Blaming The Drugs

I am sick and tired of liberals making bullshyte excuses for violent criminals.

One common tactic is that liberals blame chemical dependencies for violent criminals' behavior.

they are looking for any BS excuse to absolve the criminals of any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.  "Oohhhh poor, poor criminal, it's not their fault, they didn't know what they were doing, the drugs made them do it, the alcohol made them do it, the cigarettes made them do it."

“Drugs” are not the magical enemy__

This is the same sort of bullshit that they attempt to use to excuse away drunk driving.

Or if not any other violent crimes, then liberals look for asinine excuses as to why the drug addict should not have to take responsibility for committing drug-related crimes.  The drugs made the person beat and abuse its family and steal money to get more drugs.

Ohhhh the poor criminal, they are a poor sweet innocent precious, angelic, pristine little angel victim.  The drugs are a conscious, sentient, self-aware entity.  The "drugs" seduced the poor drug addict (don't you dare call them a criminal!!) and made them stab and mug and rppe someone.  Poor drug addict is an innocent victim of the evil self-aware inanimate object.

sympathy for the devil --- ((drug addicts, and how liberals pooh pooh them and react with sympathy, and say, oh pooooor thing, he is addicted to drugs, the poor dear, it is not his fault at alllll,, no this was beyond his control, he is simply a victim of circumstances.

Drugs are not some sort of magical entity, a mystical cosmic force that fluttered here and forced you to succumb.  Drugs did not magically miraculously be the criminal to come here by way of the evil drug fairy to wreak havoc on you, making you the victim.

Wrong.  YOU are the criminal.  YOU are the one doing this to your family.  YOUR FAMILY is the victim.

Atheist Fundamentalist Zealots

you are an ignorant small-minded bigot.  you probably go around all day thinking you're all liberal and open minded and progressive and crap.  but you are unfeeling uncaring and you don't care about people's feelings.  you're telling me you cannot even understand the feelings and/or logic behind why someone might not want to do something that intimate?

how about you realize that it is a very important thing to a lot of people and that their choices are different from yours?  be a little more open-minded.  perhaps one day you will realize that not everyone fits into your little pre-determined roles.  the little cookie-cutter cubbyhole cutouts that you have decided for them.  you are the type of person who pigeonholes people into pre-judging roles that you have decided that they conveniently fit into.

We are not baboons or zoo animals, for Hera's sake.  We have evolved psyches, we have higher brains, we have emotions.

I think some atheists are a pain in the ass.  richard dawkins, jesse ventura, House.  Even if someone is atheist, they should realize and understand how important belief and community are to people.  Humans need that connection, we need that comfort, we need that reassurance that our lives have a purpose.  We need that sense of community that we feel with others who share our beliefs.  We need that__

You need to understand how important that is to human development.  If you choose not to understand, then you are extremely ignorant to one of the most important cornerstones of the human experience.  So while I might not agree with religious people on everything, I do respect the merits and usefulness that having belief offers.

"Man cannot live on bread alone."

here is how some religious logic goes:  the fact that your mind exists, as a fully thinking functioning circuitry of rational as well as imaginative, means there must exist something powerful enough to have created something that complex and intelligent.

The Subject Of Excuses For Criminals

Some opinionaters seem to think that violent criminals are simply "deviant" and nothing else.  Just that-- "deviant."

This is too mild a term and is inaccurate. Individuals that are murderers, rapists, child abusers, and the like, are not just "deviant." I wish the book would get its terminology right. These are criminals. These things that they do are disgusting and horrid and violate another human being’s sense of safety and well-being. Not to mention harm against the person’s physical safety.

And not merely because the law says so. It shouldn’t have to be stated on a piece of paper that a certain act is wrong. People should already have their own innate sense of right and wrong that stems from having a conscience, having morals, being a human being who lives in civilized society.  People who are of this human race should already have a strong idea of what constitutes violent, immoral behavior.  Having state-mandated regulations still are certainly a good thing because it means that a person should be convicted, found guilty, and sent to jail.

It’s strange that it newspapers or wherever, there seem to only be extremes on this opinion.  Some editorialists are under the impression that a mentally ill person does not necessarily know that what they are doing is wrong.

They still must be punished in some form. The crime that they committed, murder or anything of a violent, violating nature, is serious enough that the person who committed it should be punished no matter what. I think they are able to understand that they are being put in jail because they did something wrong. If staying out of jail is the only incentive to prevent someone from committing a crime, so be it.

