Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-wrongs-does-it-take-to-make-a-right dept.

Common Dreams reports

In a much-hailed, if modestly problematic, act of righteous revenge, [on Thursday August 4,] an African-American inmate allegedly sucker-punched [...] Dylann Roof--an act that sparked much online praise for the "vigilante hero", a fundraiser for donations to his commissary account, and, finally, the posting of his $100,000 bond by a supporter.

Roof is in protective custody at the Charleston County Detention Center for killing nine African-American churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015. He was in the shower when Dwayne Stafford, a 26-year-old inmate reportedly doing time for either weed violations or strong arm burglary, allegedly got out of his cell, reached Roof, and landed a couple of punches to his face. The sheriff said Roof was attacked "for no reason", which many would argue was less than accurate.

Roof suffered only minor injuries, and his lawyer declined to press charges.

[...] The next day, 18 months after he'd originally been arrested, an anonymous supporter posted [Stafford's] bond, and on Friday he was reportedly freed.

I find that heavy.com typically has the facts quickly on violent crimes.

Previous: [Racially-Motivated Mass Murder in] Charleston, SC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by dingus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:55PM

    by dingus (5224) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:55PM (#385953)

    Regardless of what they're in jail for, nobody should ever get assaulted, especially in the shower, let alone see the offender be praised or freed as (an indirect) result.

    why not? It seems to me that being punched in the face is the least that a neo-nazi mass murderer like Roof deserves.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:07PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:07PM (#385963) Journal

    Two separate issues here.

    1. What does Roof deserve?

    2. How should a prison be run?

    The fact that prisoners can find time and opportunity to attack each other is a strong indicator that our prison systems are broken. It seems to me that GP was addressing that issue, and NOT the question of what Roof deserves.

    IMHO, Roof deserves to be handed over to the relatives of those people he killed. He deserves to be drawn and quartered, hacked apart, hung in a gibbet, or anything else that the grieving relatives can dream up. But, Roof won't get what he deserves. He will languish in prison for a few decades, then released. Unless a fellow prisoner kills him.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:18PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:18PM (#385973)

      Well, they can't kill him 9 times, but they can try to make that single time count ... but AFTER, and ONLY AFTER, a proper trial/sentencing/appeals process.

      Because we're fucking civilized, so we handle garbage correctly, lest we all get soiled and stinky in the process.

      • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:46PM

        by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:46PM (#385985) Journal

        they can try to make that single time count ... but AFTER, and ONLY AFTER, a proper trial/sentencing/appeals

        I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you agreeing with Runaway's suggestion that the government should hand the convicted murderer over to the families of the deceased so that they can torture him to death? If so, I seriously misread your original post. I could also be missing sarcasm in this post, or you could mean your words differently than I'm taking them. If you are agreeing with Runaway here, would you be okay with people getting beaten in the shower of a prison if that was part of their intended punishment? I originally took your initial post to be making a statement that was general to both prisons and jails, with a jail merely being the example at hand.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:12PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:12PM (#385995)

          Just agreeing that guys like this are the only examples for which it's hard to argue for the end the death penalty (by contrast with near-the-murder random black Joe convicted by one drunk eye witness). My wording wasn't the best.
          But we still do need to take the trash out cleanly, or we lose the moral high ground when we ask people to please stop stoning and dull-knife-beheading their own convicts.
          The states make a show of the executions, and almost always deny wrongdoings when things don't work well, so as to please the victims' families (no empathy for murderers, you weakling). Taking the guy to a guillotine in the back shed would cleanly produce the intended result without all the publicity, which isn't a deterrent anyway.

          We still have a long way to go to recover from W's tenure, so we need to keep an eye on cowboy attitudes of revenge instead of justice (still annoyed that Obama called Osama's execution "justice").

          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:15PM

            by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:15PM (#385996) Journal

            Thanks for the clarification!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:23PM (#386024)

            The colors of the victim and the assailant were swapped at a Trump rally in March. [google.com]
            The peaceful protester was, as in TFA, in police custody when attacked by a non-cop.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:26AM (#386057)

            I like the deterrent of the death penalty, do some evil and you get put down. However, there are quite a few innocents who have gone to prison only to be exonerated after decades and I just can't stomach the "greater good" argument. Languishing in prison also give them lots of time to think and torture themselves mentally, whether with thoughts of things they can no longer do or possibly remorse and realization that what they did was wrong.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:46AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:46AM (#386165) Journal

              I don't think the death penalty as applied is actually a deterrent though. Most of the crimes it's handed down for are crimes of passion, and in any case anyone who commits what they know to be a capital offense with premeditated intent doesn't think he's going to get caught.

