Quote from TriPack:
This is all a strawman argument. You so far have said nothing that relates to my initial argument.
Argument? I read a statement, not an argument. A statement that may have been sexist in nature.
"Women should not use men's bathrooms." Is that statement also sexist, because my conclusion was arrived at via gender? I reject your conclusion above as being absurd.
And I reject your rejection.
The statement may be sexist, yes. It would depend on context.
If you said, "Women should not use men's bathrooms....because women are stupid, or because women stink, or because they can't pee standing up, etc. the statement would be sexist.
The statement lacks explanation, and therefore could be sexist depending on the context.
It is too bad that your conclusion above bears no resemblence to the dictionary definitions you provided before. You keep arguing equality when that isn't the criteria of sexism. It is denegration of women, belief they are not as capable/skilled/intellegent (etc.) as men or preventing them from having the same rights as men.
What one man thinks is flattery a woman may think of denigration and demeaning. Who should decide what is equality for women, or who should decide what is denigration for women, men----or women?
My statement makes no such assumption about capacity even though you try to make that conclusion. Women furthermore are not prevented from joining the military, so their rights have not been limited.
The statement out of context makes no assumption other than your desire not to have women be drafted by the military. It begs the question as to why, in the same way if someone says they don't want Hispanics to be drafted by the military.
If you gave an explanation as to why you don't want women drafted, that will provide your thinking behind the statement. So, to know if the statement was truly sexist, we have to know context. Based on everything you have said thus far, I don't see that it was not necessarily sexist in nature.
That is your interpretation. Disapproval and not wanting are not equivalent. I don't want a cookie. This doesn't mean I disapprove of cookies. I don't want to play baseball. This doesn't mean I disapprove of baseball.
Equivocation and poor argumentation skills. Disapproval of what someone else should do, or have done to them speaks of disapproval of actions toward others. You can speak about yourself and you desires without exercise of power over the situation of others, but when you speak about what you want for or don't want to see for others there is a major difference. When you say you don't want such and such for someone else, in effect you are saying do not approve of such and such happening. The happening does not meet with your approval. Whether or not your approval is a factor in the process being complete is not the point, but the intent is a factor. Someone can have sexist thoughts, never act on them, never have the power to act on them, yet they are sexist none the less.
I'm glad you agree that my reason is not sexist. I've already stated my reason for this so this continuing argument is moot.
I didn't agree that your reason behind the statement was or was not sexist. What I said was a conditional statement, and if ______, then _________ statement.
Is the following explanation possibly sexist:
I frankly can't see how a desire to protect women is sexist. It is the opposite of sexism - a desire to treat women as superior. I value a woman more by not forcing her into a situation where she may lose her life or be injured, than a person who wishes her to be forced into such a situation in the name of "equal rights". I would much prefer that women, in this case, have superior rights than men. So call me sexist all you want but if you do, you don't understand what it means.
Your desire to protect women is because you think they are superior? Superior beings don't need your protection. You position could well be on the basis of condescension. Many women are fighting for the equality to be treated equally with men irrespective of sexual identity or gender. You may want women to have superior rights, but they are fighting for equal rights, not to be treated like a china doll.
Does a desire to not force women to join the military during draft time imply that women are in some way less capable than men, that they are less intelligent, less skillful? No it does not. Does it limit their rights? No it does not.
I disagree that it limits their rights. It limits their rights of their citizenship and to be treated exactly the same as men as it comes to service to this country. Self respect of women is not gained by coddling of men.
Maybe you should stop making strawman arguments.
Maybe you should prove that they are. Just because you claim it to be so, doesn't make it so.
By your own admission you are a sexist. By treating a woman as an object you denigrate them. Treating women as objects rather than as individuals qualifies as "negative" characterization. This is the definition that applies to your sexist statement above.
My condition of being sexist or not has nothing to do with your sexism. Classic Hannityism. This is like saying Bush is not guilty because Clinton is also guilty.
Poor argumentation on your part.
Typical of someone who cannot defend themselves, to attack the person who is pointing out their flaw.
I never said I was or wasn't sexist, and it is not relevant in any way to your denial that you are sexist.
According to Roguetrader, giving a woman superior rights is sexist. Taking her superior rights away from her is equality and non-sexist, and turning a woman into a sex-object is non-sexist. You are a sexist hypocrite.
More Hannityism and distraction from your own sexism. Many people fall for this trick, but it this isn't about me, it is about you and your sexism.
And still no answer to the following:
There was no mention of race in the constitution either, but it took a constitutional amendment to give the power of law behind the end denying people of color to vote. It is the power of law that forces people to behave differently, even if they don't want to. Without law, there is no power to enforce the law and protect the rights of those who are in need of protection.
