by history, facts, or the laws of physics."
In Mr Kando's case, the appelate court said that he couldn't have known his actions were illegal because of his religious belief at the time. But, why? Christians use their beliefs to justify actions that the know are illegal 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. Was the original sentencing done with the input of mental health experts?
This does highlight the problem when delusional thinking intersects with both criminal law and religion.
The Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, the DSM, psychology's attempt to catalog all mental disorders and how to diagnose them, exempts behaviors that would otherwise be said to indicate a disorder if that behavior is caused by religious beliefs. I recommend anyone reading this to get a pdf version of the document and search for 'religious', the whole scroll area will be littered with the little tick marks indicating a find, one section is almost solid ticks, guess which? Sexual disorders.
The article raises a very problematic issue, how do courts deal with insanity without having to declare what is and isn't 'real' religion. What the DSM is showing us is that religious belief leads to behaviors identical to behavior exhibited by those with mental disorders. Maybe we should finally stop this BS and admit religious belief leads to insanity but also stop allowing that to be used as an excuse to be found not guilty because one chooses to believe, just like being drunk isn't an excuse for criming.
There needs to be a mechanism built into law which starts with a finding of fact: did the accused commit what would otherwise be a crime? If so, then for whatever reason, that person needs to be off the streets to protect and provide for the common good.
I have long been of the opinion religion excuses a lot of mental illness. Culturally, we tend to excuse it because religion is socially acceptable mental illness except on those cases when the mentally ill person commits a civil crime, and not always then. I see it as a fundamental flaw in the human species, and I don't think a solution is going to present itself anytime soon.
Off topic but I just had to rant. Story about a guy who shot his wife to death-near Houston. Guy named Dakari. Made his two teenage daughters go to the truck and turn the music up loud. He goes in the house and gets his assault rifle and kills their mother-his wife. Children heard it happen. They called their other to alert her to what was happening. He just got sentenced this week-65 years-no parole for at least 30. His pic shows a guy out of the movie Deliverance. The victims mothersaid she doesn't hate him-and HOPES THAT IT WILL ALL WORK OUT FOR THE GOOD IN LIFTING UP GOD!!!!!!! Jesus Christ, Goddamn, WTF-god don't need any lifting-it's not him laying on the floor dead. I'm so fucking tired of people who look at everything as a chance to "lift up god, glorify god, worship god, do everything for HIS glory. Goddamn.
OT: Can't spend much time at FA for a while. My daughter and son-in-law's house on Treasure Island was flooded (along with 10,000 other houses). We're throwing out furniture and drywall and trying to clean up and salvage what's possible.
What's the awesome part, you ask? The 𝘢𝘸𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 part is that NASA is still doing science with a robot spaceship that's as old as Star Wars, despite it being so far away now that it takes a day and a half to receive a response to any signal sent out to the probe. JPL builds shit to 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵.
As is, our ability to communicate with the Voyager probes from Earth is likely to fail before the probes themselves do- it's estimated that they will be out of range in about another decade, but the RTGs both Voyagers were equipped with aren't expected to drop below 50% of their original output for another 40 years- meaning they'll both be collecting data long after we've lost the ability to retrieve it.
It'll be interesting to see if the next generation of scientists and engineers create a long-range communication system capable of re-establishing contact with these incredible machines... it's not unthinkable that the great-grandchildren of the original Voyager team might be analyzing data their ancestors' creations gathered for them. That's... well, it's far more inspiring than any silly superstition, that's for sure!
OT: I got my absentee ballot today. Voted for Harris/Walz. Voted for Democratic big wigs. Voted for local individuals from both parties, too. Got it signed, sealed, delivered to the local drop off box behind City Hall. DONE!
Let's roll out the red carpet for Mrs. Harris and Coach Nov. 5th and beyond!!
I've been listening to MAGA nutcases saying that early and postal voting should be stopped because it leads to corruption or whatever somehow. Never heard any of them say why early or postal voting is a bad thing, and nobody ever seems to ask them why early or postal voting is a bad thing. I really think that the media are not doing their job in this election.
Refusing to fact check the vice presidential debate is another example.
