Seriously Fireblade, what the fuck!? :wacko:
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2012/10/08/republican-candidate-fuqua-endorses-death-penalty-for-rebellious-children
QuoteUPDATES: Republican candidate Fuqua endorses death penalty for rebellious children
Remember former Republican legislator Charlie Fuqua, running again for legislature with financial support from the Arkansas Republican Party and U.S. Reps. Tim Griffin and Steve Womack, among others? We've mentioned some excerpts from his book, "God's Law: The Only Political Solution."
I have more for you today. To save space, I've omitted the Biblical citation for Fuqua's endorsement of the death penalty for rebellious children. Fuqua doesn't think execution would have to be used often on children who defied their parents, but suggests the deterrent effect of its legality would be beneficial. Verbatim, from the writing of Charlie Fuqua, a former lawyer for the Arkansas Department of Human Services:
The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
...
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.
To date, Congressman Griffin and Republican Party Chair Doyle Webb have criticized some of the things Fuqua has said. Womack has said nothing. But no party official has demanded money back or urged Fuqua to withdraw from the race. Majority control of the legislature is far too important for Republicans to abandon a candidate, no matter how extreme. Which tells you a little something about Republican majority governance.
Still waiting for Republican leadership, too, on the question of endorsement of sitting Republican Rep. Loy Mauch of Bismarck, who we've quoted repeatedly in defense of slavery and harshly critical of GOP patron saint Abraham Lincoln. Mauch scorns Lincoln as a Nazi and Marxist. The Republican representative is a follower of the neo-Confederate League of the South.
Republican officials also haven't pulled endorsements and financial support for slavery apologist Republican Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro.
UPDATE: Columnist John Brummett asked U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin if he'd like to add Loy Mauch to his list of regretted campaign contributions (to be distinguished from withdrawal of party endorsement). He got this response (pay wall; apparently it isn't pay feature):
The congressman wrote back, "I read a sample of Rep. Mauch's statements, and they range from outrageous to historically inaccurate and anachronistic to downright odd. As we all know, both parties have folks that say ridiculous things, but I would not have financially supported Mauch had I known about these statements. And yes I am requesting that he give the money to charity."
Note the weasel words "financially supported." Griffin presumably would vote for Mauch over Jesus, were Jesus to run in the party to which his philosophy is most naturally inclined these days, the Democrats. Of course, as Mauch tells us, Jesus condoned slavery, too.
UPDATE II: U.S. Rep. Steve Womack's staff, which normally ignores requests for information from the Arkansas Times, hastened to volunteer that they HAD made a statement about Hubbard and Fuqua, but not Mauch:
I am disheartened by Jon Hubbard and Charlie Fuqua's recent statements and do not support or agree with their views. Offering donations to their campaigns—and to all other Republican candidates seeking office in the Arkansas Legislature this fall—should not suggest otherwise.
In light of their new agreeability I've asked two followups: 1) what about Loy Mauch? and 2) does the congressman urge votes for these candidates despite their pronouncements? A campaign spokesman responded to Question 1, but not Question 2 (which is an answer in itself):
The congressman does not support the comments made by Mr. Mauch in the least.
UPDATE III: Congressmen Griffin and Womack, this is the more appropriate statement, Twittered this morning by Republican Sen. Davy Carter:
I am proud to endorse Rep. James McLean for State Rep. Dist. #63. It has been an honor to work with James the past four years, and I look...
McLean is Fuqua's Democratic opponent. Carter would earn Hall of Fame status if he endorsed Harold Copenhaver, who's opposing Hubbard, or David Kizzia, who's opposing Mauch. Neither of them are legislative colleagues, but a stump would be better in either case.
UPDATE IV: When I did my rundown early Saturday morning of Republican Party contributions to extremist candidates, Fuqua had not filed his latest campaign report. It came on-line yesterday. Add as financial supporters:
* House Republican Leadership PAC — $2,000.
* Independence County Republican Party — $500
* Michelle and former Republican legislator Jim Bob Duggar — $250. (Fine thing for the reality TV family show stars).
Does Republican Rep. Terry Rice really want to be House speaker bad enough that he'll send $2,000, the maximum, to a total nut rather than let a proven, conservative Democrat hold the seat?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ffnvq1.png&hash=d3ddb4752f0a1d8c05abd30d54cc99623b7f4f11)
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Apparently, the guy also advocated death penalty for gays. Not sure if serious or troll.