It took an amendment to give women the right to vote, although that was not specifically outlined that women couldn't vote, but men simply did not allow them to.
Many argue that women no longer need an equal rights amendment, but I disagree. Making equal rights for women law gives them the power and legal recourse in that their rights are violated in the future. We may have changed our opinions toward women due to the women's liberation movement, but without law to enforce the policy, opinion could swing to the other side and women would no longer have the legal protection the equal rights amendment would afford.
And no answer for this either:
Women are not being treated as equals to men when it comes to the draft. Why not? Equality is equality, right? Equality extends to risk as well as opportunity.
And to end, the current policy is exactly what my statement says: women are not drafted. If this policy is truly sexist, if it puts women on an unequal footing then why are none of the Presidential candidates making an issue of this?
How many presidential candidates are women? How many are talking about the draft at all? The draft is a non issue at present, but that may change. In either case, it doesn't not absolve you of sexist thinking.
Why are people not protesting the policy? Why are men not up in arms against this discriminatory policy? The simple answer is that the lack of disapproval by both men and women for a public policy like this indicates that neither men nor women find it offensive. If it is not offensive then surely it can't be sexist either. Now where is your evidence that men and women find the current military draft policy offensive?
There is no draft right now, do you understand that? If there were a draft, and women weren't being drafted (a draft which ended before the women's rights movement gained strength and support) you have no idea if women would have a problem with that or not. You can only guess.
And as a final note, will you be crusading for such noble causes as those listed below if the ERA ever passes?
I have no need to crusade for causes, noble or not, if the law exists to provide legal protection for women. If a woman raises and issue as a violation of the equal rights amendment, the court will decide, not me.
The point is that women will then have a legal process in which to fight for their equal rights. Now they lack such legal protection.
[/B]
Another example of our fine "Justice System"
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
You say my statement is sexist. You also say it MAY be sexist. I say make up your mind and end the equivocation.
"I don't want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year." This doesn't mean that I disapprove of Steinbrener but rather of the signing Giambi. I disapprove of the military drafting women, not of women. Your own argument is weak.
And as to your own statement, I say you are a sexist who does not understand the definition of sexism even though you posted several definitions and attempted to wrest them to support your ERA agenda. You are also a hypocrite for accusing me of being a sexist when you are the only one who has made a sexist comment in this discussion. So bottom line, you have no crediblity in this discussion.
As to the draft, women have not made an issue of the draft, even though the law has been around for a long time. I can't recall there ever being a protest in favor of the draft, can you?
Those who support repealing this law have not garnered enough support to even show up on the radar screen. The presidential candidates have to win popular support, first of their constituents and then of the general populace. How many Democratic candidates are women is irreolvent as to whether they will support popular policies. Politicians have an incentive to support popular policies, though some may not do so for reasons of conscience. But among the Democratic candidates, such reasons don't exist as they are supposed to be less conservative and more liberal or progressive. Since none of them openly support women being drafted, it is clear that this policy is not popular. Where is your proof that it is popular? You have none.
I had no idea that Hannity had a fan in Roguetrader. As for me I find TV debate shows to be boring so I avoid them, and I'm rapidly getting bored with this current debate as well.
But I will give you kudos for doing what you accuse me of doing - changing the subject of the debate to be about me and my alleged sexism rather than being about why the draft of women is unpopular and is thus a reason for the ERA's logjam in many states. As a side note, it is hard to read your posts when the entire contents are contained within a quote.
"I don't want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year." This doesn't mean that I disapprove of Steinbrener but rather of the signing Giambi. I disapprove of the military drafting women, not of women. Your own argument is weak.
And as to your own statement, I say you are a sexist who does not understand the definition of sexism even though you posted several definitions and attempted to wrest them to support your ERA agenda. You are also a hypocrite for accusing me of being a sexist when you are the only one who has made a sexist comment in this discussion. So bottom line, you have no crediblity in this discussion.
As to the draft, women have not made an issue of the draft, even though the law has been around for a long time. I can't recall there ever being a protest in favor of the draft, can you?
Those who support repealing this law have not garnered enough support to even show up on the radar screen. The presidential candidates have to win popular support, first of their constituents and then of the general populace. How many Democratic candidates are women is irreolvent as to whether they will support popular policies. Politicians have an incentive to support popular policies, though some may not do so for reasons of conscience. But among the Democratic candidates, such reasons don't exist as they are supposed to be less conservative and more liberal or progressive. Since none of them openly support women being drafted, it is clear that this policy is not popular. Where is your proof that it is popular? You have none.
I had no idea that Hannity had a fan in Roguetrader. As for me I find TV debate shows to be boring so I avoid them, and I'm rapidly getting bored with this current debate as well.