Oh, that's easy. Early voting and voting by mail are bad things because, at the end of the day, they think 𝘢𝘭𝘭 voting is bad. They want a dictator or a king, not elections- at least not any that the 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 (read that: 99% of the population) get to vote in.
Early voting allows people who are paid hourly to vote without losing money. Law says your employer has to give up to 3 hours off to vote, doesn't say they have to pay you.
Mail-in voting got a bad rap in 2020 when those who took COVID seriously were more likely to use it rather than risk the polls with all the plague rats who refused to social distance.
I'd like to get a little lapel sticker that says "I voted for Harris/Walz" just to piss off the Trumpers. I'd wear that thing all day every day, until it fell apart. Most of them, I've found, are too chickenshit to challenge people one-on-one. They just give you the stink-eye because they think that's intimidating.
But I won't get a bumper sticker. The last time I had a political bumper sticker on my car (for Obama), some asswipe keyed the damn car front to back, both sides. $1300 for a paint job, and my insurance at the time said they did not cover vandalism. I should have told them I drove too close to a fence post. Twice.
Criminal defendants should not be allowed to use their religion as a legal defense strategy at all. It shouldn't be allowed for one simple reason: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵-𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰. Thus, a religiously-motivated crime is, in addition to its other aspects, also inherently a violation of the victim's own freedom of religion (or, more specifically, their freedom 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 their assailant's particular version of it). Delusion or no delusion, the offender's religious motivations are a 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 factor, rather than a mitigating one. Once you drag religion into it, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦: forcing your religion upon another unwilling person.
As the saying goes: your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose.
I'd also compare this kind of defense strategy to gay/trans panic defenses (which are, yes, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 fucking legal in some parts of this shithole country). Judges should recognize this shit for what it is: victim-blaming. It's a claim that the victim 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 because of who they were, what they believed, what they were wearing... all equally invalid justifications for violence. "But, your honor, I couldn't help myself! The deceased was just so... 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 that I 𝘩𝘢𝘥 to kill them, see?!" That kind of ox-shit does not belong in any court of law. Its usage should be rejected out of hand, and be considered as an aggravating factor at sentencing- if not used as cause to bump the whole case over the line for the prosecutor to add hate crime charges.
If the defendant is legally insane, then they're legally insane, whether they're religious or not; that should be regarded as a separate issue entirely, to be determined by a qualified mental health professional. The court need take no position on the religious aspect of a defendant's plea of insanity, except to dismiss it as irrelevant to the issue of their competence to stand trial. You want your religion to be taken seriously as a thing it is reasonable for a grown-ass adult to wholeheartedly believe in? 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘦. Then you get the serious, grown-up consequences when you use it as an excuse to murder someone. You don't get to have it both ways and claim that it's just temporary insanity when it's more convenient for you to use it as a smokescreen, then turn around and say it's totally sincere when you want to use it as a cudgel. Fuck. That. Noise.
I'll just add this here: I don't think that a judge, or a shrink, or anybody should be determining on-the-spot whether someone's religion is sincere or not. IMO, it should either be assumed that it is always sincere, or always not, because there's no way to falsify either claim. In our society, with our laws, the only possible stance must be that religious belief is sincere. We should take people at their word with regards to who they are and what they believe.
But the consequence of doing so is that religion can't then be excused away as insanity, or used as a mitigating factor, when it becomes someone's motivation for doing harm. If we have to regard religion as something sane and reasonable people can believe in, then actions motivated by religious belief must be treated in the same way as actions taken based on any more concrete justification. Otherwise, religion is just a catch-all "Nope!" card to any and all consequences... which I'm sure a great many religious people would love, but that's no way to operate a just and equal society.
Why would any omnieverydamnedthinggod need mere humans to do its deeds? That entire premise blows their entire omnnithisandthat claim out of the water.
Given the fact that the eye in the sky has had millennia to do away with Satan and been completely unsuccessful, what chance did Kondo think HE'D realistically have to get it done?
As this case illustrates, it's getting harder and harder to say that that religion ISN'T some form of insanity.
