Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you assume i am a christian, and jesus's exhortations mean anything to me.
you assume wrong.
you are conflating executions with abortions.
you have to EARN an execution.
USCB Radical feminist porn professor goes nuts
- Thread starter greentrip
- Start date
you assume wrong.
you are conflating executions with abortions.
you have to EARN an execution.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
soooooooo, innocent men are never executed then?
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
this is a conflation of concept and real manifestation. innocent people are obviously killed by the state (a murder by the state, in effect), but only the fact of their innocence removes the deed from the definitional status of "execution." They are killed (either murdered or executed) but the reality of their culpability is the definitional boundary between referring to the death as "murder" or "execution."
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
true enough, i was just providing counterpoint to kynes' defense of the death penalty as an earned outcome when in fact many innocent men, more often than not men and women of color, are put to death by the state.
spazatak
Well-Known Member
I never assumed you were anything other than misinformed...
So you are OK with people being executed who are innocent with the death penalty, how did they earn being put to death for not committing a crime... and do you believe that a women shouldn't have the right to abort a pregnancy if rape is the cause?
could you clarify your stance on those matters please
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
Indeed, and i appreciate the attention drawn to the fact that, since we are incapable of avoiding error, the death penalty is too costly a punishment entertain as a possibility; however, Kynes merely pointed out that execution is earned; if, metaphysically speaking, an event qualifies as an execution, then it by definition has been earned. Sure enough, though, I would say that it is better to never mobilize the death penalty, as the cost of error is too great and unforgivable.
Sadly in decades past the state has executed people for crimes we now know they did not commit, thanks the the evolution of DNA evidence. People often say this is a reason to abolish the death penalty. I say that this is nothing more than a means to ensure, from this point forward, that we no longer execute innocent persons.
People often bring up rape in reasons for the necessity of abortion. Why? Is the child in this instance deserving of death because his father was an asshole?
How does being the product of rape make a persons life any less valuable?
Life begins at conception. I read earlier here where you asked someone to explain why that is, and the sperm and egg are not life. The reason is simple, reproduction. A sperm is a sperm and will always be a sperm. Same as an egg. Once joined though, a process begins where the cells begin to multiply and divide, something that both were incapable of doing in their own.
Sure, it is dependent on another life for it's survivability. So are other forms of life. Mature humans are dependent on LIVING plants and animals to feed them. A human cannot live without consuming other forms of life, the embryo cannot live without the female it is within. That is how it gets it's food. But the fact it needs food is evidence in and of itself that it is indeed, alive.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
this is a distortion. is the life of the fetus of more value than the life of the woman who will have to bear and nurse said child? the raped woman has then to raise a child who must, by the fact of his/her conception, instigate and iterate a psychological distress more ungodly and terrorizing than anything most people ever have to experience. you suggest something that fails to account for the psyche* of the woman, thereby constituting a slightly misogynistic position.
*psyche, here, is being used to refer not only to the psychological state of the woman in question, but also the traditional concept, from the greek, denoting the metaphysical concept we would most closely name mind/soul.
spazatak
Well-Known Member
usually men come along with the view point the women should be forced into pregnancy via rape as the killing of the fetus is wrong.. the women should have the ultimate right as to how she uses her body...its is not a point of "ïs that life less valuable"you would also need to ask "is the mothers life valuable" the list could go on...
here is another example... should a fetus be terminated when a known deficiency is found during the first stages of pregnancy that will almost certianly result in death during the first months of life
I also never said that sperm and egg weren't life.. I asked him to explain when life started... and I asked him to describe what state was it before life started.... he never got back to me... might have been a tough one for him.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
You are too clever by half, except this thread is not about abortion, rape, execution, innocent people behind bars, or the metaphysics of Greeks.
This thread is about a blubbery cow who draws a paycheck funded by the taxpayers of California, who teaches a subject that has no commercial value, assaulting a 16 year old girl (a child) and violating her civil rights. It seems to me that UC is culpable here as well as the bloated feminist bovine.
Assault is a violent crime. Denial of civil rights is a federal crime. You enlightened progressives who are defending the behavior of the moon faced, angry, professor of "feminist studies" need to explain your position. Does the first amendment not apply on a UC college campus? Is only innocuous, inoffensive speech the only kind of speech that is covered by 1A? Is the US constitution just a load of crap written by old, racist white men?