But I will give you kudos for doing what you accuse me of doing - changing the subject of the debate to be about me and my alleged sexism rather than being about why the draft of women is unpopular and is thus a reason for the ERA's logjam in many states. As a side note, it is hard to read your posts when the entire contents are contained within a quote.
You say my statement is sexist. You also say it MAY be sexist. I say make up your mind and end the equivocation.
"I don't want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year." This doesn't mean that I disapprove of Steinbrener but rather of the signing Giambi. I disapprove of the military drafting women, not of women. Your own argument is weak.
Why don't you want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year? If it is because you hate people of Italian descent, then that is ethnic bigotry on your part.
You continue to dodge the issue that you need to provide full explanation of WHY you don't approve of something as imperative to fully understand the reference point of your comments.
Someone doesn't want Steinbrenner to sign Giambi for another automatically begs the question: WHY???
Your comments about women in the draft were in the context of a discussion on women's rights and the ERA, and thus beg the question: WHY DON'T YOU WANT WOMEN TO BE DRAFTED IN WARTIME?
And as to your own statement, I say you are a sexist who does not understand the definition of sexism even though you posted several definitions and attempted to wrest them to support your ERA agenda. You are also a hypocrite for accusing me of being a sexist when you are the only one who has made a sexist comment in this discussion. So bottom line, you have no crediblity in this discussion.
You are entitled to call me a sexist, I don't care. However, calling me a sexist in defense of your own sexist position is a "Hannityism." My position is irrelevant to your position, and irrelevant to my being able to suggest that you are sexist.
Equally true, if I am in fact practicing hypocrisy, my hypocrisy is irrelevant to your status as a sexist.
Typical Hannity approach, defend through attack. People using this technique are arguing incorrectly and applying logical fallacies and Hannity technology----even if these techniques are effective in swaying a stupid audience who doesn't understand and recognize the tricks that are being used.
The Hannity approach is an appeal to emotion, and hope that the party on the other side will elevate to the level of Hannity, where Hannity can simply yell louder and be more abusive.
I pointed this out in the last thread, yet you continue. You must think this technique works. It doesn't, it just points our your methodology.
As to the draft, women have not made an issue of the draft, even though the law has been around for a long time. I can't recall there ever being a protest in favor of the draft, can you?
If you do some research you will see that we have not had a active draft in nearly 3 decades in this country, and the draft preceeded the women's movment and the women's liberation movement.
Those who support repealing this law have not garnered enough support to even show up on the radar screen. The presidential candidates have to win popular support, first of their constituents and then of the general populace. How many Democratic candidates are women is irreolvent as to whether they will support popular policies. Politicians have an incentive to support popular policies, though some may not do so for reasons of conscience. But among the Democratic candidates, such reasons don't exist as they are supposed to be less conservative and more liberal or progressive. Since none of them openly support women being drafted, it is clear that this policy is not popular. Where is your proof that it is popular? You have none.
You fail to understand the argument I am making. I am not saying that women necessarily need the ERA today, I am saying that passing the ERA provided them legal recorse they don't have. In the event of change in social norms, and a return to women's rights being restricted, women would not have an ERA to fall back on for support.
Whether or not it is popular is not the point of law, but the issue is "should" it be law even if it is not popular. Taxation is also not popular, but it is a necessary component of our society. So to argue that something is not needed because it is not popular is false reasoning.
After 911, it would have been pretty easy for the Federal Government to immediately round up a bunch of Arabs and kill them, and that would have been a popular decision given the outrage, but still not a legal, morally correct, or evolved decision.
I had no idea that Hannity had a fan in Roguetrader. As for me I find TV debate shows to be boring so I avoid them, and I'm rapidly getting bored with this current debate as well.
Losing debates is boring.
Hannity is an example of right wing tactics in action.
But I will give you kudos for doing what you accuse me of doing - changing the subject of the debate to be about me and my alleged sexism rather than being about why the draft of women is unpopular and is thus a reason for the ERA's logjam in many states. As a side note, it is hard to read your posts when the entire contents are contained within a quote.
The reason for the logjam in the ERA has to do with sexism of men who don't want to grant women equal rights and responsibilities.
There is no valid reason women shouldn't be subject to the draft if they are of equal status as men.
"I don't want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year." This doesn't mean that I disapprove of Steinbrener but rather of the signing Giambi. I disapprove of the military drafting women, not of women. Your own argument is weak.
Why don't you want Steinbrener to sign Giambi for another year? If it is because you hate people of Italian descent, then that is ethnic bigotry on your part.