If I had to see Cruz's mug every day, I'd be a basket case. In Florida, we still have religion-crazed tradcath Marco Rubio and Lex Luthor (clueless Rich Boy Rick Scott), who was judged a real prick when he was Florida's governor (then along came De Satan, who lowered the bar all the way down to the earth's core, but that's neither here nor there at the moment).
But both of them together are not as utterly revolting as one Ted Cruz.
In Minnesota, we have two women Democrats in the US Senate, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith -- what a difference a state makes.
This cannot be that difficult. Yes, you have the right to your religious beliefs. No, you do not have the right to impose them upon others, and if you murder someone in the name of your God, you can take it up with him from prison.
He does have those creepy dead eyes. Central Casting: vampire, psycho ex-boyfriend/stalker, witch hunter, evil cyborg, serial killer...any more suggestions?
Read Leviticus 19:33-34 out loud to Vance. That's the scripture which God himself tells the Chosen People NOT to mistreat foreigners living among them; that they had to be treated as native-born. Not only this, but they were also to be loved.
In which case we then read him the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 where the xtian savior says he didn't come to do away with the Old Law (OT), but to fulfill it and that until heaven and earth disappear and "everything is accomplished" (meaning his return to set up his kingdom) that not a single stroke or the smallest letter would by any means disappear from the Old Law.
Earth has not disappeared and Jesus has not returned. Xtians are still under the Old Law. Oops!
Then he is a liar and gives lip service only to his faith in his savior. Jesus would spew him out of his mouth. As Vance denies Jesus and his words, Jesus denies Vance to his Father.
Couchfucker should be grateful that virtually nothing in the bible is real. He'd spend eternity trying to reinvent air conditioning.
"When it comes to pushing back against the claim , broadcast to millions of people around the world, that a group of people are in America illegally, when, in fact, they are here legally, rules are meant to be broken, babe."-Jesus*
It would seem that if god told you to commit a violent crime you can get away with it because in order to find you guilty a judge would have to declare your beliefs bullshit. Which the court said they can't do. OTOH if the man in the moon told you to do it, you can be found guilty.
It's untrue that the courts can't take a position on religion. They do so every time they throw out imprecatory prayer as not an assault or attack. They don't like to do it, but they can if they must.
And it's entirely possible to rule insanity without assessing whether the victim is Satan. You say "this guy's brain is broken, so we don't have to take a position on whether the victim is Satan or not to rule that the attacker belongs in a place that can heal his brain more than he belongs in prison."
Last thought: I think the most reasonable way to proceed is focus on whether the attacker meets some clinical definition of insanity, identify whether it's biochemical vs. psychological when you can, but beyond that not get too wrapped around the axle as to what their delusion is. For whatever reason, if they don't understand what they did, punishing them for it is just cruel and pointless. Fix them instead (but keep society safe from them while you do it).
The ability to believe in something that has not been and probably will not be proven to exist, is it a flaw? Does it show that such believers are easy to fool?
In theory it's a flaw. Empirically, humans appear to be so good at compartmentalization that it's just not a good proxy to predict antisocial or illegal behavior, or even susceptibility to grift.
AIUI con men are happy to try their tricks on intelligent well-educated people, because such marks tend to believe con artistry is about intelligence (making them immune) rather than skill and training (making them equally vulnerable).
AIUI judges can order one, and the defense can have one done and try and include it as evidence. But because our system is adversarial, defending the accused is not the job of the state.
It seems to me that once the verdict is reached, a mental health evaluation wouldn't be defending the accused. It seems like due diligence to ensure proper sentencing. Which leads to the bigger question: Should justice be punitive and retributive, or rehabilitative and restorative? Or some combination?
Since 'innocent by reason of insanity' is a verdict, you have to do it before the verdict not after.
As a liberal yes I agree it makes sense for the state to assess sanity after a guilty verdict is reached ,in cases where the person's sanity is seriously in question. But cynically/practically, I can't see any state wanting to spend the extra money to do that after they/the DA's office have already successfully gotten a guilty verdict. There's no short-term return on investment to drive that to happen.
From what I've read in the TBT, it seems to me the judge and the opposing counsels each choose a shrink. The defense will hope for them saying their client is insane, while the persecutor hopes theirs at least says the defendant is sane.