DrJ, you seem to enjoying waxing eloquent. Please explain why you find it acceptable for political speech in a public place to be squelched, and why you find it acceptable for an adult to assault a child?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
You are too clever by half, except this thread is not about abortion, rape, execution, innocent people behind bars, or the metaphysics of Greeks.
This thread is about a blubbery cow who draws a paycheck funded by the taxpayers of California, who teaches a subject that has no commercial value, assaulting a 16 year old girl (a child) and violating her civil rights. It seems to me that UC is culpable here as well as the bloated feminist bovine.
Assault is a violent crime. Denial of civil rights is a federal crime. You enlightened progressives who are defending the behavior of the moon faced, angry, professor of "feminist studies" need to explain your position. Does the first amendment not apply on a UC college campus? Is only innocuous, inoffensive speech the only kind of speech that is covered by 1A? Is the US constitution just a load of crap written by old, racist white men?
DrJ, you seem to enjoying waxing eloquent. Please explain why you find it acceptable for political speech in a public place to be squelched, and why you find it acceptable for an adult to assault a child?
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
I don't find it acceptable for political speech in public place to be squelched, nor do i find it acceptable for an adult to assault a child. But, if you want to claim the protection of juvenility, you can't also assert that person's right to free speech, since said rights have not been activated by the individual's entry into citizenship viz. the attainment of legal adulthood.
what i find repugnant is the conflation of marketability and knowledge production. I haven't read hardly anything in this thread, I, rather, point out that there are massive inconsistencies on both sides.
you can't attack a professor based on the fact of her scholarship's marketability; the point of an academy is to produce knowledge in every conceivable direction, not to create neat little worker-bees that fit nicely into the corporate structure--round pegs in round, well exploited holes.
the ad hominem attacks on this professor, based on her scholarship, rather than her actions, are atrocious.
If you have a problem with her squelching the anti-abortionists, you must also allow her scholarship as the freest form of expression. it is as free as the protester's expression.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
our metaphysics is just an extension of theirs, btw.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
Incidentally, having read the posted article (ok, i skimmed it) the assault you refer to is bogus--she didn't deck anyone, and she removed posters that she found offensive. This is a horrid case of involving criminal litigation when none is prudent. No, the professor shouldn't have censored the protestors. nor should she have been charged with assault for pushing aggressive right wing nutters away when trying to get on an elevator. that's not in the spirit of the law against assault. you can't split such hairs on technicalities with such indignation without experiencing a concomitant lack of respect in any future argument.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, long story made short, the bovine purveyor of useless knowledge whose only purpose is to create unemployable college graduates with massive and unserviceable student loans was wrong to assault a child and violated the child's civil rights. Good. I agree.
Prosecute her, and allow her to repay her debt to society in a useful way: by cleaning litter from the side of the road while wearing an orange jumpsuit.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
knowledge cannot be useless. it is perspectivally and contextually bound, certainly, but it is not totally without use.
the child has no civil right to freedom of speech until she's 18. that's why you can't claim freedom of speech as a student in school when you curse out your teacher.
Now, if you'll please stop harping on the "useless" degrees. no one forces students to enroll in non-vocational coursework. you fuckers think the reason to go to school is to get a better job. it isnt. (unless it is a VOCATIONAL SCHOOL). that is a poor reason to pursue a LIBERAL ARTS degree. if you pursue one with the hope of employability, you are a moron, and deserve the outcome you procure. whether you personally agree with this professor's work is immaterial, particularly since you aren't routinely involved in the research in which she is involved.
Take your righteous rage elsewhere: it is poorly thought out, and a woefully ignorant attempt at railing against something you perceive to be contrary to your own way of life.
Actually whacked out worthless professors like this one are fine by us all as long as
the schools they teach there mindless dribble in are not receiving government funds of any kind
including student loans. Your post does remind us of a possible additional charge of kidnapping for the professor who pulled the child to a different location while cutting up her arm with her hooves.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
why is she a worthless professor? because you disagree with studying pornography? or pornography from an african american perspective? or is it because she's a woman? what exactly makes the knowledge she produces, worthless? because no one can be employed having learned what she can teach? well that's not entirely accurate because she can cultivate a successor to carry the torch, so it isn't entirely worthless. someone can take up her position once she's done. and if you are going to argue for the illimitable search for a happy existence, you can't bar this one.
travisw
Well-Known Member
You frequently use the word dribble in your post. Do you mean drivel?
If not, what do you mean?