What is left out of the equation is the notion that "We will Kill you" is intended to provoke a deterrence reaction and failing that, cure a problem that is in fact a threat to other people than just the malefactor.

I'm not going to waste a lot of my time trying to convey the point. I will summarize with the Judge\Horse-thief Dialog.

Horse-thief: "It's not fair that I should be hung for stealing a horse."

Judge: "You are not being hung for stealing a horse. You are being hung so that horses might not be stolen."

I'm down with that DL.

I propose we hang you to deter your intolerant attitude. I'll bet I could get a posse up for that.

BTW how does two guys having sex together imperil my use of my horse?

DL,

I do like your attitude. A lot. So much so that I'm already considering a campaign for Democrats in '12. Thanks for the heads up. I'm planning my strategy. And with a little luck and God's help I will succeed.

The way I figure it is Spending in '10. Social Issues in '12.

It is my intention to wipe the floor with statists of every stripe. If you worship the fasces I intend to wipe the floor with you.

I'm down with that DL.

I propose we hang you to deter your intolerant attitude. I'll bet I could get a posse up for that.

Your attitude reminds me of that recent 10:10 adverting campaign. You know, where they blow up the children that doesn't agree with them?

BTW how does two guys having sex together imperil my use of my horse?
M. Simon · October 4, 2010 04:06 PM

I could explain it, but it would take more writing than I think you'd bother to read. Maybe I can use a shortcut by pointing you to some writing that someone else has already done.

I don't know which version you prefer, but this is the first version I found during an online search.

Judges 19:22

"Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”"

http://www.just1word.com/bible/passage/a-levite-and-his-concubine?version=niv

Here's another version.

Judges 19:22
"22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows, beset the house round about, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying: 'Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may know him.'"

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0719.htm

If you are unfamiliar with it, you might want to read the whole thing. It's an interesting story. Not saying it will explain everything, but it might give you the gist of a piece of it.

Very amusing.

And pointless. Your goal should be to convince social conservatives not to impose religious based values on secular law -- after all, they vote. But the word is "convince". You won't do that by running the whole religionists-are-killers thing out one more time; they just stop listening. Knocking 'em dead in the atheist echo chamber is not the same as getting anywhere in the argument.

Regards,
Ric

Ric,

I have another post coming up.

And you mean to tell me Islamic nutters aren't trying to kill us?

I propose we hang you to deter your intolerant attitude. I'll bet I could get a posse up for that.

OK. I guess that the ultimate arbiter is "Who's got more guns and more willingness to use them." By that metric, why bother with elections at all?

Ric,

And I'm not anti-religion. God speaks to me. He has advised me that there is a new dispensation.

Love One Another - No Exceptions

But keep your sword sharp - there are still some miscreants who haven't got the word

Kind of contradictory I know. My God is very Zen. Or at least that is the feeling I get from my experiences with him.

I think the book of Esther has the answer.

Your attitude reminds me of that recent 10:10 adverting campaign. You know, where they blow up the children that doesn't agree with them?

I'm much kinder. I merely intend to deny you the government power to implement your dreams.

Find another way.

Oh, I rather agree with you.

But I reckon I've been at this longer than you have; I go back to arguing evolution with Southern Baptists before I was twelve, which is half a century. Had a little success, too, which is more than I can see the Dawkinses managing.

Based on that experience, there are ways to do it and ways not to do it. One of the ways not to get anywhere is up-front, you-must-be-stoopid accusations. One of the ways to do it is to look at doctrine sideways. And yes, Esther is a good start.

Regards,
Ric

Ric,

I'm advising people to get right with God. I don't see that as being disrespectful at all.

All I'm saying is what has been said all too often. The church is corrupt and an impediment to getting right with God. Pretty main stream stuff. Preached for thousands of years. The foundation of more than one religion.

I dunno. Maybe my sermon hits too close to home for too many.

The biggest addiction we have to worry about in America (and not just America) is the addiction to power. I see 80% to 90% of the country banging that stuff as often as possible requiring ever larger doses. An oil burner of a habit.

If my Jeremiads are hurtful hadn't the hurt ought to look at their souls? When something hurts me that is what I do. I'm always checking my assumptions. It is an engineering thing. To bad more aren't so inclined.

I'm much kinder. I merely intend to deny you the government power to implement your dreams.

Find another way.

M. Simon · October 4, 2010 05:25 PM

Then why did you propose hanging me? To teach me a lesson? What kind of lesson should I learn from being hanged? More like the lesson is for others, and you have inadvertently agreed to the concept of deterrence. :)

"Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”"

I'd call the cops if people did that here, and if they tried to break down the door I would shoot them.

Since when did consensual sex become the same as rape?

DL,

It was my way of showing you where this all could lead. Irony. Or rhetorical flourish if you prefer.

I do believe that the statists are going down. And it would sadden me greatly to see you hanging from a lamp post. My point is that once the restraints are off no one is safe. Not even you. Let us not go there.

===

So given your proclivities how big a staff do you think the Pregnancy Enforcement Agency should have? As big as the DEA?

Ric,

Hard cop, Soft cop, then.

Very interesting VC piece.

My Java programmer wife is planning to take off a year or two when we have kids (plan is for procreation to begin next year; I'm test-marketing the appellation options "Jessica Rand" and "Alexander Hayek" with her right now). It's a somewhat difficult choice because we give up some $70K-90K a year in household income. We're hoping her employer will let her telecommute starting in the 2nd year as her company loves her from the VP down.

So given your proclivities how big a staff do you think the Pregnancy Enforcement Agency should have? As big as the DEA?
M. Simon · October 5, 2010 01:05 AM

As big as it was in 1973 when the supreme court through a raw exercise of judicial power overturned the laws banning it. Whatever the size of the District Attorney's office was at the time for enforcing that law, ought to be adequate for enforcing it in the future.

Why do you postulate the need for a new agency or a new enforcement system when the one which existed since Texas was a state was perfectly adequate but for the meddling of Liberal Judges who distorted our laws?

Why do you keep trying to force me into the costume of a Socialist\Facist when I am simply advocating the system we had before Liberal interference F*cked it up?