Florida got something right? How did that happen? Oh wait, they would probably consider "Christian counselors" with a one day online "course" to be mental health professionals.
Let's say it out loud: 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟. Religion requires the believer to subscribe to tenets and beliefs which are, on their face, UNBELIEVABLE by any rational, reality-based person. Yet because religion and faith are generally considered to be positive influences on society, they are accepted and given a pass for their lack of foundation in fact.
When such delusions veer into the realm of the law, as was the case here, the fact that the delusions alleged were religious in origin or basis should have NO IMPACT on any rulings or judgments. If said delusions impact a second or third party negatively, there must be consequences, whether those involve the penal system or the mental health system. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" should be thrown out as a possible result, particularly if harm has been done.
Religion has been used as an excuse entirely too often. That needs to stop.
Yup.
Not guilty by reason of insanity? He fucking STABBED a guy. He's guilty as hell.
🎯
"I was never very religious, never a big believer in God, because God never endorsed me. So why should I endorse him?" -- Donald Trump
From the opening monologue and prelude to the opening song, It Isnt Easy Being God (c), in Dictator for a Day, the musical comedy about The Orange One playing off-Broadway this weekend only Oct 4-6, 2024 in New York City. Get tickets at
Dictatorforadayshow.com .
https://youtu.be/RBCl8_x7iIs?si=VpdQAY1yyoW9sjMJ
https://youtu.be/MGWsExhlUYM?si=SNdSc3ZJJ9P-k83n
"...because religion and faith are generally considered to be positive influences on society, they are accepted and given a pass for their lack of foundation in fact."
Is this the real reason? I agree this was probably the ostensible reason once -- religious leaders promoted the idea that "religion is good for society" -- but the more people turn away from religion (and that exodus is growing annually), the more outdated this explanation feels.
At some point, the idea that "religion is generally regarded as a positive influence" may need to yield to a more up-to-date explanation, like "this is just how it's always been". It is tradition that keeps religion so deeply rooted in society. Tradition has always been a powerful friend of religion, allowing it to endure far beyond its expiration date.
Dictatorforadayshow.com
Donald Trump won’t be defeated by investigative journalism. He won’t be beaten by incisive op-ed pieces. He won’t be stopped by scandals, exposés, progressive PACs, former prosecutors with permanent residency on MSNBC, books by disloyal former staffers, federal charges of treason, ironclad proof of electoral fraud, massive fines, and jury verdicts in civil rape trials. Even bullets are no match for the Orange One! Trump can’t even defeat himself.
How do we deal with an existential threat that becomes more serious the more seriously we treat it?
With 90 minutes of musical mockery!
"Dictator for a Day is a small ensemble live musical comedy built around a dozen or so original songs in the vein of Mel Brooks’ The Producers; You’re Welcome America, starring Will Ferrell; and the songs of legendary political satirist Tom Lehrer.
Dictator for a Day is MAGA meta-humor wrapped in a modern American songbook so warped Ron DeSantis won’t know whether to hum it or ban it. And it’s all delivered in about an hour and a half with a smile by a former (if you believe the fake news) U.S. President who has mastered the fine art of demented delusional stream-of-consciousness oratory that is not in any way, shape, or form constrained by history, facts, or the laws of physics."
"Even imaginary bullets are no match for the Orange One!"
Fixed it for you.
Aha. I had some trouble understanding what you meant.
In Mr Kando's case, the appelate court said that he couldn't have known his actions were illegal because of his religious belief at the time. But, why? Christians use their beliefs to justify actions that the know are illegal 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. Was the original sentencing done with the input of mental health experts?
This does highlight the problem when delusional thinking intersects with both criminal law and religion.
The Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, the DSM, psychology's attempt to catalog all mental disorders and how to diagnose them, exempts behaviors that would otherwise be said to indicate a disorder if that behavior is caused by religious beliefs. I recommend anyone reading this to get a pdf version of the document and search for 'religious', the whole scroll area will be littered with the little tick marks indicating a find, one section is almost solid ticks, guess which? Sexual disorders.