              There is one circumstance, and only one, I support it in: massive white-collar crime. Those are the only people who would be deterred because the point of their crime is to continue to live, and that in splendor. Though even in their case, it might be a more effective punishment to let them sit around in prison, constantly reminded that they lost it all...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:32PM

                by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:32PM (#386394)

                There is one circumstance, and only one, I support it in: massive white-collar crime. Those are the only people who would be deterred because the point of their crime is to continue to live, and that in splendor. Though even in their case, it might be a more effective punishment to let them sit around in prison, constantly reminded that they lost it all...

                They are not violent people. A violent punishment will simply not be understood. Better to strip them and their families of their assets and force them to live on minimum wage for a court determined period of time. That they would understand. What? You say their innocent families should not be punished as well? Tell that to the families of those that were victimized by them.

                • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:08PM

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:08PM (#386403)

                  Sorry, I don't agree with this one at all, unless you mean their immediate families (by which I mean spouse and children). There's plenty of cases of parents who have to cut off contact with their own kids because the kids are so horrible (I used to know a lady who had to cut off contact with her 20-something son because he was always trying to swindle her, and she was living on disability assistance). There's probably far more cases of people who cut off contact with one of their siblings because that sibling is such a problem. I'm sorry, but if my older brother who I haven't talked to in 20 years rips off someone, that's not my fault. A law like this would basically encourage people to knock off their relatives if they're afraid they're going to get in legal trouble.

                  Now, if you're talking about stripping the assets from the wife and children of someone like Bernie Madoff, I can see an argument for that being valid, after all they got to their position because of him, and likely are living large because of his ill-gotten gains, and while he may not be enjoying them much in prison, they still are.

                  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday August 13 2016, @09:39PM

                    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday August 13 2016, @09:39PM (#387629)

                    I did mean immediate for the most part. Any such thing would have to have a pretty clear due process setup, and there would have to be allowances for judges to determine the proper justice for any given case.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:58AM

              by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:58AM (#386197) Journal

              I like the deterrent of the death penalty

              I like the deterrent effect of the herd of invisible unicorns that prevents bank robberies. It is supported by precisely the same amount of evidence.

              --
              sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:59AM (#386090)
            I don't think a guillotine would be a clean kill. Plenty of blood when you separate a person's head from their body that way, and plenty of spectacle to be had if you tried to do it the way it was done during the days of la Terreur. A firing squad would be cleaner.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:44AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:44AM (#386137)

              A firing squad would be cleaner.

              Better yet, "poison" them with 100% nitrogen gas, which is also the easiest, most painless way to suicide.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:03PM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:03PM (#385990)

      okay, run-run-run-runaway, so you are CONFIRMING roof's behavior as desirable ?
      (apparently HE 'felt' it was okay to punish *those* people how HE saw fit, and how did *that* work out ? you are BOTH THE SAME!)
      ...OR, you DON'T believe in the rule of law, OR, you believe psychopathy is okey-dokey (you know, as long as its 'justifiable' psychopathy), OR, you just got to go all macho in an 'approved' manner ?
      cause it is 'okay' to hate on haters; it is 'okay' to kill killers, it is 'okay' to do THE EXACT SAME THING THE HORRIBLE PERSON YOU WANT TO DO THAT TO DID TO SOMEONE ELSE...
      um, do you see any problems with this 'thinking' ? ? ?

      REGARDLESS of ANYONE'S personal feelings or blood-lust for revenge, that is EXACTLY why we are *supposed* to be a nation of laws, NOT raging men/women...
      we do NOT depend on runaway's prodigious wisdom and empathy to set sentences for criminals, and we should not...
      punishment was lawfully meted out, anything beyond that is vigilantes outside of the law...
      but runaway just wants his pound of flesh, the OPPOSITE of justice...

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:25AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:25AM (#386056) Journal

        At a college near you, is a course availabe in reading comprehension.

