fabulousflamingos @ fabulousflamingos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

19

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you need to have someone explain to you why allowing a baby killer to go on parole -- and allowed back into society -- is bad, then the problem is not me, the problem is you. You have to put in the effort and think for yourself... though clearly you're not very good at it.

Punishing evildoers doesn't hurt me, it only helps me. What does hurt me and millions of other Americans is when looney-bin cultists like you take the worst offenders and exploit them to manipulate and bully their victims and the victims' supporters into caving to your insane demands just so you can make yourself feel better. That's what actually hurts people.

Then you move on to presenting “eligible for parole” as “about to be released”, then stating your opinion about what a life sentence means as fact.

Baby murderers should never be eligible for parole under any circumstances and the fact that she is is the problem. It proves that imprisonment isn't a guarantee she'll be permanently separated from society, taking away any credibility toward the claim that it's a satisfactory means to protect the community.

You just don't want to see a baby murderer be punished. That's what the real issue is. And you're vile and morally repugnant for holding that view.

And as the cherry atop a dogshit comment, you throw a fistful of character flaws at me, none of which you’ve even attempted to justify, let alone succeeded in justifying.

Your viewpoint speaks for itself. You want me to hold you in high esteem? Stop trying to manipulate other people into thinking a baby murderer shouldn't be held accountable for her actions or punished.

I don't have to. It's obvious to anyone who actually cares about their community and not defending baby murderers for their political agendas.

You wanted DadWagonDriver to say he’s against righties calling for war? You got it in the post you’re replying to. Bam.

That is just a lie he told to disarm anybody reading and it clearly worked on you. He doesn't feel that way, otherwise he would have been doing it in the first place. You need to learn to read context and really think about other people's actions, approaches in debates, and what they're really saying.

Just because you agree with him doesn't make him or you right, and it doesn't change the fact he's manipulating you, is acting with ulterior motives and you're falling for it.

It's clear everybody labeling her as mentally ill are doing it with an ulterior motive in mind. They're almost as bad as she is.

Have you ever read The Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt?

It absolutely is and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for defending it. The mentally ill are hurt deeply when you use stereotypes that they are violent, dangerous and lack agency to absolve evil monsters of their actions. What you're doing is wrong and you need to stop.

Judging from your post history, you're just lying. There's no evidence of you ever confronting the right with their behavior, only the left. Therefore the only conclusion is that you are biased. Judging from your responses in other threads, this is because you support the status quo and fear losing it. A status quo degenerating into fascism and genocide, of which you are enabling.

Of course I’m also against shitty neo-Confederates ALSO calling for a civil war,

The left is not calling for civil war. They call for revolution which is fundamentally different. You're purposefully trying to lie to weasel out of admitting you are wrong. And you are very, very much in the wrong.

And you have the nerve to use my words to serve your agenda, which you still haven't apologized for by the way.

That fact makes it all the worse.

No. I will not be silent in face of blatant ableism.

Why are you only rejecting the "super-leftists" and not the right wing who are carrying out evil acts and actually openly calling for civil war, and have been declaring we've been in a civil war for years?

Don't you dare use my words to try to serve some political agenda.

You wouldn't say the quiet part out loud.

That's assuming she committed the murders out of mental illness, which is entirely baseless and an ableist claim to make.

You are here with a clear agenda and what you're doing -- undermining the seriousness and reprehensibility of her actions by labeling it as mental illness -- is morally repugnant.

You're not helping the stigma against mental illness by automatically assuming she committed the murders as a result of it. You are not a psychologist, more importantly not her psychologist, so you do not have the authority to make that kind of a determination.

Claiming she committed the murders because she is mentally ill is an ableist act.

Being mentally ill doesn't mean you're going to murder anyone, certainly not babies.

You're ableist, and unempathetic.

So a baby murderer should have been allowed to keep her job and continue to put innocent lives in danger because you 1) baselessly think she's mentally ill, and 2) think that a condition as extreme as you're implying shouldn't be regarded with consequence.

That's because the mental health excuse is just that: an excuse. They don't actually have the evidence to back up the notion that she's mentally ill other than her diary entries. Those entries could have been forged for all they know.

They not only undermine the very real damage that woman caused by using mental health as a cynical attempt to try to give her an out, they also are being extremely ableist. Committing egregious crimes != mental illness and for them to draw that equivalency caters to the stereotype that mentally ill people are dangerous.

These are people who know that and who would call others out for being ableist, yet do so freely in threads like this without consequence or a second's thought from anyone else. Ask yourself why that is.

A large number of people would disagree with you and they would be right to do so. Your opinion does not mean fact.

Nothing anyone does will bring those poor children back from the dead. That's not the point of justice. The point of it is to fulfill what the people think qualifies as moral righteousness. It's what the word actually means if you look it up in a dictionary, and for the majority of people, they believe the death penalty in cases like this is right and I for one can't fault them.

The point of wanting her dead isn't to bring the babies back. It's to get rid of her, permanently, as they rightfully should. We know prison isn't enough because others have cited the case of another baby murderer who is now up for parole and may be released, completely defeating the point of life sentences in jail.

murder is wrong (unless I think you deserve it)

And that's how many philosophical schools of thought work, and they are quite honestly more valid than yours. Deontology is a terrible moral outlook and cases like this is why. We can't have a moral and just society if we only judge morality by action and not by the circumstances of that action, who is affected, who commits it and why, etc.

What you're asking for is actually unempathetic, cruel, and quite honestly really dangerous for the community.

They do it because they choose to. Regardless of all other circumstances, the choice is always theirs.

So like, what happens when one side gets a hold of nukes?