You continue to dodge the issue that you need to provide full explanation of WHY you don't approve of something as imperative to fully understand the reference point of your comments.
Someone doesn't want Steinbrenner to sign Giambi for another automatically begs the question: WHY???
Your comments about women in the draft were in the context of a discussion on women's rights and the ERA, and thus beg the question: WHY DON'T YOU WANT WOMEN TO BE DRAFTED IN WARTIME?
And as to your own statement, I say you are a sexist who does not understand the definition of sexism even though you posted several definitions and attempted to wrest them to support your ERA agenda. You are also a hypocrite for accusing me of being a sexist when you are the only one who has made a sexist comment in this discussion. So bottom line, you have no crediblity in this discussion.
You are entitled to call me a sexist, I don't care. However, calling me a sexist in defense of your own sexist position is a "Hannityism." My position is irrelevant to your position, and irrelevant to my being able to suggest that you are sexist.
Equally true, if I am in fact practicing hypocrisy, my hypocrisy is irrelevant to your status as a sexist.
Typical Hannity approach, defend through attack. People using this technique are arguing incorrectly and applying logical fallacies and Hannity technology----even if these techniques are effective in swaying a stupid audience who doesn't understand and recognize the tricks that are being used.
The Hannity approach is an appeal to emotion, and hope that the party on the other side will elevate to the level of Hannity, where Hannity can simply yell louder and be more abusive.
I pointed this out in the last thread, yet you continue. You must think this technique works. It doesn't, it just points our your methodology.
As to the draft, women have not made an issue of the draft, even though the law has been around for a long time. I can't recall there ever being a protest in favor of the draft, can you?
If you do some research you will see that we have not had a active draft in nearly 3 decades in this country, and the draft preceeded the women's movment and the women's liberation movement.
Those who support repealing this law have not garnered enough support to even show up on the radar screen. The presidential candidates have to win popular support, first of their constituents and then of the general populace. How many Democratic candidates are women is irreolvent as to whether they will support popular policies. Politicians have an incentive to support popular policies, though some may not do so for reasons of conscience. But among the Democratic candidates, such reasons don't exist as they are supposed to be less conservative and more liberal or progressive. Since none of them openly support women being drafted, it is clear that this policy is not popular. Where is your proof that it is popular? You have none.
You fail to understand the argument I am making. I am not saying that women necessarily need the ERA today, I am saying that passing the ERA provided them legal recorse they don't have. In the event of change in social norms, and a return to women's rights being restricted, women would not have an ERA to fall back on for support.
Whether or not it is popular is not the point of law, but the issue is "should" it be law even if it is not popular. Taxation is also not popular, but it is a necessary component of our society. So to argue that something is not needed because it is not popular is false reasoning.
After 911, it would have been pretty easy for the Federal Government to immediately round up a bunch of Arabs and kill them, and that would have been a popular decision given the outrage, but still not a legal, morally correct, or evolved decision.
I had no idea that Hannity had a fan in Roguetrader. As for me I find TV debate shows to be boring so I avoid them, and I'm rapidly getting bored with this current debate as well.
Losing debates is boring.
Hannity is an example of right wing tactics in action.
But I will give you kudos for doing what you accuse me of doing - changing the subject of the debate to be about me and my alleged sexism rather than being about why the draft of women is unpopular and is thus a reason for the ERA's logjam in many states. As a side note, it is hard to read your posts when the entire contents are contained within a quote.
The reason for the logjam in the ERA has to do with sexism of men who don't want to grant women equal rights and responsibilities.
There is no valid reason women shouldn't be subject to the draft if they are of equal status as men.
Women should be drafted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women should be drafted
By Cathy Young
The Boston Globe
February 17, 2003 p. A12
THE PROSPECT of war with Iraq has sparked a discussion of the possibility of bringing back military conscription. So far, such a move seems unlikely; the only calls for a reinstatement of the draft have come from war opponents such as Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, who argues that war requires ''shared sacrifice'' (and believes that if a draft were in place, our government would be more reluctant to go to war). But the debate about the draft raises a long-overdue question: What about women? Several young people in Massachusetts have recently confronted this issue head-on. In January, 18-year-old Samuel Schwartz of Ipswich, aided by his father, civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Boston challenging all-male Selective Service registration as unconstitutional. He has been joined by his 17-year-old sister and two male friends.
All-male draft registration is an issue that has received little attention -- surprising since it is the only instance in which federal law explicitly treats men and women differently. In 1981, the year after mandatory selective service registration for males was reinstated, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the purpose of the draft was to send soldiers into combat, from which women were barred.