I think it is ludicrous and insane that criminals can get away with murder by using the "insanity" plea.  Allowing murderers to live and be fed, clothed, and housed and having all of it paid for by hardworking decent, honest, noncriminal people -- that is what is truly insane.

Not throwing brutal murderers in prison -- liberal logic being that instead of punishing them and "giving up" on them, we should offer then guidance and rehabilitation.

These are not self-defense killings, they are premeditated murders.  Just think about that for a minute, and be honest with yourself.  This person committed murder, and they are an adult.  How old is this person??  This is not a child that has never seen the outside world.  This is a grown-up.  this is someone that has free will, that is a grown-up fully capable of [[amassing]] their own decisions.  of weighing the pros and cons of a situation, of sizing up the situation and gauging what the possibilities will be.  This is a grown-up who is responsible for their own choices in life.  This is a grown-up that is fully capable of accepting responsibility for their actions.  Let me repeat, this is a grown-up adult.  This is a person who is fully equipped with the needed faculties to understand that actions have consequences.  This person has the comprehension skills required to understand why murder is wrong.  They are fully capable of extrapolating what the possible outcomes will be for any decision they would make.

And too, if someone has not been guided in their life before they have become an adult and set in their ways, there is not much realistic possibility that they will suddenly magically change their minds now.

That episode where they were mad that the movie cut out a whole shooting-crime-spree scene, and then bobby had the opinion that the outlaw was a pretty nice guy.  What the “Brady Bunch” was trying to say, and what the original founders of free speech meant, is that we need to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  You can't cut out big chunks of the truth and still thinking you are getting the whole truth.  We need to know what kinds of sick people exist out there.  So that we can be informed and able to make good judgments and keep ourselves alert and aware.  I don’t want you being ignorant and thinking this guy was a good person when the plain fact is he was not.  You need to know the whole story.

makers of sopranos
you on the other hand, you are glorifying and in essence lying.  you're trying to convince everyone to look at the so-called human side of murderers, drug lords, r--ists.

really?  human side?  I remember a detective woman was a guest on Jane Pauley's talk show a few years back.  she said that in conversation, murderers and psychopaths will tell you everything you want to hear.  they will come off as being convincingly charming, witty, a little sad -- and they can VERY convincingly portray a bit of remorse and guilt.  enough to fool the vast majority of people.  and it takes an extremely skilled and patient detective, meaning an investigator and psychologist, to be able to discern the fact that the psychopath is faking all of it.

lisa ling on the other hand went into a prison cell, talked with some inmates for about ten minutes, then lisa ling and her airhead self came back out all bubbly and cheerful, "ohmigish they are like so totally human they are like not bad people at all, they’re totally nice, just totally give them like a chance, just be open-minded and like not afraid to take risks."  Well.  lisa ling is not a skilled trained expert in human behavior, certainly not the way a police detective is.

which I guess does not really surprise me.  all these guys found their pit chicks, their females that they can treat like s--- and slap around whenever they want.  hitler had a dog and a girlfriend -- does that erase all the other things he did?

Free Will And Behavioral Choices

Too many say that alcoholism, drug abuse, addiction, sex addiction, etc. are not behavioral choices.  They say that these are not consciously made decisions.  They say that these are diseases.  These are not choices that you are consciously actively making.  They say that these are completely out of your control, that you have no choice, that you have no ability to control your behavior.  They say that you simply do not possess the cognitive ability for healthy ___ [[non destructive, productive]]] behavior.

if you know and acknowledge for a fact that you are not capable of making good decisions, then the law cannot allow you to make those bad decisions that harm people.  if you know that you do not possess the ability to make good decisions.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  you can’t say that you have no control over the fact that you make irresponsible, stupid, dangerous decisions --
And yet at the same time expect that you are freely allowed to make those decisions.

free will
letting serial killers go free
Either admit that this person HAS free will and therefore they chose of their own accord, and  of their own volition to commit this heinous act.  Therefore they should be punished for making this choice.

-Or- admit that they did this thing because there is truly no such thing as free will.  In which case they still should not be let out in public society anyway.  Who knows what other hell they will wreak.

Either way, I win.

Academic Sources vs. Common Sense

There exists a silly, insufferable habit of academia-- namely, that they will not accept any common sense as a trustworthy source of information.  they absolutely REFUSE to accept any common sense offerings.