        What a man deserves and what the law provides for punishment are completely different. In the future, I'll try to remember to type slowly, so that you can keep up.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:49AM (#386139)

          What a man deserves and what the law provides for punishment are completely different.

          And the point of the law is so that an unbiased third party can decide without bias or lust for revenge what they actually deserve, dipshit. Deciding that "The law wasn't strict enough, this guy deserves more punishment!" is vigilantism, full stop, and preventing that from happening is why we have laws in the first place.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:34PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:34PM (#386001) Journal

      Two separate issues here, compared:

      1. Roof didn't like someone and took his 'revenge'.
      2. Someone didn't like Roof and took his 'revenge'

      Isn't this the same issue, except for that the second 'revenge' was VERY much less than a pound of flesh, and that the second 'revenge' happened BECAUSE of what Roof did?

      I look at Paul Bernardo and what's her fuck that was way smarter than Bernardo and pinned the whole thing on him while she got off scrotum free.
      They had them on video: they had them in that video torturing, raping and killing these young girls.
      He's doing time (where he SHOULD IMHO be GETTING IT UP HIS ASS WITHOUT LUBE EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE as well as other things).
      She's off having fun and HAVING KIDS OF HER FUCKING OWN AND PROBABLY GETTING THEM DRUNK AND RAPING THEM, JUST LIKE SHE DID WITH HER OWN SISTER!!!.

      They both do not deserve 'prison terms'. They both deserve torture and pain and rape and degradation and then, maybe after the families think they have suffered enough, be put to death.
      That my taxes are supporting him is SHAMEFUL. That they are both have 'rights' is SHAMEFUL.
      That they both haven't been killed (in prison (him) and on the street (her)) is SHAMEFUL.

      They HAVE NO RIGHTS, because THEY decided to take away these poor girls RIGHTS and did what they did to them.

      I was glad to hear that one of the girls refused to do what they asked because she knew they would only kill her anyways. At least SOMEONE stood up to them and gave them what they deserved.

      If the evidence is beyond contention like it was for them..... FUCK THEM: THEY HAVE NO NO NO NO NO RIGHTS.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:42PM (#386035)

        Toby Zeigler:
        Mr. President, this next question is on capital punishment, which you oppose: If your youngest daughter Zoey was raped and murdered, would you not want to see the man responsible put to death?

        [President Bartlet completely muffs the response [tripod.com] (a la Michael Dukakis).]

        Toby Zeigler:
        I just mentioned your daughter being murdered, and you're giving us an answer that's not only soporific, it's barely human!
        Yes, you'd want to see him put to death.
        You'd want it to be [both] cruel and unusual, which is why it's probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don't have legal rights in these situations.

        N.B. Aaron Sorkin is a genius.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:49PM (#386038)

        an appropriate punishment in that case would be to have them suspended in a sterile glass cage, skin and bones removed, feed by tubing with a fine a stream of capsaicin into the blood, the video of their acts continuously projected into their retinas, on artificial life for as long as we can keep that going

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:36AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:36AM (#386160) Journal

          What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, what the fuck? We don't win by sinking to their level and worse--and let me short-circuit any idiotic response from you along the lines of "no one's ever done anything like this to you/your family/your friends;" yes they bloody well have, and you know what? I STILL didn't call for that kind of torture.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:43PM (#386269)

            Between your comment and GP, this XKCD [xkcd.com] seemed tangentially oblig.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:49PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:49PM (#386318) Journal

              ...yeah, I hadn't seen that one but have the same reaction more or less when a doctor or nurse asks me that. Imagine someone screaming "FIVE! FIVE!" in utter agony, to the confusion of the person asking. A nurse later told me most people in that state say "ten" and ask me what in the hell *would* I consider a ten. My response was "if i can still hear you it's seven or below. If I'm still coherent it's 8 or below. If it's a 9 I'm dying of torture, and if it's a 10 the Muslims are right and I'm in Jahannam." Needless to say I got some weird looks...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:22PM

            by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:22PM (#386280) Journal

            I can take a guess at what's wrong; they're not thinking about how such a punishment would be carried out. All of these people advocating rape and torture are advocating having state-sponsored rapists and torturers on hand to make that happen, or else they're volunteering to do the job themselves. It makes me think of the government assassins in the movie Grosse Pointe Blank who were unclear on the moral line between carrying out their kill mission and making the main character's hit for him to speed things along. [imdb.com]

            I don't want rape or torture to be a part of our society AT ALL, and I'm not going to ask anyone to do something to a criminal that I wouldn't be willing to do myself with a clear conscience. The people clamoring for the application of cruel and unusual punishment for capital crimes haven't put much thought into it.