In 2003, the legal and cultural landscape is very different. There are far more women in military ranks, doing a far wider variety of jobs -- including some combat-related ones. In the 1990 Gulf War, women were closer to the front lines than ever before, and were among the casualties of war. Today, women can pilot combat aircraft, serve on combat ships, and command battalions in combat areas. They are still barred, however, from direct engagement with enemy forces on the ground.
Curiously, the debate about women in combat has been framed primarily as a debate about women's rights. Feminists who champion women in the military generally talk about giving women the choice to serve in combat, and talk about career opportunities that servicewomen are denied because of the combat exclusion. Men -- those who volunteer for service under the present system, and possibly all military-age men if a draft is reinstated -- can be required to fight and risk their lives. A young man who does not register for Selective Service theoretically risks prosecution, and forgoes a chance for a student loan.
This paradox has led men's advocates such as author Warren Farrell to charge that feminism seems to give women options without obligations. Male-only draft registration, he argues, is a symbol of the longstanding attitude that men's lives are more ''disposable'' and that women must be protected from harm.
Indeed, some of the opposition to drafting women and putting them on the front lines is explicitly rooted in this chivalrous mentality. In the book ''The Kinder, Gentler Military,'' Stephanie Gutmann warns against trying to override the ''natural law'' that makes men want to protect women and makes societies reluctant to send women to die on the battlefield. Meanwhile, contemporary feminist dogma, fixated on male violence against women, largely avoids confronting the fact that especially in the West, patriarchy has involved not only women's oppression but women's protection.
Those feminists who have honestly confronted this issue have a point when they argue that chivalry is infantilizing. It's no accident that the claim for special protection lumps women with children. In a culture that has rejected the belief that ''natural law'' relegates women to subordination in marriage and exclusion from public life, public policy rooted in the notion that women's lives are more precious than men's is unconscionable.
But the combat exclusion is also rooted in practical considerations. Some leading proponents of women's full integration into the armed services, such as retired Air Force Major General Jeanne Holm, remain skeptical about putting women into physical combat -- primarily because it requires levels of physical prowess most women don't have. Even the weight of the equipment soldiers in ground combat must carry poses a problem for women.
Most military service, however, does not involve direct engagement with the enemy. In Israel, women are currently drafted but serve in noncombat positions. It should be up to the military, based on the needs of national defense, to decide in what capacity women can be best employed. In the meantime, the courts should reject male-only draft registration as incompatible with equal citizenship.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
Edited by: LadyKate63 at: 4/29/03 9:04:55 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women should be drafted
By Cathy Young
The Boston Globe
February 17, 2003 p. A12
THE PROSPECT of war with Iraq has sparked a discussion of the possibility of bringing back military conscription. So far, such a move seems unlikely; the only calls for a reinstatement of the draft have come from war opponents such as Representative Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, who argues that war requires ''shared sacrifice'' (and believes that if a draft were in place, our government would be more reluctant to go to war). But the debate about the draft raises a long-overdue question: What about women? Several young people in Massachusetts have recently confronted this issue head-on. In January, 18-year-old Samuel Schwartz of Ipswich, aided by his father, civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Boston challenging all-male Selective Service registration as unconstitutional. He has been joined by his 17-year-old sister and two male friends.
All-male draft registration is an issue that has received little attention -- surprising since it is the only instance in which federal law explicitly treats men and women differently. In 1981, the year after mandatory selective service registration for males was reinstated, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the purpose of the draft was to send soldiers into combat, from which women were barred.
In 2003, the legal and cultural landscape is very different. There are far more women in military ranks, doing a far wider variety of jobs -- including some combat-related ones. In the 1990 Gulf War, women were closer to the front lines than ever before, and were among the casualties of war. Today, women can pilot combat aircraft, serve on combat ships, and command battalions in combat areas. They are still barred, however, from direct engagement with enemy forces on the ground.
Curiously, the debate about women in combat has been framed primarily as a debate about women's rights. Feminists who champion women in the military generally talk about giving women the choice to serve in combat, and talk about career opportunities that servicewomen are denied because of the combat exclusion. Men -- those who volunteer for service under the present system, and possibly all military-age men if a draft is reinstated -- can be required to fight and risk their lives. A young man who does not register for Selective Service theoretically risks prosecution, and forgoes a chance for a student loan.
This paradox has led men's advocates such as author Warren Farrell to charge that feminism seems to give women options without obligations. Male-only draft registration, he argues, is a symbol of the longstanding attitude that men's lives are more ''disposable'' and that women must be protected from harm.
Indeed, some of the opposition to drafting women and putting them on the front lines is explicitly rooted in this chivalrous mentality. In the book ''The Kinder, Gentler Military,'' Stephanie Gutmann warns against trying to override the ''natural law'' that makes men want to protect women and makes societies reluctant to send women to die on the battlefield. Meanwhile, contemporary feminist dogma, fixated on male violence against women, largely avoids confronting the fact that especially in the West, patriarchy has involved not only women's oppression but women's protection.