The article raises a very problematic issue, how do courts deal with insanity without having to declare what is and isn't 'real' religion. What the DSM is showing us is that religious belief leads to behaviors identical to behavior exhibited by those with mental disorders. Maybe we should finally stop this BS and admit religious belief leads to insanity but also stop allowing that to be used as an excuse to be found not guilty because one chooses to believe, just like being drunk isn't an excuse for criming.
There needs to be a mechanism built into law which starts with a finding of fact: did the accused commit what would otherwise be a crime? If so, then for whatever reason, that person needs to be off the streets to protect and provide for the common good.
The grandfather who catches a man raping his 5-year-old granddaughter and kills the fucker is unlikely to be a threat to the common good.
I have long been of the opinion religion excuses a lot of mental illness. Culturally, we tend to excuse it because religion is socially acceptable mental illness except on those cases when the mentally ill person commits a civil crime, and not always then. I see it as a fundamental flaw in the human species, and I don't think a solution is going to present itself anytime soon.
Off topic but I just had to rant. Story about a guy who shot his wife to death-near Houston. Guy named Dakari. Made his two teenage daughters go to the truck and turn the music up loud. He goes in the house and gets his assault rifle and kills their mother-his wife. Children heard it happen. They called their other to alert her to what was happening. He just got sentenced this week-65 years-no parole for at least 30. His pic shows a guy out of the movie Deliverance. The victims mothersaid she doesn't hate him-and HOPES THAT IT WILL ALL WORK OUT FOR THE GOOD IN LIFTING UP GOD!!!!!!! Jesus Christ, Goddamn, WTF-god don't need any lifting-it's not him laying on the floor dead. I'm so fucking tired of people who look at everything as a chance to "lift up god, glorify god, worship god, do everything for HIS glory. Goddamn.
You and me both.
https://www.wltx.com/article/news/crime/man-sentenced-shot-wife-jersey-village-area-2021/285-e1eef5c5-7ef5-4821-a4dc-8a202571e3b6#:~:text=Dakari%20Lenear%20told%20his%20wife%20Rhonda%20that
OT: Can't spend much time at FA for a while. My daughter and son-in-law's house on Treasure Island was flooded (along with 10,000 other houses). We're throwing out furniture and drywall and trying to clean up and salvage what's possible.
Damn. Do please hang in there!
😟 Sorry to hear.
Sad to hear.
All the best to your daughter and son-in-law.
OT : DM is still intubated, but is she can press a hand when asked and seems to be awake in the afternoon. I will go see her this week.
The nurse came today. Welcome back gochujang, japchae marinade and soy sauce 🤤
OT- Sad-but-also-kinda-awesome news for science fans... NASA has had to shut down another one of Voyager 2's instruments to keep the rest of the probe's systems running with the diminishing power generated by its aging RTGs: https://apnews.com/article/nasa-voyager-2-spacecraft-interstellar-05b554f333b24f2a39f77415d8fa2b2a
What's the awesome part, you ask? The 𝘢𝘸𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 part is that NASA is still doing science with a robot spaceship that's as old as Star Wars, despite it being so far away now that it takes a day and a half to receive a response to any signal sent out to the probe. JPL builds shit to 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵.
Needed a gas station on Pluto. "Last Stop For Fuel!". : )
They didn't contract it out to Boeing or we'd have been lucky for it to make it past Mars.
As is, our ability to communicate with the Voyager probes from Earth is likely to fail before the probes themselves do- it's estimated that they will be out of range in about another decade, but the RTGs both Voyagers were equipped with aren't expected to drop below 50% of their original output for another 40 years- meaning they'll both be collecting data long after we've lost the ability to retrieve it.
It'll be interesting to see if the next generation of scientists and engineers create a long-range communication system capable of re-establishing contact with these incredible machines... it's not unthinkable that the great-grandchildren of the original Voyager team might be analyzing data their ancestors' creations gathered for them. That's... well, it's far more inspiring than any silly superstition, that's for sure!
Or if one gets religion and returns to Earth to merge with its creator.
V'Ger!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaVqdz_Vk
(Carbon units are not true life forms.)
Well, I guess, technically, JD and Donnie are carbon units.
??? I thought they were stale donut and greasy hamberder units?