            PS - for the record I'm still in favor of a humane execution; it's similar to the mercy killing of a sick animal. I like the idea of N2: effective, efficient, economical, painless, readily available. I don't think they should be a public spectacle; publicizing executions as a deterrent sounds like state terrorism to me, and in some cases (esp. serial killers) may have an effect opposite what's intended.

            --
            Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:16AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:16AM (#386054) Journal

      The fact that prisoners can find time and opportunity to attack each other

      Well, how much time and opportunity does it take? Just a few seconds within arms reach. You can design a jail to prevent that, but it requires an enormous degree of isolation.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:22AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 10 2016, @02:22AM (#386073) Journal

        If we can accept the fact that our prison system, as well as our justice system, is broken, we can work from there.

        First question would be, why are petty offenders (dope smokers, petty thieves, and the like) serving years-long or decades-long sentences? Our prisons are overcrowded because the system is broken.

        The individual who committed this assault sounds as if he didn't belong in jail or prison to start with. If he were removed from that jail, he wouldn't have had access to Roof, as is the case now that his bail has been posted.

        Seriously, WTF is anyone in jail for a year or more, awaiting trial? Why was his bail set so high that he couldn't afford it, if bail was set at all?

        Broken.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:02AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:02AM (#386128)

      IMHO, Roof deserves to be handed over to the relatives of those people he killed.

      Wouldn't work out like you think. Christians. They already publicly forgave him. Gotta admit that is one heck of a demonstration of actually living the religion. Raise yer hand if you think you could pull that one off?

      That sort of irrational behavior being a requirement is just one reason why I can't buy in, but gotta respect the commitment. Me, I say put his ass down as soon as possible since guilt isn't a fact in dispute in this case. If you ain't ever, under any circumstance, going to be letting somebody go there is no point feeding and housing them for the rest of their natural life. Raise your hand if you would like this asshole living near you.. even if they keep him fifty years before letting him out? Thought so, put his ass down. Arguments against? Anyone?

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:49PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:49PM (#386252) Journal

        I'll be perfectly honest with you - no I couldn't do that. I'll go further. Those individuals who hurt me, personally, in my lifetime the most? I learned not to hate them any longer. But, no, I've never forgiven them. Not even the ones who have assumed ground temperature. I don't have that much forgiveness in me. If anyone killed my wife, my sister, my kid, no I'd never forgive them. It's far more likely that I'd forgive someone for shooting me.

        If that makes me a "bad" Christian, so be it.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:12PM (#386298)

          If that makes me a "bad" Christian, so be it.

          It does, as you're telling Jesus to take his teachings and shove them up his ass. Its funny how those "Christians" advocating for laws to be written straight out of the bible only want those laws to come from the Old Testament, and very selectively cherry picked at that - eating bacon and shrimp, which God expressly forbids, would of course remain legal while things like homosexuality would result in execution. Laws inspired by the New Testament, which Christians tell me made the Old Testament obsolete, would revolve around Jesus's teachings, like forgiveness and remaining passive in the face of violence.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:15PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:15PM (#386339) Journal

            On the other hand there's Mt. 5:17-20, which, try as apologists might to "interpret" it away, specifically says the Old Testament laws still apply. This is especially interesting because it reflects an embryonic schism in the young religion (Matthew is agreed on by scholars to have been written no earlier than 60-70AD, possibly as late as 90AD): between, one might say, an older and more Judaic branch and some new, more Greek innovative branches.

            People forget that Jesus was a Jew, and a very learned one, if the account of him impressing his elders at 12 is accurate. He knew the Law, all 613 mitzvot of it. He seems to have deliberately broken some of them when they were clearly going against the spirit of the Law (such as helping ill people on the Sabbath, which idea was NOT original to him...), as for example "is it not what goeth into a man's mouth which defileth him but what cometh out."