Those feminists who have honestly confronted this issue have a point when they argue that chivalry is infantilizing. It's no accident that the claim for special protection lumps women with children. In a culture that has rejected the belief that ''natural law'' relegates women to subordination in marriage and exclusion from public life, public policy rooted in the notion that women's lives are more precious than men's is unconscionable.
But the combat exclusion is also rooted in practical considerations. Some leading proponents of women's full integration into the armed services, such as retired Air Force Major General Jeanne Holm, remain skeptical about putting women into physical combat -- primarily because it requires levels of physical prowess most women don't have. Even the weight of the equipment soldiers in ground combat must carry poses a problem for women.
Most military service, however, does not involve direct engagement with the enemy. In Israel, women are currently drafted but serve in noncombat positions. It should be up to the military, based on the needs of national defense, to decide in what capacity women can be best employed. In the meantime, the courts should reject male-only draft registration as incompatible with equal citizenship.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
Edited by: LadyKate63 at: 4/29/03 9:04:55 am
Honestly?
There you go again....putting words in people's mouth and being (gasp!) SARCASTIC! Now, it would be an extreme position - if I had indeed said such a thing. You know perfectly well that I have NEVER said we should "murder everyone who breaks the law." Ridiculous. Being in favor of capital punishment does not mean I advocate gunning down shoplifters.
No, the question first of all, is how can we be sure that when someone is released after committing a horrific crime that they won't do it again? Obviously released felons who have been deemed "rehabilitated" go on to commit further murders, rapes, etc. If the system keeps releasing such people, then the system is flawed.
The end result is the same, whether these people be sick or evil. A kidnapped, raped, tortured, and finally murdered victim cares not that her assailant is Satan incarnate or suffering from a mental illness. Evil, sick, or whatever, society should not have to suffer the consequences of these people being released.
What is the difference, then, of a murderer being killed in the act by police or being put to death via capital punishment? You agree police have the right to protect society by shooting the murderer in public TO SAVE FURTHER INNOCENT LIVES, yet if the perpetrator is not killed by the police, you are against that same perpetrator undergoing capital punishment.
Why do we eliminate dangerous products from harming us, but allow dangerous human beings to continue to harm us?
A good, even great leader can be emotional yet cooly precision-like when it counts, just as good traders can be very emotional but are able to subdue their emotions when they perform their work. Patton wasn't emotional? Martin Luther King? You could compile a list of unemotional great leaders as well, but the point is not whether someone is emotional or not, but whether he/she is able to get results.
Your answer is very black and white. It is very clear that to you, further loss of innocent life is an acceptable price to pay to allow felons the benefit of the doubt and hope they are rehabilitated.
"Likely inclusive"? "I do believe..." Well, Optional, you have a tremendous imagination. So fun to watch you put words in people's mouths when you've run out out of arguments.
LOL! Seeing how your desperation is showing, I'll humor you: It is true that you can't be sure that I won't go postal in your favorite restaurant, just as we can't be sure you don't inject gerbils up your rectum prior to each Fed announcement. Having said that, what is "rational" about a system that allows murderers and rapists to commit the same crimes over and over on an innocent populace?
Until you come up with the miraculous scientific cure that prevents felons from committing the same crimes again, you are demonstrably in favor of perpetuating the current system that allows the slaughter of further innocents.
When the person in question can be released and again commit the same crime, the safety of society is indeed threatened.
No, you obviously view humans as fodder.
Precisely what I have been trying to get across. They were able to subdue their emotions.
This is a sweeping statement. In a company there is always someone higher, in the military the same. There are brigadier generals, then major generals, then lieutenant generals, and then generals. Is the Major General, in command of thousands of men, a leader or a follower? He is both. We are all followers in some sense. This is the case in virtually all strata of society. To classify anyone with a superior as someone who lets their emotions rule their intellect is ridiculous.
You would probably consider yourself a great leader, but you would have no followers. Except for a certain moderator.
Cars do not intentionally kill people. Alcohol doesn't by itself kill other people. People intentionally do, and often with great sadistic glee, kill other people. Obviously you choose to perpetuate that. Many do not.
You're right. Eliminating hardcore criminals in order to protect society would violate those criminals' personal freedoms and rights, such as repeating their crimes. How terrible.
I might also suggest you do the same prior to your next rabid anti-Bush post.