How about you join us in the 21st century america.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Abortion legal, ban the death penalty and grow the fuck up.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 01:45:26 AM
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Allow abortions - because banning abortions just means desperate girls have their insides scraped with clothes hangers. Real sex ed and family planning is the way to reduce abortions as close as possible to nil. I am against abortion; it's just that the alternatives are not no abortion and legal abortion, the alternatives are back alley abortions or safe legal abortion
Allow the death penalty - because sometimes the mother fuckers deserve it. Just set the criteria for the death penalty very high and include rarity as a pre-requisite (e.g. once per generation per 5 million inhabitants)
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 01:45:26 AM
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Keep abortions, keep the death penalty. Whatever it takes to get traffic moving.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 06:10:36 AM
Keep abortions, keep the death penalty. Whatever it takes to get traffic moving.
Ban abortion, have unwanted children and orphans earn their keep working on road building crews.
Are there no workhouses?!
There is a long discussion of this rule in the Babylonian Talmud.
The scholars interpreted the law such that it could only apply during a period of a couple months in the child's life. Moreoever, in order to be deemed "rebellious", the child had to - at a single sitting - consume a large amount of raw meat and 2.5 gallons of wine; moreoever, this repast had to be conducted at "a society of reckless persons;" it couldn't take place at certain periods of the month; fowl and non-kosher meat did not count against the required quantity of meat. Both parents had to agree to to charge the son, but the mother would not be deemed to have agreed unless she is "alike to his father in her voice, in her appearance, and her height."
Near the end the commentary states: ""The case of a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never shall occur, and it was written only for the purpose of studying [the Law] and the reward for it."
That was back in the 6th century or so. Fuqua and his crowd should catch up a few thousand more years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 09, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There is a long discussion of this rule in the Babylonian Talmud.
The scholars interpreted the law such that it could only apply during a period of a couple months in the child's life. Moreoever, in order to be deemed "rebellious", the child had to - at a single sitting - consume a large amount of raw meat and 2.5 gallons of wine; moreoever, this repast had to be conducted at "a society of reckless persons;" it couldn't take place at certain periods of the month; fowl and non-kosher meat did not count against the required quantity of meat. Both parents had to agree to to charge the son, but the mother would not be deemed to have agreed unless she is "alike to his father in her voice, in her appearance, and her height."
Near the end the commentary states: ""The case of a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never shall occur, and it was written only for the purpose of studying [the Law] and the reward for it."
That was back in the 6th century or so. Fuqua and his crowd should catch up a few thousand more years.
Someone must have had an axe to grind against steak tartare. :(
Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?
That is probably the idea yes.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 10:54:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?
That is probably the idea yes.
:huh:
He said that's how a child got labeled rebellious. Wouldn't need to mention putting such a child to death if they've already offed themselves. ;)
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?
More like 2 gallons of wine, and .5 gallons of orange juice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 11:11:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Hmm, if that's the case - wouldn't the child have put themselves to death by consuming 2.5 gallons of wine?
More like 2 gallons of wine, and .5 gallons of orange juice.
Is Marti now a child?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 06:10:36 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 01:45:26 AM
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Keep abortions, keep the death penalty. Whatever it takes to get traffic moving.
Finally, someone comes up with a non-stupid answer.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 11:06:20 AM
:huh:
He said that's how a child got labeled rebellious. Wouldn't need to mention putting such a child to death if they've already offed themselves. ;)
Right. The standards were made so ridiculous it would never actualy happen.
keep abortions
abort republicans
keep the death penalty
give it to surviving republicans.
languishites get exempted because tehy're on the in-crowd.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 09, 2012, 11:48:46 AM
keep abortions
abort republicans
keep the death penalty
give it to surviving republicans.
And since they believe in applying the death penalty to individuals found to be mentally ill, there's absolutely no conflict.
Referring to the Old Testament as the basis of law isn't necessarily a Christian thing to do.
This would not be child murder, by definition.
Quote from: Berkut on October 09, 2012, 03:05:34 PM
This would not be child murder, by definition.
:lol:
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 05:50:19 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 01:45:26 AM
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Allow abortions - because banning abortions just means desperate girls have their insides scraped with clothes hangers. Real sex ed and family planning is the way to reduce abortions as close as possible to nil. I am against abortion; it's just that the alternatives are not no abortion and legal abortion, the alternatives are back alley abortions or safe legal abortion
"Because someone will do it anyways" is not a good enough reason for legalizing something.
"safe abortion" is a strange phrase, as the child is still made to die.