            Besides which, he and everyone else thought the End of the World was Coming Real Soon Now (TM), evidenced by passages such as Paul's "what I mean, bretheren, is that the time is short" and "the living shall by no means prevent [go before] the dead."

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:56PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:56PM (#386334) Journal

          Wait, didn't you admit to being some kind of agnostic a while ago, or am I thinking of our resident divas J-Mo and Shitey Uzzard?

          In any case, the Christian thing isn't reeeeeally about forgiving and forgetting; it's more like "revenge isn't yours...and the Flying Canaanite Genocide Fairy will torture eeeeeveryone you don't like forever and ever and ever and YOU GET TO WATCH! Won't that be so much fun? Aren't you already creaming yourself just thinking about it?!"

          Self-righteous hypocrites. No sense of proportion either. And they don't know what forgiveness is: it's about you, not the person who hurt you. It's accepting a write-off. It's more or less admitting the other guy was/is basically q force of nature, and not worrying so much about it any longer.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:24PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:24PM (#386343) Journal
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:56PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:56PM (#386386) Journal

              Aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! Oh lordy let me catch my breath! Runaway, please, please, think before you link things like this. That entire article is predicated on a false premise: the idea that somehow the null hypothesis is an unduly privileged position.

              If you've been paying attention at all you should know I've spent nearly a decade doing counter-apologetics, STARTING with Cornelius van Til's mind-bending presuppositionalist arguments. That is like learning to swim by bathing in BBQ sauce and jumping in the Amazon during piranha season, or learning Linux by beginning with Gentoo...which I ALSO did.

              Incidentally, despite being from a Catholic group, that article comes dangerously close in spirit if not in form to presuppositionalism itself. It at least isn't outright accusing the infidel (which is ALL non-Christians here, not just atheists) of beginning the search hostile to their conclusion. This is unmitigated, ballsy bullshit. The rest of it a long series of small philosophical turds coated in chocolate; a wheedling, whiny, mock-conciliatory complaint that if those mean ol' infidels would just TRY a worldview which incorporated this conclusion they'd come to that conclusion. Naturally; it's really asking them to take it as axiomatic.

              This is also committing one of the most common and dishonest bait-and-switches in the apologetic world; that is, arguing for an essentially Deist/generic-theist concept of God, and smuggling Yahweh the Genocidal Maniac in when it thinks no one is looking. There may be a God, and I think there is...but I also know that by the very definition of God Abrahamic theists use, the egomaniacal demon they worship is not and cannot be God.

              I am amazed this piece of dreck was allowed to be published. Any sophomore philosophy undergrad ought to be able to shred it and fling it around like so much ticker tape.

              Come back when you have an actual argument. I'm not insulted by this but only because you clearly are not competent to argue this and just posted the first thing that seemed like a good argument to you. May as well be angry at a little kid throwing a tantrum...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:22PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:22PM (#386391) Journal

              To further add to this little humiliation conga: this article seems premised on the idea that the highest good is for the greatest possible number of free-willed beings to choose, freely, to worship Yahweh.

              This leaves you (and them) in the unenviable and frankly unsupportable position of arguing that this is indeed the best of all possible worlds; that no possible change in this state of affairs, no matter how large or how small, could lead to more people worshiping Yahweh. That, for example, rearranging the stars to say in a dozen languages "I YHVH am God" would not affect a single infidel. That effecting the miraculous cure of an amputee (lotsa cancer patients but never an amputee, hmm...) wouldn't get the message across. That making it rain tacos every Tuesday in impoverished regions wouldn't.

              That is a hard row to hoe. Only a successful ontological argument could achieve that, and the OA itself in all its forms, including Planginga's Modal OA which abuses axiom S5, is a case of bad grammar.

              Oh, but it gets *even worse.* Unless you are a Calvinist, you agree that it is at least theoretically possible that ALL free-willed beings COULD come to worship Yahweh and be saved. Being an Abrahamic theist, you also believe that your God is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, time-transcendent, and absolutely-sovereign.