OT: I got my absentee ballot today. Voted for Harris/Walz. Voted for Democratic big wigs. Voted for local individuals from both parties, too. Got it signed, sealed, delivered to the local drop off box behind City Hall. DONE!
Let's roll out the red carpet for Mrs. Harris and Coach Nov. 5th and beyond!!
I've been listening to MAGA nutcases saying that early and postal voting should be stopped because it leads to corruption or whatever somehow. Never heard any of them say why early or postal voting is a bad thing, and nobody ever seems to ask them why early or postal voting is a bad thing. I really think that the media are not doing their job in this election.
Refusing to fact check the vice presidential debate is another example.
Oh, that's easy. Early voting and voting by mail are bad things because, at the end of the day, they think 𝘢𝘭𝘭 voting is bad. They want a dictator or a king, not elections- at least not any that the 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 (read that: 99% of the population) get to vote in.
Gee, baby donny voted by mail the last election, and plans to do the same this year.
You mean...like all those other horrible people that he loathes so much? Did anyone tell him?
“Do as I say….etc”
All of the above points you just made are part of what is slowly roasting my peanuts this election cycle.
You have nuts?
Well, I was looking for an alternative to "cooking my goose" which is way too overused.
I'm open to suggestions.
“Chaps my ass”
Early voting allows people who are paid hourly to vote without losing money. Law says your employer has to give up to 3 hours off to vote, doesn't say they have to pay you.
Mail-in voting got a bad rap in 2020 when those who took COVID seriously were more likely to use it rather than risk the polls with all the plague rats who refused to social distance.
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/461941122_10230585738060950_7528358541315679126_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=ddqV0VJxTKYQ7kNvgGENCfz&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&_nc_gid=A0XnuGAAJvleHVBZPwMUyez&oh=00_AYA2FRhs5X5Vknz1V3rQUnkmt6lwMu_DRmnDeRXUlW7mfQ&oe=67035256
Unfortunately, that blip won't even pinged on MAGAt radar.
Don't forget to do it again in person and encourage all of your dead friends and relatives to vote too!
I'm already lining up ballots for all those aborted fetuses! They've gotta be good for 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 other than making stew with.
I like to puree them into smoothies.
Mine is wending its way through the mails.
Did you get an "I Voted" sticker?
I always get those, no matter how small or local.
Do you vote by mail?
Paper ballot/drop box.
Just read on my county's election website that it no longer has drop boxes. Gee, I wonder why that is.
I'd like to get a little lapel sticker that says "I voted for Harris/Walz" just to piss off the Trumpers. I'd wear that thing all day every day, until it fell apart. Most of them, I've found, are too chickenshit to challenge people one-on-one. They just give you the stink-eye because they think that's intimidating.
But I won't get a bumper sticker. The last time I had a political bumper sticker on my car (for Obama), some asswipe keyed the damn car front to back, both sides. $1300 for a paint job, and my insurance at the time said they did not cover vandalism. I should have told them I drove too close to a fence post. Twice.
✔👍👏🎉🎈
Criminal defendants should not be allowed to use their religion as a legal defense strategy at all. It shouldn't be allowed for one simple reason: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵-𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰. Thus, a religiously-motivated crime is, in addition to its other aspects, also inherently a violation of the victim's own freedom of religion (or, more specifically, their freedom 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 their assailant's particular version of it). Delusion or no delusion, the offender's religious motivations are a 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 factor, rather than a mitigating one. Once you drag religion into it, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦: forcing your religion upon another unwilling person.
As the saying goes: your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my nose.
I'd also compare this kind of defense strategy to gay/trans panic defenses (which are, yes, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 fucking legal in some parts of this shithole country). Judges should recognize this shit for what it is: victim-blaming. It's a claim that the victim 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 because of who they were, what they believed, what they were wearing... all equally invalid justifications for violence. "But, your honor, I couldn't help myself! The deceased was just so... 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 that I 𝘩𝘢𝘥 to kill them, see?!" That kind of ox-shit does not belong in any court of law. Its usage should be rejected out of hand, and be considered as an aggravating factor at sentencing- if not used as cause to bump the whole case over the line for the prosecutor to add hate crime charges.