I do, however, understand that legal abortion is much more convenient.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
"Because someone will do it anyways" is not a good enough reason for legalizing something.
I think laws should at least have some of their intended consequences. Banning abortion will not end the practice. Women have throughout history take sometimes life threatening risks to end pregnancies. Poison, Throwing themselves down stairs, clothes hangers and "doctors" renting rooms above chinese restaurants among them. Banning abortion will not end the practice, it will merely make it illegal and dangerous unless you are rich.
The way to end abortion is not to ban it, but rather to give girls and women access to family planning and sexual education. Pregnancy should come as a choice rather than a surprise.
Some things you can ban and they go away, e.g. guns. Other things don't go away no matter how much effort you put into banning them, e.g. narcotics.
"Because someone will do it anyways" is a good enough reason to look for other solutions to the problem. Legal (and thus) safe abortions solve the problem of backalley (and thus) unsafe abortions. Solving the problem of ending the life of potential humans is to give the mothers the emotional and physical resources they need to only get pregnant when they wish to and if the do get pregnant outside of that they have the support of society so that they can choose on their own.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
"safe abortion" is a strange phrase, as the child is still made to die.
A safe abortion is one where the mother doesn't die.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
I do, however, understand that legal abortion is much more convenient.
No shit.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
Some things you can ban and they go away, e.g. guns.
:wacko:
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
"safe abortion" is a strange phrase, as the child is still made to die.
Don't think of it as a child dieing, think of it as an eviction. Landlord rights and what not :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 05:56:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
Some things you can ban and they go away, e.g. guns.
:wacko:
You do know that there are countries where guns are banned and the population is disarmed. Gun control can work and often does. Drug control never works, just like bans on abortion never work.
Banning guns, just like abortion and narcotics, is only effective to the extent that individuals judge their need to be less pressing than the enforcement of the law. And unlike those other items, a true blanket ban is impossible, since the government depends on guns to enforce its ban on guns.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 05:50:19 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 01:45:26 AM
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Allow abortions - because banning abortions just means desperate girls have their insides scraped with clothes hangers. Real sex ed and family planning is the way to reduce abortions as close as possible to nil. I am against abortion; it's just that the alternatives are not no abortion and legal abortion, the alternatives are back alley abortions or safe legal abortion
"Because someone will do it anyways" is not a good enough reason for legalizing something.
Uhh, actually understanding the practical and real limitations of laws and how they are implemented and the real world impact of their passage is in fact damn good reasons for not passing a law, or passing one, or whatever.
Laws that create solutions that are worse than the problem are bad laws, and in fact that is an excellent reason not to pass them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 07:52:32 AM
Banning guns, just like abortion and narcotics, is only effective to the extent that individuals judge their need to be less pressing than the enforcement of the law. And unlike those other items, a true blanket ban is impossible, since the government depends on guns to enforce its ban on guns.
BTW, you people seriously need to stop electing judges.
Quote from: Berkut on October 11, 2012, 08:05:41 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 09, 2012, 05:50:19 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 09, 2012, 01:45:26 AM
Ban abortions.
Ban the death penalty.
Allow abortions - because banning abortions just means desperate girls have their insides scraped with clothes hangers. Real sex ed and family planning is the way to reduce abortions as close as possible to nil. I am against abortion; it's just that the alternatives are not no abortion and legal abortion, the alternatives are back alley abortions or safe legal abortion
"Because someone will do it anyways" is not a good enough reason for legalizing something.
Uhh, actually understanding the practical and real limitations of laws and how they are implemented and the real world impact of their passage is in fact damn good reasons for not passing a law, or passing one, or whatever.
Laws that create solutions that are worse than the problem are bad laws, and in fact that is an excellent reason not to pass them.
See : Prohibition
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 07:52:32 AM
Banning guns, just like abortion and narcotics, is only effective to the extent that individuals judge their need to be less pressing than the enforcement of the law. And unlike those other items, a true blanket ban is impossible, since the government depends on guns to enforce its ban on guns.
:rolleyes: That was positively Razian.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
"Because someone will do it anyways" is not a good enough reason for legalizing something.
I think laws should at least have some of their intended consequences. Banning abortion will not end the practice. Women have throughout history take sometimes life threatening risks to end pregnancies. Poison, Throwing themselves down stairs, clothes hangers and "doctors" renting rooms above chinese restaurants among them. Banning abortion will not end the practice, it will merely make it illegal and dangerous unless you are rich.
