ADVERTISEMENT

Gut Reaction

Ponca Dan

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
20,494
19,221
113
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
 
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.

You're probably right Dan, but shouldn't we wait for the trial to get the facts first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.

Uh, not trying to practice law here, but since when did second degree murder become a capital offense?
 
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.

"Adamantly opposed to the death penalty" and "need to fry, every single one of them"... all in the same paragraph. Impressive Dan. You really out-did yourself this time.
 
"Adamantly opposed to the death penalty" and "need to fry, every single one of them"... all in the same paragraph. Impressive Dan. You really out-did yourself this time.
Nothing I said is contradictory. I don’t think the state should be allowed to use a death penalty. But if society decides it should be allowed then what those 5 thugs did to that young man should be a cut and dried example of where to use it. I would be most happy to hear your response on why that is not so.
 
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
I too am adamantly opposed to the death penalty but I don't want to see it applied to these five officers just as I don't want to see it applied to anyone. What these individuals did is repugnant and they should definitely be held responsible for their actions. We don't need the death penalty though.

How can you be adamantly opposed to the death penalty but still have a gut reaction that it should be used against certain individuals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standing_desk_only
I don’t think the state should be allowed to use a death penalty. But if society decides it should be allowed then what those 5 thugs did to that young man should be a cut and dried example of where to use it.

That smells like "rules for thee but not for me".
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000
That smells like "rules for thee but not for me".
No, it smells nothing like that. If there’s going to be a death penalty, if the state is going to be allowed to put people to death then this would be one of the places where it should apply.
 
For someone as vehemently anti-government as Dan claims to be, he sure waves that statist flag proudly when its fits his narratives.



carry on
 
  • Like
Reactions: my_2cents
No, it smells nothing like that. If there’s going to be a death penalty, if the state is going to be allowed to put people to death then this would be one of the places where it should apply.
Again, how can you be adamantly opposed to the death penalty but still have a gut reaction that it should be used against certain individuals?
 
For someone as vehemently anti-government as Dan claims to be, he sure waves that statist flag proudly when its fits his narratives.
He always does this.

Don't let him fool you. He has a strong attachment to statism and even authoritarianism when he agrees with it. He has shown this over and over again on this board.
 
Again, how can you be adamantly opposed to the death penalty but still have a gut reaction that it should be used against certain individuals?
It’s a gut reaction. Frankly I don’t know how anyone could watch while those five thugs beat that young man to death as he cradled himself in a fetal position and called out for his mother, got up and ran for his life - LITERALLY ran for his life - only to be caught and beat some more, then watch as the murderers fist bump each other when it was over and not think to himself that they deserve to be on the receiving end of the same punishment they handed out. You do understand what a gut reaction is, don’t you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: K2C Sooner
It’s a gut reaction.
I understand it was your gut reaction. What I am asking you though is how you can claim to be adamantly opposed to the death penalty, yet still have a gut reaction that these five officers should face the death penalty?

I too am adamantly opposed to the death penalty but I had no gut reaction to impose the death penalty on these officers. That is because I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I too am appalled by what these officers did, and if they are found guilty in a court of law, I want to see the book thrown at them. As is the case for other acts of violence I find appalling and indefensible. But I don't resort to a gut reaction that contradicts the principles and values I hold.
 
Last edited:
I understand it was your guy reaction. What I am asking you though is how you can claim to be adamantly opposed to the death penalty, yet still have a gut reaction that these five officers should face the death penalty?

I too am adamantly opposed to the death penalty but I had no gut reaction to impose the death penalty on these officers. That is because I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I too am appalled by what these officers did, and if they are found guilty in a court of law, I want to see the book thrown at them. As is the case for other acts of violence I find appalling and indefensible. But I don't resort to a gut reaction that contradicts the principles and values I hold.
I guess your gut and my gut react differently. A gut reaction is not always a reasonable reaction, and normally reason prevails.
 
Of course you would see it that way.

Everyone sees it that way, Dan. Singling me out does you no favors…it only serves to reinforce your passive-aggressive tendencies lol

You claim social media corporations don’t have the right to censorship based on free market forces, which is also antithetical to your laissez-faire approach to business.


You’re undoubtedly the most wishy-washy poster on the board…and that moniker steams you up inside, doesn’t it? haha





carry on
 
  • Like
Reactions: my_2cents
Everyone sees it that way, Dan. Singling me out does you no favors…it only serves to reinforce your passive-aggressive tendencies lol

You claim social media corporations don’t have the right to censorship based on free market forces, which is also antithetical to your laissez-faire approach to business.


You’re undoubtedly the most wishy-washy poster on the board…and that moniker steams you up inside, doesn’t it? haha





carry on
Laissez-faire does not mean what you are presenting it as. That may be why you get so many things confused. It would seem your world view is clouded by misunderstanding what some words actually mean. That may be why so often things you say make no sense, you’re off on a wild goose chase of unintelligible irrelevance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ClintonDavidScott
Laissez-faire does not mean what you are presenting it as. That may be why you get so many things confused. It would seem your world view is clouded by misunderstanding what some words actually mean. That may be why so often things you say make no sense, you’re off on a wild goose chase of unintelligible irrelevance.