BTW, you're getting EMOTIONAL
Sex offender charged in Dru Sjodin's death
Rodriguez pleads not guilty; faces possible death penalty
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 Posted: 11:07 PM EDT (0307 GMT)
FARGO, North Dakota (CNN) -- A federal grand jury has charged Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., with kidnapping University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin, leading to her death, a federal official said Wednesday.
If convicted, he could face the death penalty. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, said Charlotte Berg, an assistant to U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley.
Sjodin's body was discovered last month in a ditch northwest of Crookston, Minnesota.
According to the indictment, Rodriguez, 51, a convicted sex offender, "knowingly and unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, carried away, and willfully transported Dru Katrina Sjodin in interstate commerce from the state of North Dakota to the state of Minnesota, and held her for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, and otherwise, resulting in the death of Dru Katrina Sjodin."
The indictment said Rodriguez killed Sjodin "in an especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner, in that it involved torture and serious physical abuse" and that the killing was carried out "after substantial planning."
The 22-year-old disappeared November 22 after leaving her job at a Victoria's Secret store in a Grand Forks, North Dakota, mall. She was on the telephone with her boyfriend when the phone went dead.
Rodriguez was charged December 1 with her kidnapping after authorities found a knife and blood matching Sjodin's DNA in his car. Rodriguez has pleaded not guilty to the kidnapping.
Later, a knife sheath was found near Sjodin's car in the mall parking lot. The sheath was sold at a local store and only with a knife of the type found in Rodriguez's car.
After her disappearance, a shoe belonging to Sjodin was found beneath a bridge along the bank of the Red Lake River. The bridge was on a highway heading into Crookston, Rodriguez's hometown, about 25 miles east of Grand Forks.
Wrigley estimated that Rodriguez' trial would last three or four weeks, according to a report from The Associated Press. The trial was set for July 19.
Northeast Central District Judge Lawrence Jahnke has issued a gag order barring attorneys on both sides from talking about the state case, the AP reported.
Allan Sjodin, Dru's father, said he has no preference on where the case is tried.
Dru Sjodin disappeared November 22.
"I really haven't sat down and thought about the whole process," he said Wednesday in an AP report. "We're just going to follow the process. They're going to handle the case, and we believe in the justice system."
Federal charges had been expected because authorities believe Rodriguez crossed state lines while committing the crime.
Rodriguez was released from prison last May, after serving a 23-year sentence for attempted kidnapping, assault and other convictions for attempted rape and aggravated rape.
Investigators said they found traces of Sjodin's DNA in blood in Rodriguez's car, according to the AP. They also found a knife in the trunk that matched a sheath found near Sjodin's car.
Rodriguez pleads not guilty; faces possible death penalty
Wednesday, May 12, 2004 Posted: 11:07 PM EDT (0307 GMT)
FARGO, North Dakota (CNN) -- A federal grand jury has charged Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., with kidnapping University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin, leading to her death, a federal official said Wednesday.
If convicted, he could face the death penalty. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, said Charlotte Berg, an assistant to U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley.
Sjodin's body was discovered last month in a ditch northwest of Crookston, Minnesota.
According to the indictment, Rodriguez, 51, a convicted sex offender, "knowingly and unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, carried away, and willfully transported Dru Katrina Sjodin in interstate commerce from the state of North Dakota to the state of Minnesota, and held her for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, and otherwise, resulting in the death of Dru Katrina Sjodin."
The indictment said Rodriguez killed Sjodin "in an especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner, in that it involved torture and serious physical abuse" and that the killing was carried out "after substantial planning."
The 22-year-old disappeared November 22 after leaving her job at a Victoria's Secret store in a Grand Forks, North Dakota, mall. She was on the telephone with her boyfriend when the phone went dead.
Rodriguez was charged December 1 with her kidnapping after authorities found a knife and blood matching Sjodin's DNA in his car. Rodriguez has pleaded not guilty to the kidnapping.
Later, a knife sheath was found near Sjodin's car in the mall parking lot. The sheath was sold at a local store and only with a knife of the type found in Rodriguez's car.
After her disappearance, a shoe belonging to Sjodin was found beneath a bridge along the bank of the Red Lake River. The bridge was on a highway heading into Crookston, Rodriguez's hometown, about 25 miles east of Grand Forks.
Wrigley estimated that Rodriguez' trial would last three or four weeks, according to a report from The Associated Press. The trial was set for July 19.
Northeast Central District Judge Lawrence Jahnke has issued a gag order barring attorneys on both sides from talking about the state case, the AP reported.
Allan Sjodin, Dru's father, said he has no preference on where the case is tried.
Dru Sjodin disappeared November 22.
"I really haven't sat down and thought about the whole process," he said Wednesday in an AP report. "We're just going to follow the process. They're going to handle the case, and we believe in the justice system."