The way to end abortion is not to ban it, but rather to give girls and women access to family planning and sexual education. Pregnancy should come as a choice rather than a surprise.
Some things you can ban and they go away, e.g. guns. Other things don't go away no matter how much effort you put into banning them, e.g. narcotics.
"Because someone will do it anyways" is a good enough reason to look for other solutions to the problem. Legal (and thus) safe abortions solve the problem of backalley (and thus) unsafe abortions. Solving the problem of ending the life of potential humans is to give the mothers the emotional and physical resources they need to only get pregnant when they wish to and if the do get pregnant outside of that they have the support of society so that they can choose on their own.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
"safe abortion" is a strange phrase, as the child is still made to die.
A safe abortion is one where the mother doesn't die.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 11, 2012, 05:16:47 AM
I do, however, understand that legal abortion is much more convenient.
No shit.
This is probably my favorite post of yours ever, Viking.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
The way to end abortion is not to ban it, but rather to give girls and women access to family planning and sexual education. Pregnancy should come as a choice rather than a surprise.
Yep. Frustratingly a large percentage of those who oppose abortion also oppose the measures that would eliminate it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 05:56:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
Some things you can ban and they go away, e.g. guns.
:wacko:
I dunno, Europeans managed to do a job job legislating people out of cars, guns were nothing.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 08:16:51 AM
:rolleyes: That was positively Razian.
Raz at least makes counter arguments instead of dismissive attempts to be insulting. In essence Viking is saying that bans on guns work because fewer people have guns, but that bans on abortion don't work because some people still have abortions. Do you agree with that?
Edit- or maybe Viking actually believes some gun control laws are 100% effective, in which case I think he's being naive rather than illogical.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 08:57:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 08:16:51 AM
:rolleyes: That was positively Razian.
Raz at least makes counter arguments instead of dismissive attempts to be insulting. In essence Viking is saying that bans on guns work because fewer people have guns, but that bans on abortion don't work because some people still have abortions. Do you agree with that?
Edit- or maybe Viking actually believes some gun control laws are 100% effective, in which case I think he's being naive rather than illogical.
The Razian part was the fact that government would still need to have guns, as if disarming the government is ever the goal of ban on arms. It's a distracting non-counter-argument.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
Some things you can ban and they go away, e.g. guns.
Not in this country. Nothing is more likely to lead to massive violent uprisings than a national ban on guns. It just will not work here.
A government that's actually capable of disarming the populace is one that's invasive enough that the government itself is the problem.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:35:51 AM
A government that's actually capable of disarming the populace is one that's invasive enough that the government itself is the problem.
Nonsense. You don't need force to disarm the populace, you just need legitimacy.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 09:21:56 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 08:57:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 08:16:51 AM
:rolleyes: That was positively Razian.
Raz at least makes counter arguments instead of dismissive attempts to be insulting. In essence Viking is saying that bans on guns work because fewer people have guns, but that bans on abortion don't work because some people still have abortions. Do you agree with that?
Edit- or maybe Viking actually believes some gun control laws are 100% effective, in which case I think he's being naive rather than illogical.
The Razian part was the fact that government would still need to have guns, as if disarming the government is ever the goal of ban on arms. It's a distracting non-counter-argument.
What is with everyone using me as a word? I am not a a word, I am a human being.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 09:51:00 AM
What is with everyone using me as a word? I am not a a word, I am a human being.
Well Napoleon was a human being but people call his wars Napoleonic. We refer to your internet campaigns as Razian.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 09:51:00 AM
What is with everyone using me as a word? I am not a a word, I am a human being.
:hug: Nothing personal, it's just a communication shortcut for me.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
Nonsense. You don't need force to disarm the populace, you just need legitimacy.
That will disarm a portion of the populace. You need force and lots of eyes if you want to disarm the whole thing.
And before you call this a distracting non-counter-argument, as nobody expects gun control to be 100% effective, I'm fully aware of that. But Viking's claim that banning abortion doesn't work rests on the fact that it isn't 100% effective either. However, the historical data suggests it curtailed the number of abortions by quite a lot.
As I said before, the efficacy of a ban depends greatly on perceived need. Cal may be much quicker to turn in his guns than some teenage girl to carry her baby to term. However, a gangster is not going to turn in his willingly. Nor will a militia nut. People who feel they need abortions may still get them, just as people who feel they need to keep their guns will keep them, and drug addicts will keep using(also non-addicts will as those laws are much less strict and harder to enforce). I don't see the basis for the distinction of them into working and non-working bans.