A lot of the rules of proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and punctuation are things that I learned from reading a lot.  I learned of these norms far earlier than I might have read of them stated outright in a grammar peerage book.

This brings up another issue.  One person's obscure information requiring academic referencing in MLA format is another's person's knowledge that they knew and grew up with.

I remember an assignment back in ninth grade English class.  The teacher stated, "Anything that is not common knowledge must have a works cited.  Hmmm... small problem there.  What exactly is the line of demarcation separating "common knowledge" from "obscure trivia that must be referenced in the bibliography?  (Hehe, "bibliography," there's a throwback term for all you nanopet and gigagotchi owners.)

A wealth of information that I learned growing up is possibly considered obscure modern trivia by most typical non-well-read, non-well-traveled, middle-class people.

For example, the capital of Bangladesh is Dhaka.  I can tell you what the population is, the literacy rate, the chief imports and exports, the average climate, the average life expectancy, and a host of other fascinating geographical tidbits.

I do not quite remember when and whence I first learned of these facts.  Perhaps from my parents, perhaps from family friends, perhaps from a world map that was published twenty years ago.

The point is, to me this is all common sense. 

I can list all the American States in alphabetic order.  I learned this from a children's song back in fourth grade.  I know this is reliable as the list of the states in alphabetical order-- because it is accurate.  That may be a tautological trivial statement, but oh well.  I know it is true because it is true.

Must I really go hunt down an academic source to prove that this is fact?  Or should I perhaps scavenge the folk authors who wrote this gem, this gem that is now in the public domain?

'''''But you have to find some modern-day academic source, accepted in peer-reviewed academic circles, that states this.  and the information thing can't be repealed or retracted''''''

Why exactly?
''''''Ssooo that any person reading this can now know this.  You must cite a reliable source that documents this information.  So that this information can be part of that heretofore ignorant person's repertoire.'''''

So, what you are saying is that that person is stupid.  Okay, so that person is stupid.  Okay, so if they are stupid, then how in the world is the act of citing even more academic sources going to help them expand their knowledge base?  Wouldn't this just further confuse and upset them?

They didn't know this prior.  But they are somehow magically going o be able to handle the burden of this knowledge upon their delicate psyches now?

This tedious insistence of academia is cumbersome and offers little practical, real-world use.

Why Females Should Not Use This Excuse, Either

Here is a fairly recent excuse making the rounds nowadays.  But it is potent and powerful because it tells women many of the things that they want to hear.  Some psychological warfare that is all the more devastating because it is sneaky underhanded.

Some males will claim that marriage is a misogynistic Jurassic institution.  That it has no place in our modern civilized world.  They say that it especially impedes women's rights and ability to lead full rich fulfilling lives.

But I am telling you now, always be very, very wary of males that claim to think that traditional conservative patriarchal institutions are sexist.  Trust me, I am an expert in deductive reasoning and human psychology.  This is what I do.  I study human behavior very carefully, and I glean people’s motivations.

Side note:  in truth, yes, for the vast majority of human history, marriage was a business transaction, a purchase in which the man bought the woman from her biological family and then owned her as his slave and property.  However, that was then.  That is not the case in this society any more.

Yeah, don't even try, dude.  You don't give a flyin sh*t about women's rights.  Do you protest r--- or the way that the legal system is skewed and messed up in that it doesn't even really recognize r--- for the crime that it is?  Do you try to raise awareness of this?  Have you tried to bring about positive change perhaps by running for local office or something like that?  Do you protest violence against women?  Are you aware, or do you raise awareness of the fact that in many countries it is legal for a man to beat and even murder his wife?

Do you protest prostitution and child abuse?  Do you protest or raise awareness of international sex trades in which young girls, children, are bought and sold and traded like spare body parts?  Those are also Jurassic archaic institutions that severely cripple women's abilities to lead fulfilling lives.

If you honestly want to talk about marriage being a Jurassic archaic institution, well, guess what.  There is no shortage of current events fodder in this world in which marriage is used as a tool to beat down, demean, degrade women.  Not to mention children.  There’s the taliban, there's the Waco compound-type things here in the US.  It is abusive, vile, and turns the stomach.