If the defendant is legally insane, then they're legally insane, whether they're religious or not; that should be regarded as a separate issue entirely, to be determined by a qualified mental health professional. The court need take no position on the religious aspect of a defendant's plea of insanity, except to dismiss it as irrelevant to the issue of their competence to stand trial. You want your religion to be taken seriously as a thing it is reasonable for a grown-ass adult to wholeheartedly believe in? 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘦. Then you get the serious, grown-up consequences when you use it as an excuse to murder someone. You don't get to have it both ways and claim that it's just temporary insanity when it's more convenient for you to use it as a smokescreen, then turn around and say it's totally sincere when you want to use it as a cudgel. Fuck. That. Noise.
I'll just add this here: I don't think that a judge, or a shrink, or anybody should be determining on-the-spot whether someone's religion is sincere or not. IMO, it should either be assumed that it is always sincere, or always not, because there's no way to falsify either claim. In our society, with our laws, the only possible stance must be that religious belief is sincere. We should take people at their word with regards to who they are and what they believe.
But the consequence of doing so is that religion can't then be excused away as insanity, or used as a mitigating factor, when it becomes someone's motivation for doing harm. If we have to regard religion as something sane and reasonable people can believe in, then actions motivated by religious belief must be treated in the same way as actions taken based on any more concrete justification. Otherwise, religion is just a catch-all "Nope!" card to any and all consequences... which I'm sure a great many religious people would love, but that's no way to operate a just and equal society.
Thanx. :)
Brava! "God" is not a Get Out of Jail FREE card and should NEVER be one in a secular government with secular laws.
Why would any omnieverydamnedthinggod need mere humans to do its deeds? That entire premise blows their entire omnnithisandthat claim out of the water.
Very well said.
Everyone should read this.
"Kando believed he was trying to kill Satan."
Given the fact that the eye in the sky has had millennia to do away with Satan and been completely unsuccessful, what chance did Kondo think HE'D realistically have to get it done?
As this case illustrates, it's getting harder and harder to say that that religion ISN'T some form of insanity.
Excuse me, what does God need with a hit man?
To kill the person who owns the starship so he can steal it, of course.
Of course! Why didn’t I think of that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMrD_evZorw
I didn't see the video. The first thing that popped up on YouTube was Ted Fucking Cruz's face and I reflexively closed the tab.
Congrats on not vomiting.
I've lived in Texas since 2006. If I vomited every time I saw Ted Fucking Cruz's face, I'd have been continuously vomiting for 12 years.
If I had to see Cruz's mug every day, I'd be a basket case. In Florida, we still have religion-crazed tradcath Marco Rubio and Lex Luthor (clueless Rich Boy Rick Scott), who was judged a real prick when he was Florida's governor (then along came De Satan, who lowered the bar all the way down to the earth's core, but that's neither here nor there at the moment).
But both of them together are not as utterly revolting as one Ted Cruz.
In Minnesota, we have two women Democrats in the US Senate, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith -- what a difference a state makes.
Always loved this one.
w/lyrics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp1IBci3_dI
This cannot be that difficult. Yes, you have the right to your religious beliefs. No, you do not have the right to impose them upon others, and if you murder someone in the name of your God, you can take it up with him from prison.
It should be that simple, right?
They always object to the truth.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8e0a2b972f653b0b5117fda56d9bf506ac80fc43bd60a98c196b4dc233822b5c.jpg
For them, truth is like holy water to vampires.
J.D. has better teeth than Dracula, though,...so, there's that.
Implants. Every thing about him is fake.
He does have those creepy dead eyes. Central Casting: vampire, psycho ex-boyfriend/stalker, witch hunter, evil cyborg, serial killer...any more suggestions?
Great white shark?
Land shark?
Candygram.
Smug asshole.
He’s already got that one covered. (SWIDT?)
🤣
Read Leviticus 19:33-34 out loud to Vance. That's the scripture which God himself tells the Chosen People NOT to mistreat foreigners living among them; that they had to be treated as native-born. Not only this, but they were also to be loved.
Watch Vance's head explode.
Nah, he'll just say it's part of the old covenant or some damn thing. Don't stop him from using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality but – you know.