              Therefore:

              P1) The Greatest Good is for the maximum possible number of free-willed beings to worship Yahweh, freely
              P2) All free-willed beings are capable of freely choosing to worship Yahweh
              P3) Yahweh, being omniscient, knows exactly what state of affairs to bring about to cause all free-willed beings to worship him freely
              P4) Yahweh, being omnipotent, has the power to bring about said state of affairs
              P5) Yahweh, being independent of causality, eternal, and transcendent of space-time, could bring about this state of affairs at any and all conceivable loci of space and time
              P6) Some free-willed beings do not worship Yahweh of their own free will
              C1) Therefore: Yahweh is not God and/or it is not the Greatest Good that the maximum possible number of free-willed beings freely worship Yahweh.

              Your move, Runaway...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:43AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 11 2016, @02:43AM (#386489) Journal

                My move? Really? This is kinda like chess - there aren't any original moves left to make. But, I haven't really been playing the game seriously, either. The link above was more or less a random link, that touches on a central idea. The Jews have been kicking the idea around for a few thousand years, as well. Another more or less random link. Time is in short supply, or I might go to the effort of finding a more serious link.

                http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/must-a-jew-believe-in-god/ [myjewishlearning.com]

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:35AM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:35AM (#386507) Journal

                  What was the point of that piece of aimless claptrap? I've seen all this before; there are a number of Reform Jews on my father's side of the family and I've had discussions with some of them that brought ideas like this up. I swear to Cthulhu if you're going to chide me for being too literalistic, too hardcore, or (ye gods) "too fundamentalist" I'll be stuck in an infinite loop trying to decide whether to laugh at you or spit right in your eye.

                  In case this needs repeating, say, if you missed it the first time, I'm not an atheist. I simply know an evil spirit when I see one, and if this Yahweh fellow is real, that is what he is: a raging, genocidal, blaspheming demon arrogating the properties of God to itself, things it can never have and will never be. By simple logic, that makes you a devil-worshiper. And it explains so, so, SO much about the entire almost-4-billion-strong population of Abrahamic cultists.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:23AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:23AM (#386517)

                    I simply know an evil spirit when I see one, and if this Yahweh fellow is real, that is what he is: a raging, genocidal, blaspheming demon arrogating the properties of God to itself, things it can never have and will never be.

                    The Gnostic branch of Christianity came to the same conclusion, that Yahweh was an evil god that was literally imprisoning us in the material plane to keep us from being able to know the real God. Gnostic Christianity is about the only branch of Christianity I can stomach, namely because it isn't built of the blasphemous foundation of violating the first and second commandments.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:23PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:23PM (#386755) Journal

                      Gnosticism is bullshit too; the Gnostic conception of God has precisely the same problems Yahweh does, and perhaps more. Gnostic-God has TWO adversaries to deal with, Satan AND Yahweh, while Abrahamic theism only has the one. And Gnostic-God has an even WORSE record of dealing with the Argument from Divine Hiddenness than Yahweh does.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:47PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:47PM (#386588) Journal

                    What's the point? Well, I'm in several different camps. Is God real? Nahh, don't think so. Yeah I think so. Hope so. Hope not. Well, if God is so damned good, why doesn't he fix the world? AC mentioned the Gnostics. The Jews have their own questioners, who believe that if there is a God, he must hate us.

                    http://www.mishpacha.org/wrestling.shtml [mishpacha.org]

                    Back to agnosticism - I'm definitely agnostic about religion. I'm betting that NONE of our teachers has a clue about the afterlife. Heaven ain't going to be what people are expecting, if it's real at all.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:13PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:13PM (#386738) Journal

                      If my experiences and what my girlfriend claims to know about the afterlife (which really is a misnomer according to her) are true, no human religion gets it right, but the less-dogmatic forms of Buddhism are probably least-wrong. All the times I keep telling people like Uzzard he's going to hell? Hell is not a place, or rather, it's any place if your state of mind is hellish. There are no more illusions when you die; you understand *everything* you did, and you can't hide from yourself. People like him are going to find it very unpleasant going for I know not how long, and they will deserve it--because the OTHER thing she's told me is that somehow, something is keeping track of the evil you do, say, and believe, and it all rebounds back on you in a precise one-to-one ratio.

                      THIS is why I insist on the truth, and speak it fearlessly. Most all of my decisions are made in light of the above information. Does this explain anything about me now?