It is widespread, infesting the world, leaking like a virus into remote isolated cultures.  Rampant amongst extremist religious freaks that claim they receive "messages from" some g-d to take a child as a "wife."  So-called religion used as an escape-excuse to legalize the r--- of children.  Child abuse happening in remote villages all over the world.  Young tween girls who are children barely having started puberty, are forced into marriages with aging men.

THAT is an example of marriage being a sick abusive institution that preys on women.  It subjugates them, forces them into subhuman roles, treating them like work animals.  It is turned into a sick perversion of what is supposed to be a loving and *consenting* union between two adults.

But for someone to try to draw parallels between sick perverted nasty middle-aged men in undeveloped, primitive, stone-age cultures across the globe that sell and r--- pubescent-age children --and-- a grown woman in modern western society who has made the conscious choice to be married -- don't even try.

That is being deliberately obtuse and pigheaded.  There is always some self-important huffy puffy atheist-apathist that tries to use the excuse that two thousand years ago or two thousand miles away, someone by the same name has done something criminal.  Well okay, that's good, point taken, duly noted.  But what the hell does that have to do with someone in modern society who is reasonable, moral, rational, level-headed, possessing of good judgment, possessing of good decision-making ability?  There are freakish splinter groups in almost all factions of society, in all ethnicities.

For the most part, people have ulterior motives.  So you have to ask yourself, what is a male's ulterior motive in supposedly being against conservative "traditional" life arrangements?  Obviously he benefits from this “new world order” somehow.  Or else he would not give a crap about ridding the world of patriarchal institutions.  How does he benefit from ridding the world of such "Jurassic institutions?"

Simple -- he gets strings-free, attachment-free, commitment-free sex.  If there is no relationship, then he does not have to worry about her feelings.  The male does not have to regard the female as a human being, does not have to "talk" with her, does not have to meet her family.  He gets all the benefits of a "relationship" with none of the obligatory work.

Self-proclaimed "liberated," "independent-thinking" females often make the following objections to getting married:  Get married?  What for?  To cook and clean and be a slave to some guy?  Why the hell would I want to be stuck with a guy who is going to sit around watch football all day, develop a beer gut, not appreciate any of the cooking and cleaning I do around here, be an ungrateful ahole.  Why the hell would I want that??

If all that is true for marriage, then guess what.  All that also holds true for a living-together couple.  It is the exact same arrangement, simply minus the legal protections that surround a wife in a marriage.

So if you object to marriage on these grounds, then by simple logic you should also object to shacking up -- on the same grounds.  The same conditions exist in the shacking-up arrangement.  Indeed, this is often the pattern for a lot of male-female sexual relationships.

Societal Mores

Liberals accuse conservatives of being stuck-up, snobbish, conceited, holier-than-thou behavior.  Why?  Because conservatives have standards?

because conservatives want to be true to themselves and not kowtow to the morass of your opinion (and of your ilk)?  you’re saying that the fact that they have morals, the fact that they are human beings who have boundaries that need to be respected, that they have limits beyond which is disgusting for them, is what makes you better than them.

A common remark from liberals is, "does it not change with the times?"
you mean be a wishy-washy, easily manipulated dishrag who is easily swayed and bullied and steamrolled over by popular culture?  no thanks.

We were human beings then, and we are human beings now.  We have limits.  Some of these limits are bad, like racism.  Other limits are good and serve very useful purposes.  Such as the fact that we do not tolerate murderers and rps, and we have enacted active law to that effect.

Let us use an analogy.  We see that academic and intellectual standards are failing miserably.  we see that the level of education attained by the average public school person is pathetically woefully subpar.

so perhaps college admissions all across the country should show some flexibility.  perhaps they should prove to the general public that they are "cool."
hey we're cool.  we're one of you.  we understand.  we sympathize.  we'll totally do whatever it takes to get you in.  If that means relaxing the admissions standards by one or two standard deviations, that's cool.

so they should not have any conviction.  they should not have any consistency.  they should just be easily swayed by popular opinion.  who cares about standing your ground?  who cares about being consistent?  who cares about___

Don't Fall For This Excuse

Or, here's a really good one.  I notice that some males claim the reason they don't want to get married is that marriage is an archaic institution foisted onto the public by dogmatic, tyrannical, fascist organized religions.  (Their words, not mine.)

Er, okay, duly noted.  And they also claim that marriage is "demeaning" to women because it treats women like properly, women are chattel, women are basically slaves to their master.  (Again, their words, not mine.)  The guy insists that it is a matter of sociopolitical opinion and breaking free from shackles something-or-other.

Full disclosure -- I have to wonder about the sanity and the intelligence levels of females that fall for this crap.  Even fuller disclosure -- I see that a whole lot of self-described "free-thinking liberal" females actually spout this crap themselves.

But hang on a second, wait a minute, wait a minute.  Let us set all the facts out in a row.
1)   a male claims that he is against marriage because women are imprisoned, enslaved, they do not have freedom, they do not have liberty, etc.  a female claims she is against marriage for the same reason -- she does not want to be enslaved in a wifey prison.
2)   this supposedly means what it says -- he is opposed to an arrangement in which women are imprisoned, treated like indentured servants, are treated like slaves.
3b)   let us review the duties and responsibilities that a wife has in a marriage arrangement and household.  in the arrangement is which she is apparently treated like a slave, etc.  the wife cooks, she cleans, she takes care of the husband, they have sex, she nags and fusses at him to eat more healthily and to exercise.  she is the one that has to endure pregnancy, she takes care of the kids, she might choose to be a stay-at-home-mom and homemaker.
3b)   according to family research councils as well as economic growth surveys, in the majority of two-parent households, it is the wife who handles all the bill paying, utilities, expenses.  that doesn't necessarily mean she pays out of her own pocket, especially if the husband is the breadwinner.  it does mean that she controls the money.
4)  one more fact of the marriage arrangement:  in this modern day and age, and especially in this society, there is enormous legal protection for a wife.  If the husband is bored and decides to just pack up his stuff and leave, he better have a plan for fully supporting his soon-to-be ex-wife.  He is not allowed to just toss the wife or kids out on the street.  He is not allowed to just stop supporting them because he feels like it.  The law ensures the wife and kids are taken care of.  Many a family court judge across the country has decreed this [[decisioin, judgement ___]]]]]]]

hh)   next fact:  the guy that is opposed to marriage and his shack-up are living together.  In the cohabitation arrangement, what is the female's role?  Let us review the duties and responsibilities that the female in the shack-up has.  She cooks, she cleans.  A lot of shacking-up couples do have offspring.  Illegitimate, born out-of-wedlock offspring.
tr)   one major difference between marriage and shacking up.  In the shack-up, the female does not have any legal nor financial protection.
gg)   next fact:  the shacking-up guy still claims to be against marriage because of socio-politically what it represents.
..)   and yet the male is apparently okay with this shack-up arrangement-- in which the female has all of the exact same duties and responsibilities as a wife does in the traditional marriage arrangement.  But she has none of the benefits.

Check and mate.

Practical Arguments Against Moving In Together Before Marriage

There are many of them.

Haven’t you read any financial magazines?  Financial advice articles on msn.com or anywhere?  They all say the same thing -- get a complete credit check on your future to-be before even thinking about getting hitched.  Doing that would have revealed any and all financial hiccups in this person's past.  Gambling addictions, secret illegitimate children they are court-mandated to support, everything.

Do a full criminal background check.  In all fifty states.  And any international overseas criminal background checks.

Also any behavioral medical background.  Drug addictions, al anon, venereal diseases, abortions.

Sorry, but you have no right to huff and puff and get mad that that is all too nosy/busybody/none-of-your-damn-business/etc.  You’re getting married and/or moving in together.  The female has a right to know about everything.  And the male has a right to know about everything as well.

This should not be considered overly intrusive.  On the contrary, this should be considered just intrusive enough.  I mean, you're considering moving in with this person, for god's sake.  To even consider doing that, don't you want to first make sure this person is not a carjacker with AIDS?

It should really be common sense in this day and age, get full bloodwork done on each other.  All HIV, all hepatitis, all Chlamydia.  All what else, what else, that human papilloma virus that is apparently making the rounds nowadays.  Anything and everything.  This should be the case before you two even start having sex, whether you plan to get married or not.

Hey, look I'm not being hypocritical when I suggest all this background checking stuff.  When I get married, I will give my husband full disclosure and access to my background.  I will allow him to completely run the gamut of any and all background checks he wants to perform on me.  I have no problem being completely honest.  I'm an open book with the person I marry.  In return, I fully expect the same cooperation from him.  I'm talking family history of any murderous tendencies, bank statements to see if he ever owed any bookies money, everything.