In which case we then read him the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 where the xtian savior says he didn't come to do away with the Old Law (OT), but to fulfill it and that until heaven and earth disappear and "everything is accomplished" (meaning his return to set up his kingdom) that not a single stroke or the smallest letter would by any means disappear from the Old Law.
Earth has not disappeared and Jesus has not returned. Xtians are still under the Old Law. Oops!
Vance will claim it does not mean him.
Then he is a liar and gives lip service only to his faith in his savior. Jesus would spew him out of his mouth. As Vance denies Jesus and his words, Jesus denies Vance to his Father.
Couchfucker should be grateful that virtually nothing in the bible is real. He'd spend eternity trying to reinvent air conditioning.
https://www.ittc.ku.edu/~evans/stuff/engineer_in_hell.html
I'll bring the popcorn and sodas.
"When it comes to pushing back against the claim , broadcast to millions of people around the world, that a group of people are in America illegally, when, in fact, they are here legally, rules are meant to be broken, babe."-Jesus*
*not an actual Jesus quote.
Fact-checking Republicans is just a part of the Satanic, Deep State, globalist, communist New World Order!/s
Je n'ai rien compris...
Et donc, vous êtes plein de sagesse.
C'est vrai, ça!
😝
Yeah, some of it went over my head too. Would anyone care to simplify it?
Check your emails. Still too complicated for me. Maybe you will have more luck.
It would seem that if god told you to commit a violent crime you can get away with it because in order to find you guilty a judge would have to declare your beliefs bullshit. Which the court said they can't do. OTOH if the man in the moon told you to do it, you can be found guilty.
*Headache*
It's untrue that the courts can't take a position on religion. They do so every time they throw out imprecatory prayer as not an assault or attack. They don't like to do it, but they can if they must.
And it's entirely possible to rule insanity without assessing whether the victim is Satan. You say "this guy's brain is broken, so we don't have to take a position on whether the victim is Satan or not to rule that the attacker belongs in a place that can heal his brain more than he belongs in prison."
Last thought: I think the most reasonable way to proceed is focus on whether the attacker meets some clinical definition of insanity, identify whether it's biochemical vs. psychological when you can, but beyond that not get too wrapped around the axle as to what their delusion is. For whatever reason, if they don't understand what they did, punishing them for it is just cruel and pointless. Fix them instead (but keep society safe from them while you do it).
The ability to believe in something that has not been and probably will not be proven to exist, is it a flaw? Does it show that such believers are easy to fool?
I honestly don't know.
In theory it's a flaw. Empirically, humans appear to be so good at compartmentalization that it's just not a good proxy to predict antisocial or illegal behavior, or even susceptibility to grift.
AIUI con men are happy to try their tricks on intelligent well-educated people, because such marks tend to believe con artistry is about intelligence (making them immune) rather than skill and training (making them equally vulnerable).
Perhaps sentencing guidlines should require professional mental health evaluation before passing sentence.
AIUI judges can order one, and the defense can have one done and try and include it as evidence. But because our system is adversarial, defending the accused is not the job of the state.
It seems to me that once the verdict is reached, a mental health evaluation wouldn't be defending the accused. It seems like due diligence to ensure proper sentencing. Which leads to the bigger question: Should justice be punitive and retributive, or rehabilitative and restorative? Or some combination?
Since 'innocent by reason of insanity' is a verdict, you have to do it before the verdict not after.
As a liberal yes I agree it makes sense for the state to assess sanity after a guilty verdict is reached ,in cases where the person's sanity is seriously in question. But cynically/practically, I can't see any state wanting to spend the extra money to do that after they/the DA's office have already successfully gotten a guilty verdict. There's no short-term return on investment to drive that to happen.
From what I've read in the TBT, it seems to me the judge and the opposing counsels each choose a shrink. The defense will hope for them saying their client is insane, while the persecutor hopes theirs at least says the defendant is sane.
That is what happens in Floriduh.
Florida got something right? How did that happen? Oh wait, they would probably consider "Christian counselors" with a one day online "course" to be mental health professionals.
Nope, they have to be shrinks. At least for now.
Wow. Now there are two reasons Florida isn't the worst. The other being Mississippi.