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:16AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:16AM (#386188) Journal

      > He deserves to be drawn and quartered, hacked apart, hung in a gibbet, or anything else that the grieving relatives can dream up.

      So, just out of interest... what if the relatives of the victims unanimously decide to forgive him? The victims were all churchgoers after all, it's likely that their families would be christians too.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:53PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:53PM (#386255) Journal

        You may have missed a post above. jmorris noted that they have already forgiven Roof. Public statement made, and all. That is their prerogative. And, it is your prerogative to forgive any who harm you, and yours. Depending on ones view of life, then you and those relatives of Roof's victims may well be better people than I am. I can accept that concept.

        The state, however, is exercising it's own prerogatives, which I support.

        If the state forgives Roof, I will truly be shocked.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:16PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:16PM (#385970) Journal

    being punched in the face is the least that a neo-nazi mass murderer like Roof deserves.

    And the whole question is, are we trying to punish people or are we trying make society happier/safer/whatever?

    If we're trying to punish people, sure, hook him up to a car battery and make his life a living hell until his heart goes out. Personally, I have no interest in that. I don't get off on other peoples' suffering; I'd much rather see a man executed than tortured.

    If we're trying to improve life, assaulting somebody in a shower seems counter-productive. With this goal, prison seems useful only as a means toward rehabilitation or harm-mitigation.

    I can't tell you what goals to have, but if you get your jollies from seeing people suffer in prison I really hope you don't live near me.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:29AM (#386061)

      Sadly those types are everywhere, just hope it never comes up.

    • (Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:55AM

      by dingus (5224) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:55AM (#386110)

      Oh, personally, I think prisons should be for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Most of the people in them could be integrated back into society, especially if we make the conditions better.

      Once you start talking about unrepentant mass murderers, I think things change. Sure, execution is the most resource-efficient way to dispose of human garbage. Makes sense to me. But if they're dead-set on keeping him imprisoned, might as well get a few punches in even if it's only symbolic.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @12:20PM (#386229)

      I don't get off on other peoples' suffering;

      You've never truly lived until you have brutally tortured someone. The feeling of power and control is only amplified by their hysterical cries for mercy followed by screams of agonizing pain. And I don't kill them. I just make whats left of their short, pathetic, meaningless existence so unbearable that they commit suicide. I make them kill themselves indirectly. It's beautiful. BTW, I'm a Microsoft developer.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:45PM (#386036)

    It seems to me that being punched in the face is the least that a neo-nazi mass murderer like Roof deserves.

    Then why was that not part of his sentence.
    "I hereby sentence you to getting sucker-punched 50 times" has just a tad too much of a "Saudi-Arabia"-ring to it, don't you think? I thought you were saying you're better than that.

    • (Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:47AM

      by dingus (5224) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:47AM (#386104)

      Then why was that not part of his sentence.

      because the court system is imperfect.

      has just a tad too much of a "Saudi-Arabia"-ring to it, don't you think?

      the difference is that Saudi Arabia cuts off people's heads because they showed some heel or something.

  • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:38PM

    by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:38PM (#386357)

    Given that one prisoner can walk up and attack another: Why is this OK at all? In this particular case you justify the attack with the guilt of the victim, but what if the victim is innocent (still awaiting investigated)? What if the victim is the wrong person (that is, the attacker is mistaken in who he believes he is attacking)?

    Suppose that someone on the street believes that you are the person who (insert horrible action here). Is it OK for that person to walk up and start beating you? If not, then it is equally not OK for prisoners to attack each other.

    • (Score: 2) by dingus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:50PM

      by dingus (5224) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:50PM (#386400)

      Given that one prisoner can walk up and attack another: Why is this OK at all?

      it's not. Two wrongs made a right, as often happens in this wonderfully morally ambiguous world.

      Suppose that someone on the street believes that you are the person who (insert horrible action here).

      IIRC the guy pleaded guilty and there is pretty much incontrovertible evidence. If someone had seen me shoot up a church, for instance, I think I deserve every punch he throws.

      • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:16AM

        by DutchUncle (5370) on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:16AM (#386453)

        I agree 100% that the guy is heinous. But I also feel 100% that society cannot allow vigilante assault just because the target is heinous, because that opens the door to vigilante assault on anyone at random, for whatever bigoted rationale the vigilante chooses.