Federal charges had been expected because authorities believe Rodriguez crossed state lines while committing the crime.
Rodriguez was released from prison last May, after serving a 23-year sentence for attempted kidnapping, assault and other convictions for attempted rape and aggravated rape.
Investigators said they found traces of Sjodin's DNA in blood in Rodriguez's car, according to the AP. They also found a knife in the trunk that matched a sheath found near Sjodin's car.
Justice is served.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jury: Death for sex offender who killed student
FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A federal court jury decided Friday that a convicted sex offender should die for killing college student Dru Sjodin.
The jury reached its decision against Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. after more than a day and a half of deliberations.
Rodriguez looked straight ahead and showed no emotion as the sentence was announced.
Rodriguez's mother, Dolores, and sister, Ileanna Noyes, cried as the verdict was announced, as did a number of the jurors.
Members of Sjodin's family looked somber and stared straight ahead. They shared hugs outside the courtroom.
"I know it wasn't an easy decision for the jurors," Sjodin's mother, Linda Walker, said afterward, her voice shaking. "But Dru's voice was heard today."
It is the first death penalty case in North Dakota in nearly a century. The state does not have the death penalty but it is allowed in federal cases.
The case was pursued federally because the crime crossed state lines. The University of North Dakota student's body was found in a Minnesota ravine nearly five months after she disappeared.
"We hope the need does not arise for another 100 years," U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley said. "The defendant's acts of the last three decades have brought us to this place at this time," he said, referring to Rodriguez's earlier convictions for assaults on women going back to 1975.
The same federal jury convicted Rodriguez, 53, of Crookston, Minnesota, on August 30 on a charge of kidnapping resulting in Sjodin's death.
Sjodin, 22, of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, disappeared from a Grand Forks shopping mall parking lot on November 22, 2003, and her body was found the following April in a ravine near Crookston. Authorities said she was beaten, raped and stabbed.
Wrigley, in his statements to jurors, said the death penalty would be the "right thing, in the right case." He stood near her portrait and asked for justice.
Rodriguez's attorney, Richard Ney, asked the jury for mercy after calling psychologists and Rodriguez's family to talk about his childhood of poverty, abuse and exposure to farm chemicals.
Ney also said Rodriguez had been anxious about being released from prison after serving more than 20 years for assaults on three women in 1975 and 1980.
Allan Sjodin, Dru's father, said the family could have accepted a sentence of life in prison. "Whatever would have happened, we would have been equally satisfied," Sjodin said. "For Dru's sake, this needed to happen."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/22/student.slain.ap/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jury: Death for sex offender who killed student
FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A federal court jury decided Friday that a convicted sex offender should die for killing college student Dru Sjodin.
The jury reached its decision against Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. after more than a day and a half of deliberations.
Rodriguez looked straight ahead and showed no emotion as the sentence was announced.
Rodriguez's mother, Dolores, and sister, Ileanna Noyes, cried as the verdict was announced, as did a number of the jurors.
Members of Sjodin's family looked somber and stared straight ahead. They shared hugs outside the courtroom.
"I know it wasn't an easy decision for the jurors," Sjodin's mother, Linda Walker, said afterward, her voice shaking. "But Dru's voice was heard today."
It is the first death penalty case in North Dakota in nearly a century. The state does not have the death penalty but it is allowed in federal cases.
The case was pursued federally because the crime crossed state lines. The University of North Dakota student's body was found in a Minnesota ravine nearly five months after she disappeared.
"We hope the need does not arise for another 100 years," U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley said. "The defendant's acts of the last three decades have brought us to this place at this time," he said, referring to Rodriguez's earlier convictions for assaults on women going back to 1975.
The same federal jury convicted Rodriguez, 53, of Crookston, Minnesota, on August 30 on a charge of kidnapping resulting in Sjodin's death.
Sjodin, 22, of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, disappeared from a Grand Forks shopping mall parking lot on November 22, 2003, and her body was found the following April in a ravine near Crookston. Authorities said she was beaten, raped and stabbed.
Wrigley, in his statements to jurors, said the death penalty would be the "right thing, in the right case." He stood near her portrait and asked for justice.
Rodriguez's attorney, Richard Ney, asked the jury for mercy after calling psychologists and Rodriguez's family to talk about his childhood of poverty, abuse and exposure to farm chemicals.
Ney also said Rodriguez had been anxious about being released from prison after serving more than 20 years for assaults on three women in 1975 and 1980.
Allan Sjodin, Dru's father, said the family could have accepted a sentence of life in prison. "Whatever would have happened, we would have been equally satisfied," Sjodin said. "For Dru's sake, this needed to happen."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/22/student.slain.ap/index.html