Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2018 0:52:21 GMT -5
before 18 its a slap on the wrist and time in juvy its after 18 when the real hard time occurs...you might want to update your knowledge of law.... Really? 41 states and the District of Columbia) define age 17 as the highest age that an individual can have a case originate in juvenile court. Seven states use age 16 as the upper age for juvenile court jurisdiction. Two states use age 15 as the upper age of majority for juvenile court. In these states, if a person is above the ages listed and are charged with any criminal offense they are tried as adults, that is, the case is originated and tried in adult criminal court. Hard time comes when charged with a criminal offense when the person is at or above the upper age of majority. The proceedings is sometimes referred to as a direct filing. When a 16 year old is sent to prison for 10 years it is more than a slap on the wrist. It is not like it hasn't been in the news. Cyntoia Brown was 16 when she was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison. Quite the slap on the wrist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and "...you might want to update your knowledge of law...". they don't put minors in prison with adults they go to juvy first until they reach the age limit then after 18 they do real time before that its a slap on the wrist...and one might note that some cases are sealed by the time they turn 18 which can be a hindrance to courts and law enforcement later on...thats a slap on the wrist too
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 14, 2018 2:57:39 GMT -5
Really? 41 states and the District of Columbia) define age 17 as the highest age that an individual can have a case originate in juvenile court. Seven states use age 16 as the upper age for juvenile court jurisdiction. Two states use age 15 as the upper age of majority for juvenile court. In these states, if a person is above the ages listed and are charged with any criminal offense they are tried as adults, that is, the case is originated and tried in adult criminal court. Hard time comes when charged with a criminal offense when the person is at or above the upper age of majority. The proceedings is sometimes referred to as a direct filing. When a 16 year old is sent to prison for 10 years it is more than a slap on the wrist. It is not like it hasn't been in the news. Cyntoia Brown was 16 when she was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison. Quite the slap on the wrist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and "...you might want to update your knowledge of law...". they don't put minors in prison with adults they go to juvy first until they reach the age limit then after 18 they do real time before that its a slap on the wrist...and one might note that some cases are sealed by the time they turn 18 which can be a hindrance to courts and law enforcement later on...thats a slap on the wrist too If they are tried as an adult they are put in an adult prison while waiting for the trial. I'm not sure what happens to those incarcerated thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2018 5:45:04 GMT -5
Nurse Mildred Ratched (also known as "Big Nurse") is a fictional character and the main antagonist of Ken Kesey's 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as well as the 1975 film.
A cold, heartless, and passive-aggressive tyrant, Nurse Ratched became the stereotype of the nurse as a battleaxe. She has also become a popular metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and authority in bureaucracies such as the mental institution in which the novel is set. Lee, do you know that I AM a nurse? A Registered Nurse in the state of Illinois since 1953.
Now, -can you tell me just why you think that I fit the description of "Nurse Rachet" in the flesh? "A cold, heartless, and passive-aggressive tyrant?"
If I were your patient I'd give you a ration of sh-, if you treated my diabetic condition like it was strictly a physical condition over which you the zoo keeper-atheist nurse had acquired mastery over. Lee, I am sorry.
You were right that as a nurse I do know that a diabetes is NOT a strictly a physical condition and often results in other than just physical signs which I should have recognized . I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 14, 2018 9:22:57 GMT -5
No worries.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 14, 2018 9:30:16 GMT -5
You mean it has no physically empirical basis. Right. It's us theists and Christians who are actually doing science. We don't suppose the only things we see are the only things that exist. It's a question of ego. Are you your ego, or should your ego defer to a conceptual greater? If the goatherders guide to the galaxy is the result of your research then there is absolutely no hope for humanity. It is a cracker example of the blind leading the blind. The only long term hope for mankind is to believe he as an ideal nature or natures to aspire to, particularly reproductive ones, the union by which all variety proceeds. Gender nihilists seem to be especially threatened by norms, standards, and ideals. They're often the same ones who feel threatened by Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 14, 2018 12:30:00 GMT -5
Christianity certainly is a threat to mankind, along with all the other religions that believe in a hope for something better somewhere in the future. For some reason I associate these people with the greed of mankind that is rooting our earth with no thought for the future. That does not surprise me as Christians seem to have a lack of self awareness concerning the here and now. They seem to be the ones most wedded to a fossil powered world which is causing great danger to the earth and yet they are the most ardent deniers that any damage at all is being done. I am thankful there are bright minds out there who are researching better ways to produce power for our homes and our transport. They are the ones who have seen through the hubris of religion. I am not against discovery and journeys in space but I do wonder whether it would be better concentrating on providing food and shelter on this earth.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2018 12:44:32 GMT -5
The removal of the many science benefits we enjoy today ,as a result of “religious” scientists would be unreal and deadly . Like any prejudice against any religion or race or gender or or iirrreligion whatever etc etc and suggesting their current and past contributions are not valid or “good” . Not good thinking ALL have contributed and continue to do so Alvin
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 14, 2018 12:55:33 GMT -5
You mean it has no physically empirical basis. Right. It's us theists and Christians who are actually doing science. We don't suppose the only things we see are the only things that exist. It's a question of ego. Are you your ego, or should your ego defer to a conceptual greater? Your comment makes me think that you live in a fantasy world. Perhaps it is evidence of the mental unwellness suffered by all religious people.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2018 12:58:01 GMT -5
The removal of the many science benefits we enjoy today ,as a result of “religious” scientists would be unreal and deadly . Like any prejudice against any religion or race or gender or or iirrreligion whatever etc etc and suggesting their current and past contributions are not valid or “good” . Not good thinking ALL have contributed and continue to do so Alvin It seems to me the religious have made many contributions to science, not because of their religion, but in spite of it. What bible verses alone have contributed to the advancement of science?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2018 13:16:41 GMT -5
Alvin [/quote]It seems to me the religious have made many contributions to science, not because of their religion, but in spite of it .
Agreed . “It seems to me the ________. (Fill in the blank with whatever group , especially ones we don’t like ) have made many contributions to science , not because of their ____________, but in spite of it . “ Alvin
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2018 13:30:56 GMT -5
* It seems to me the religious have made many contributions to science, not because of their religion, but in spite of it .
Agreed . “It seems to me the ________. (Fill in the blank with whatever group , especially ones we don’t like ) have made many contributions to science , not because of their ____________, but in spite of it . “ Alvin 1. There have been many mystical ways of knowing that do not work.
The scientific method is the best way of knowing about how things work, that we have come up with so far. 2. How about quoting some bible verses that have contributed to science? I maintain the bible is not a good source of knowledge about how things work. I can quote a lot of bible verses about how things work which have since been proven wrong by science.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2018 13:32:21 GMT -5
The agreement was “in spite of “ Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2018 13:57:17 GMT -5
Well there has been a lot of religious roadblocks put up in the way of scientific study over the centuries and they continue to do that to this day. Yet against all these odds science has brought many things into our world that the religious use all the time and still they fight when something new in the science world is introduced. All because of their beliefs. It's frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2018 14:11:20 GMT -5
The agreement was “in spite of “ Alvin I was commenting on the whole sentence. "It seems to me the religious have made many contributions to science, not because of their religion, but in spite of it ." "Fill in the blank with whatever group , especially ones we don’t like"“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 14, 2018 20:39:44 GMT -5
Christianity certainly is a threat to mankind, along with all the other religions that believe in a hope for something better somewhere in the future. For some reason I associate these people with the greed of mankind that is rooting our earth with no thought for the future. That does not surprise me as Christians seem to have a lack of self awareness concerning the here and now. They seem to be the ones most wedded to a fossil powered world which is causing great danger to the earth and yet they are the most ardent deniers that any damage at all is being done. I am thankful there are bright minds out there who are researching better ways to produce power for our homes and our transport. They are the ones who have seen through the hubris of religion. I am not against discovery and journeys in space but I do wonder whether it would be better concentrating on providing food and shelter on this earth. To date fossil fuels are the most efficient way to improve living conditions. The Earth is a closed system and is remarkably self healing. Globing warming used to be global cooling thirty years ago. Moral instruction trumps ecological instruction. You must have the first to inculcate the second. Christianity has a great potential to be a moral instrument of instruction. Christians, or so called Christians, offer some cause for disaffection, though most extends from a desire to be offended.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 14, 2018 20:45:50 GMT -5
You mean it has no physically empirical basis. Right. It's us theists and Christians who are actually doing science. We don't suppose the only things we see are the only things that exist. It's a question of ego. Are you your ego, or should your ego defer to a conceptual greater? Your comment makes me think that you live in a fantasy world. Perhaps it is evidence of the mental unwellness suffered by all religious people. I'm realistic. If you're gonna talk about evolution in a meaningful sense, you'll refer to it's moral strides, offsets, and hopeful progress. For those who are considering the concept meaningfully, you will assert the imperative in moral and ethical terms. The basis of meaningful change is faith. How else would you sense your need of change, or what you had changed from? By now most of us know we will continue to change until death. Once upon a Time someone said, "He must go on increasing, and I must go on decreasing." I suppose some grow and some don't.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2018 4:46:26 GMT -5
Your comment makes me think that you live in a fantasy world. Perhaps it is evidence of the mental unwellness suffered by all religious people. I'm realistic. If you're gonna talk about evolution in a meaningful sense, you'll refer to it's moral strides, offsets, and hopeful progress. For those who are considering the concept meaningfully, you will assert the imperative in moral and ethical terms. The basis of meaningful change is faith. How else would you sense your need of change, or what you had changed from? By now most of us know we will continue to change until death. Once upon a Time someone said, "He must go on increasing, and I must go on decreasing." I suppose some grow and some don't. "If you're gonna talk about evolution in a meaningful sense, you'll refer to it's moral strides, offsets, and hopeful progress." Lee, that statement alone, -all by itself, -indicates you haven't any idea what evolution is about. Either that or you want your cake & eat it already!
Evolution does not go forward by the use of moral values. That is exactly the reason so many people don't want to accept it!
We might want to believe that we will evolve into a more moral being but that is NOT what drives evolution!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 15, 2018 21:00:12 GMT -5
What drives evolution... God?
Or is evolution like a virtual chessboard on which we make moves?
Why are you more concerned with the chessboard than the game?
Or, dont you care about what you me him or her are becoming?
Is the game already over?
Did it never begin?
Are we mistaken to believe we have some level of moral autonomy, discretion, and course correction?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2018 21:49:04 GMT -5
What drives evolution... God? Or is evolution like a virtual chessboard on which we make moves? Why are you more concerned with the chessboard than the game? Or, dont you care about what you me him or her are becoming? Is the game already over? Did it never begin? Are we mistaken to believe we have some level of moral autonomy, discretion, and course correction? Lee, I told you that it obvious that you don't knew what drives the evolution of life. If you knew that, -you wouldn't even ask what "drives evolution."
No, It isn't a "game," and no, -it isn't a "chess board." (forget Job!) As for whether I care about what (you me him or her) humankind will become, -I may "care" but I and you will not have ANY say in the matter.
You may want to think that you are in control which is yet another reason that many people like yourself can't or don't want to accept the truth of evolution!
You think that you are in control because if you believe and "serve" a supernatural deity, -that makes you in control! Also you want to believe humankind is "special" -that you are created differently from other life.
These are some of the reasons that you and others like yourself reject the idea of evolution.
True, -it isn't easy to recognize that what we do in the here and NOW is up to US! We can't depend on someone else doing it for us, -not even a supernatural being! It is OUR responsibility.
But that is just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 16, 2018 20:37:45 GMT -5
That was confusing.
So you believe we're in control of our destiny so long as we choose it?
But how would you express the dilemma of our choices and choosing?
Is it not best expressed as a moral one?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 16, 2018 22:05:59 GMT -5
That was confusing. So you believe we're in control of our destiny so long as we choose it? But how would you express the dilemma of our choices and choosing? Is it not best expressed as a moral one? I really isn't confusing when you look at the evidence in the fossil records that shows the evolution of life as it has been developed.
What you are trying to understand, Lee, - is in a different area of study; -that of philosophy; -especially the study of concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics) Philosophy: meaning ‘the love of wisdom’ is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions:
-the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); - what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); -what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); - and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic) Yes, -I know that sounds overwhelming; -and it is! One can spend their whole life studying THAT subject!
Philosophy is what my daughter studied at the University of Chicago and she & I can spend hours on the phone talking about the very ideas that you speak of!
But you are wanting ME to define your questions by the religious beliefs which YOU have!
It also seems your questions are coming from trying to understand your own past experience; -which is even a different study yet, -that of psychology.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2018 10:24:04 GMT -5
You mean it has no physically empirical basis. Right. It's us theists and Christians who are actually doing science. We don't suppose the only things we see are the only things that exist. It's a question of ego. Are you your ego, or should your ego defer to a conceptual greater? If the goatherders guide to the galaxy is the result of your research then there is absolutely no hope for humanity. It is a cracker example of the blind leading the blind. It reminds me of a Jerome Lawrence quote: A neurotic is a man who builds a castle in the air. A psychotic is the man who lives in it. A psychiatrist is the man who collects the rent. A theist builds castles in the sky and believes they will be there for occupancy following death.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 17, 2018 10:29:52 GMT -5
The servants in the castles in the air have wings on their backs so I have been told. In one recent painting that was posted on another page (Catholic online) the winged women were playing violin and guitar at the birth of Jesus. How funny is that?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2018 10:32:20 GMT -5
Really? 41 states and the District of Columbia) define age 17 as the highest age that an individual can have a case originate in juvenile court. Seven states use age 16 as the upper age for juvenile court jurisdiction. Two states use age 15 as the upper age of majority for juvenile court. In these states, if a person is above the ages listed and are charged with any criminal offense they are tried as adults, that is, the case is originated and tried in adult criminal court. Hard time comes when charged with a criminal offense when the person is at or above the upper age of majority. The proceedings is sometimes referred to as a direct filing. When a 16 year old is sent to prison for 10 years it is more than a slap on the wrist. It is not like it hasn't been in the news. Cyntoia Brown was 16 when she was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison. Quite the slap on the wrist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and "...you might want to update your knowledge of law...". they don't put minors in prison with adults they go to juvy first until they reach the age limit then after 18 they do real time before that its a slap on the wrist...and one might note that some cases are sealed by the time they turn 18 which can be a hindrance to courts and law enforcement later on...thats a slap on the wrist too Again, the actual facts tend to point out the errors in our belief(s). Cyntoia Brown was 16 when she was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 17, 2018 21:06:54 GMT -5
A neurotic is a man who builds a castle in the air. A psychotic is the man who lives in it. A psychiatrist is the man who collects the rent.
Thats a good quote for a zookeepeer. Jesus wasn't a zookeepeer. Jesus chose to empathise with our conditions.
I'm a Jesus fan. How about you?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 17, 2018 21:08:36 GMT -5
That was confusing. So you believe we're in control of our destiny so long as we choose it? But how would you express the dilemma of our choices and choosing? Is it not best expressed as a moral one? I really isn't confusing when you look at the evidence in the fossil records that shows the evolution of life as it has been developed.
What you are trying to understand, Lee, - is in a different area of study; -that of philosophy; -especially the study of concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics) Philosophy: meaning ‘the love of wisdom’ is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions:
-the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); - what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); -what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); - and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic) Yes, -I know that sounds overwhelming; -and it is! One can spend their whole life studying THAT subject!
Philosophy is what my daughter studied at the University of Chicago and she & I can spend hours on the phone talking about the very ideas that you speak of!
But you are wanting ME to define your questions by the religious beliefs which YOU have!
It also seems your questions are coming from trying to understand your own past experience; -which is even a different study yet, -that of psychology.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
Are our choices moral or immoral? Which religion are you?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2018 21:19:46 GMT -5
A neurotic is a man who builds a castle in the air. A psychotic is the man who lives in it. A psychiatrist is the man who collects the rent. Thats a good quote for a zookeepeer. Jesus wasn't a zookeepeer. Jesus chose to empathise with our conditions. Odd, if you are speaking the truth, that instead of eliminating leprosy he chose to cure just a single individual. Empathizing with the human condition? He offered pie in the sky. Castles in the air. It is not the earth the meek inherit it's the dirt. Frederick LoeweYou clearly seem to fit that definition. I try not to become fanatical about most things in life.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 17, 2018 21:24:07 GMT -5
Are our choices moral or immoral? Choices, an extension of thoughts, are neither moral nor immoral.
|
|