Jim Baker and Tammy Fay,
Jerry Falwell…as Hitchens said “the death of this sorry little man…proves you can do any ignoble thing, as long as you are called reverand.”
Would you murder these people if you knew you could get away with it?
No. There are too many false martyrs in the world already.
1 Like
Nope. Preferably I’d rather people stopped “listening and watching and believing and funding”.
He’d be replaced as they all are.
I don’t focus on those that have no direct influence or interaction with my life.
2 Likes
Giga-VOLTaireAtheist
Sounds like a troll baiting atheists for a reaction to me. Giga appears to have some real issues coping with life.
1 Like
No.
The only person I would have either beaten badly or murdered was the cunt who date raped my sister when she was 18.
Perhaps fortunately for both of us, he was a Kiwi and had returned to New Zealand before I learned about it. I was in the army and overseas when it happened.
My grand father was a policeman. He especially hated wife beaters and con men.This was from around 1912 to about 1950. No police car. He and his mate would walk miscreants to the station . Those mentioned tended to fall down a lot on the way.
In daily life, I seldom see violence as an acceptable means to an end. The last time I hit another person in anger was in 1964.
1 Like
No. They’re not worth the price of a bullet, and the paperwork afterwards would be toilsome.
1 Like
Give them the finger, yes. Murder them? That’s just immoral.
2 Likes
Nah, just venting. I wouldn’t really hurt them or anyone.
No Probably not because I believe in peace not war .
1 Like
No, that’s unconscionable.
Murder them if you could get away with it?! What sort of nonsensical horse shit is this?!
No.
1 Like
Murder? What would it accomplish? I don’t kill people just because they’re assholes.
Nice to know. What did the people you’ve already killed have to do to earn your chagrin? 
No way.
Firstly: My moral compass says it is wrong to use deadly violence (or even “regular” non-deadly violence) to solve problems. And in the hypothetical situation that I actually did it, my concience would be killing ME, to the point that the rest of my life would be miserable. What is the point of doing a thing so that you end up being miserable yourself, even if noone else knows? A much better way is to somehow make sure their activities, their hypocrisy and even crimes (if any) are exposed and made widely and publicly known. The humiliation will be much bigger for them. And even better, if they can be indicted and sentenced it’s even more humiliating for them. If they die, they cannot feel humiliated.
Secondly: Killing someone do not solve any problems, it only creates new and different problems that can be even more severe and annoying. Or it can even escalate the problems that this method of “solving” it was meant to do.
Thirdly: Independently of any moral issues, anyone who think they have left no trace after an act of physical violence (or whatever method used to kill someone) is naïve and misguided. Chances for leaving traces that can lead back to you are overwhelming. Why risk it?
I was going to do that joke, beat me to it. 
Yeah, it is a bit obvious.
There have been times in my life that I would have liked to kill a couple of people. Fear of the consequences stopped me. Fear of getting caught and the knowledge that my conscience would destroy me.***
***If you want to understand conscience read Crime And Punishment by Dostoevsky
I understand crime and punishment by Franz Kafka and would never want to delve into the ‘metamorphosis’ offered by having to go on ‘trial’ in the legal system we have today. Stay away! Stay far away!
Like a parody of televangelist. If I didn’t know better I’d swear I was watching a comedy skit about televangelist. The only thing that keeps it from being funny is all the people it harms. Jim Bakker went from from preaching the prosperity gospel to apocalypticism. At least with apocalypticism you can get something in return for your money since he’s now selling buckets of overpriced freeze dried food, but the prosperity gospel is rainbows and sunshine while apocalypticism is nothing but dark. He’s getting more and more addled and I’m picturing him getting confused and combining prosperity gospel and apocalypticism in the same sermon. Something like,“Send me money and god will make you rich so you can buy all my survivalist gear to survive the apocalypse.”.Both ideologies business plan seems to be to separate people from their money. The poison he was pedaling as a cure for covid did get some backlash but he only ended up with a fine. I think some stations stopped carrying his show too. I don’t count him out though, he’s nothing if not persistent.
Read a bit of Kafka in my 20’s, found his darkness comforting at the time.
A few years ago, I knew several lawyers socially, barristers actually. Those people do mainly trail work, while solicitors mainly do stuff such as wills, contracts etc. They are allowed to do criminal law if they want. The ones I know do mainly family law and traffic offences.
They have all given me the same caveat . Do not confuse our legal system with a justice system because it isn’t . From time-to-time justice is both done and seen to be done. This is by happy accident rather than intent.
I often give way on the road. These days more than ever, driving is about getting from point A to point B in one piece. I don’t insist on my rights, working on the principle that "I’d rather be late than dead on time " (anon
Yes. We do not have a Justice system. No one in a court room cares about justice. We have an adversarial system whereby the accused is either found guilty or it is decided that there is not enough evidence to find him or her guilty. At no point in time is a victim of the judicial system ever presumed innocent. No court has ever found a person before it, “innocent,” of anything.
The odds are stacked against you when you go to court. The police work for the city. They know the judges and appear often in the courts. The judges work for the city. The prosecutors work for the city. They all want your money. If you win a case, you have proved everyone wrong, from the officer on the street to the district attorney who decided to file against you, to the judges, prosecutor and even your own defense attorney, who is not working for you. If you qualify for a public defender, he works for the city. His job is to get you to accept a plea deal, even if you are completely innocent, so as to not tie up the court. His goal is to clear cases as quickly and easily as he can and ‘not’ to get tied up in litigation.
If you are lucky, when you hire an attorney, you will have one that fights for you. “If you are lucky.” Why? They are all licensed by the State Bar Association. If they piss off the wrong people their licenses can be … ummmm… fucked with… to put it mildly. In the field, within a given city, everyone knows everyone at each of the levels, city, county, state, and federal. No one is on your side!
You need a good lawyer that you can trust… ha ha ha ha … and the possibility of getting a heafty settlement so the shark will smell the blood and work with you.
“A consensus of defense-minded commentators would also agree that the
rights afforded criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment are wanting, in large part due to the inability of defense attorneys, particularly public defenders, to provide adequate defense.”
- See, e.g., Gabriel J. Chin, Race and the Disappointing Right to Counsel, 122 Yale L.J. 2236 (2013); Colleen Cullen, Mo’ Money, Fewer Problems: Examining the Effects of Inadequate Funding on Client Outcomes
No time and no money for “YOU,” “The Innocent.”