Sooooo… a regulated utility, as you and @Ostatedchi believe they should be…is the exact opposite of your argument towards laissez-faire anarchocapitalism??? cmon man lol

The Dictionary of Dan-isms is obviously working on abridged versions…






carry on
 
Sooooo… a regulated utility, as you and @Ostatedchi believe they should be…is the exact opposite of your argument towards laissez-faire anarchocapitalism??? cmon man lol

The Dictionary of Dan-isms is obviously working on abridged versions…






carry on
I have never said I agree with the concept of a government-regulated utility, because I don’t agree with it. The “anarcho” part of anarcho-capitalism means anarchism, a society absent a state, absent a government. Obviously if there is no government there could be no government regulation of a utility or anything else.
 
I guess your gut and my gut react differently. A gut reaction is not always a reasonable reaction, and normally reason prevails.
So essentially then, your original post was not based in reason and we should just ignore it as being another useless post by you. Ok.

Why make the post then? What were you trying to accomplish by making an irrational post?
 
So essentially then, your original post was not based in reason and we should just ignore it as being another useless post by you. Ok.

Why make the post then? What were you trying to accomplish by making an irrational post?
No “essentially” about it. My original comment had nothing to do with reason and everything to do with disgust at what those men did to a fellow human being. I guess I had not made it clear to you what I meant by calling it a gut reaction.

Why not make the post? I see nothing wrong with expressing my gut reaction. Is there something else about it you want to nit-pick?
 
Got it. Just another useless post by you that we all should just ignore because it isn't based in reason.

Thanks.
It would bring me great joy if you ignored my comments from now on. I have never known anyone who would argue meaningless mundane trivia with the gusto and relentless energy like you do. You’re exhausting. So please feel free to take your thoughts anywhere else. It won’t hurt my feelings at all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ClintonDavidScott
It would bring me great joy if you ignored my comments from now on. I have never known anyone who would argue meaningless mundane trivia with the gusto and relentless energy like you do. You’re exhausting. So please feel free to take your thoughts anywhere else. It won’t hurt my feelings at all.
Lonesome Dan, everyone on this thread has challenged and laughed at your irrational original post. Those from both the right and the left. Those of us who hardly agree on anything. This should tell you something.

But we all know it won't.
 
Incorrect.

According to Vatican II, teachings such as the teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful. The faithful are also not not to publicly oppose this Church teaching.

Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty
You’re wrong as usual, dumbass.

“Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?​

No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.”


If it is not infallible, then it is fallible, and therefore subject to question. This is just common sense, which is why it is impossible for you to grasp.
 
You’re wrong as usual, dumbass.

“Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?​

No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.”


If it is not infallible, then it is fallible, and therefore subject to question. This is just common sense, which is why it is impossible for you to grasp.
Key phrase and he has none.
 
You’re wrong as usual, dumbass.

“Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?​

No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.”


If it is not infallible, then it is fallible, and therefore subject to question. This is just common sense, which is why it is impossible for you to grasp.
And from the same article:

"As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful."

"Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13)."

So once again, teachings such as the teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful. The faithful are also not not to publicly oppose this Church teaching.

You are the one that was clearly wrong with your above answer.
 
And from the same article:

"As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful."

"Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13)."

So once again, teachings such as the teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful. The faithful are also not not to publicly oppose this Church teaching.

You are the one that was clearly wrong with your above answer.
It’s obvious that what little, if any, religiius education you’ve had came from a life teen minister with a guitar, tambourine, and endless supplies of pizza and Mountain Dew. Religious submission requires that the pronouncement be infallible, otherwise, infallibility is meaningless.

SMH. You’re a fvcking Ted Kennedy type catholic who shows up at mass when convenient and goes through the motions.
 
It’s obvious that what little, if any, religiius education you’ve had came from a life teen minister with a guitar, tambourine, and endless supplies of pizza and Mountain Dew. Religious submission requires that the pronouncement be infallible, otherwise, infallibility is meaningless.

SMH. You’re a fvcking Ted Kennedy type catholic who shows up at mass when convenient and goes through the motions.
As usual, when your position has been proven wrong, you resort to childish ad hominem attacks.

So is Catholic Answers now a Ted Kennedy-type Catholic website? Is it filled with Catholics who don't know the Catholic faith and have no theological understanding? A bunch of fake Catholics?🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
As usual, when your position has been proven wrong, you resort to childish ad hominem attacks.

So is Catholic Answers now a Ted Kennedy-type Catholic website? Is it filled with Catholics who don't know the Catholic faith and have no theological understanding? A bunch of fake Catholics?🤣🤣
Catholic Answers is a fvcking joke, at least according to my bishop, so it’s not surprising that you and it pair well together. Pray tell, how can one be required to submit to something that is fallible? How can something fallible be unquestionable?

Here’s a nice song for you to enjoy over pizza and Dew before you go to bed, little buddy.

 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
I haven’t watched the entire set of videos. Probably won’t. Just saw some of it in passing and a lot of what I saw was of such poor quality that I couldn’t tell what was going on.

My gut reaction is disappointment. An officer is in a position to help people and make the world a better place. An officer is often the first outside person to arrive on a chaotic scene and can restore order, offer medical assistance and compassion, resolve problems that people can’t resolve for themselves, enforce the rules to level the playing field. It’s a profession in which nobility can be achieved every day, even in small ways that most people will ever know about.

And then this happens.
 

 
  • Sad
Reactions: CoastGuardCowboy
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT