segnosaur

<p> And juries never ever make mistakes, do they.So, how's the search for the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson going? Except of course the institute where Guy Turcotte was actually being treated said "You know, I don't think its a good idea for him to be released yet".But then, what woudl you expect the people actually treating Guy Turcotte to know?

<p> Who? What people? Ummm... the people who are objecting to his release.While some people who are objecting to his release appear to be exhibiting a "knee jerk" reaction by concentrating on the emotional aspect, I've attempted to establish logical reasons why his release might be premature. As I've pointed out, there are numerous problems with that: Juries are not necessarily experts in the subjects that they are dealing with. Furthermore, they are dependent on the material presented to them in court, so if the prosecution has a bad day, or the defense can afford a better lawyer/experts, they may be swayed the wrong way.Lastly, the jury is limited in the ways they can rule (in this case either guilty or not guilty.) They may have felt he truly was guilty but deserved treatment, an option that wasn't available to them. Ummm... no. They aren't the "only people" who still think he's a threat.I pointed to a quote from a forensic psychiatrist in an earlier post who has questioned both the way the original trial was handled, and with a lack of proper psychiatric reports. (And unlike the general riff-raff you have posting here, you'd expect a psychiatrist to have a little more knowledge about what's going on.) And then there's this:From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/16/turcotte-hearings-conclude.html Suzanne Courchesne, a lawyer representing the Pinel Institute, said Turcotte did not receive enough treatment to be able to reintegrate into society, and argued that the experts brought forward by the defence were minimizing the importance of anger and vengeance in the killings. So even the institution that was involved in treating him think he might not yet be ready for release.

<p> The children are dead. Continuing to punish this person for a crime for which he was deemed not responsible won't change that. So what's the value here? There are 2 issues here: - Some people have concerns about whether he really was "not responsible". As I've pointed out, while he did claim to have 'blackouts', there were elements of his crime which appear to be the work of someone who was quite aware of what they were doing - Some people might not be convinced that even if he was "legally insane" at the time, that he would have improved enough to justify release. I've pointed to several reasons for that (the short length of time institutionalized compared to other cases, a psychologist who pointed out a lack of emphasis on his personality, etc.)

The government has given the expected costs for an ~20 year period. The PBO has been expecting cost estimates over a >30 year period (which of course would be higher).The problem is, any estimates for costs past 20 years is probably going to be very inaccurate, possibly to the point of being useless. Its going to depend on how the technology holds up, future advancements, whether we use our planes in a combat situation or not, and a variety of other factors. Heck, its even possible that the planes may not be in use past 20 years. (Although we will have been flying the CF-18 for >3 decades by the time its retired, we only used the CF-101 for ~20 years.) And yes, you're right... when you buy a car you want to know all the costs for buying and operating the car. But realistically, it would only make sense to consider the costs for the next ~10-15 years (i.e. what you would reasonably expect a car to last.) If someone went and said "give me the cost of driving the car the next 25 years", you'd probably say (and quite rightly) "I can't tell you how expensive things will be past the next decade".

I believe that in order for a person to be considered 'not guilty by reason of insanity', its not just a case of 'snapping', they have have lacked the ability to understand what they were doing. That does seem to be a major problem. I did a bit of googling but I couldn't find any details about the basis of his 'mental defect'. (Only a mention of things like he claimed of things like 'blackouts'.) In his defense, he did try to commit suicide, which shows that he might have actually been telling the truth about not knowing what he was doing. However, there are a few reasons to be skeptical of the release and/or cautions about the release: - There were some reports that his wife was 'afraid' of him prior to the murders. Also, they had found he had researched suicide methods prior do the event, so obviously it wasn't a case of just 'snapping'. - At least in the U.S., the insanity defense is rarely used, and when it is successful, people usually spend twice as much time institutionalized as compared to someone who just goes to jail. Yet this person was 'cured' in far less time. (See: http://www.cracked.c...-to-movies.html). The fact that he was released as quickly as he was is extremely rare. - This wouldn't be the first time that an individual with mental problems "fell through the cracks". Look at the case of Markuze... diagnosed with schitzophrenia and using drugs/alcohol and convicted of making death threats. But he underwent rehab and was released. Only to start up his activities within a year. - Then there's also this (From: http://www.montrealg...0836/story.html) Montreal forensic psychologist Hubert van Gijesghem is also concerned, in his case by the apparent absence of an in-depth report on Turcotte's mental state.... "At the trial, experts only discussed his passing state of mind. We didn't hear about his personality structure. If he has a personality disorder, psychotherapy won't be very effective." Van Gijesghem said it is possible a more in-depth examination of Turcotte has taken place since the trial, but if it has, the public has not been told. - Another thing that concerns me is this: (From http://www.huffingto..._n_2288306.html): ...after a reluctant start, his patient had opened up in recent months and made significant progress.. So, not only was this guy institutionalized for only a few months, most of the therapy was ineffective. You're right in that it's not the responsibility of the jury. But, I figure the jury does take possible punishment into mind when they do render their verdict. (And, I should point out, juries aren't experts, and as such they may be ruling on who has the most convincing lawyers/experts, rather than who is actually right.) Given the limited number of options that they had, the jury might have decided a 'guilty' verdict would have been more appropriate had they suspected such a short incarceration period.

The problem is that Mormons make up such a small part of the U.S. demographics that there are very few addtional votes Romey could have obtained. Compare that to the 1960s election... Kennedy lost support among protestants. But catholics make up a very big part of the U.S. demographics and he was able to make up the difference in bringing in more catholic voters.

Why should he/she? Are you being intentionally dense? Once again... let me explain... it does not matter whether people should care about the differences. The issue is will some people change their vote if they know about the differences. People like you and American woman keep jumping up and down and shaking your fist in rage shouting "people shouldn't care!" But the results of the 1960s election shows that people can care about religious differences. The first ammendment was still in force back then. Yet Nixon managed to increase the protestant vote.

Right. As in "I don't care." Once again, they probably don't care because they think its similar enough to their own religion. Why bother going through the effort to look up some minute differences separating one religion from another? The issue is what would happen if, instead of people assuming "Oh they're just like other protestants" they start learning about magic underwear and other Mormon concepts. There is a difference between "I don't care about the issue at all" and "I have made (incorrect) assumptions and don't care to change them".

So do you agree? Do you think a candidate's religious beliefs should be a major factor in elections/campaigns? There's no easy answer for that. It depends on the candidate, what religion they are supposedly an adherent to, their past record, and the postion they are being voted into.

So how many of those people do you think cared enough to find out more? Actually I think its more indicative of apathy. If someone came to me on the street and asked "what do you think of the difference between Lutherens and Methodists" I'd say "I don't know." More importantly, I wouldn't care to know. In the same study I referenced, most people considered Mormonism to be just another "branch of christianity". If Joe Average citizen imagines mormons having the same basic beliefs he's not likely to delve deeper.

Yes there was. I believe that many protestants were worried he'd be "taking orders from the vatican", and he did go through a lot of effort to assert his independence... From: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Remarks-of-Senator-John-F-Kennedy-at-American-Society-of-Newspaper-Editors-Washington-DC-April-21-19.aspx There is only one legitimate question underlying all the rest: would you, as President of the United States, be responsive in any way to ecclesiastical pressures or obligations of any kind that might in any fashion influence or interfere with your conduct of that office in the national interest? I have answered that question many times. My answer was - and is "NO". - JFK Even with his attepts to state that he would not be influenced by his Catholic beliefs, it should be noted that in the 1960s election, Richard Nixon actually increased the percentage of the protestant vote for the Republicans. (This was offset by an increase in the catholic vote for Kennedy.) So, for all the whining and complaing about how "religion shouldn't matter", the 1960s election illustrates that having different religous views can affect an election.

The original post specifically alluded to "launch codes". Yes it did. But in this case I think we can assume the use of "launch codes" is a little poetic license. (Much like if he had said "do you want his finger on the nuclear button" when there is no actual button to press.) I believe the other poster was trying to argue "should we give military authority to someone who's religous beliefs supercede the needs of the country."

Need I remind you that over half of the people in a survey last your admitted they know very little or nothing about mormonism? And this is after Romney's 2008 presidential bid (where he didn't win the nomnation,. but he did win multiple states!), and after years of having other Mormons in various political offices. Heck, years after Donny and Marie had their show on. Yet most people don't know the fundamentals of the Mormon religion. If the whole political process is supposed to allow people to educate themselves regarding a candidates religous beliefs, then how come over half of all Americans don't know much about Mormonism? Whether they should be out of bounds or not was not the question. The question was if they were discussed (either by the candidate themselves or their opponents) would knowing the tenants cause a loss of votes. And Barack Obama was different too....ye he was still elected president. And its quite possible that he lost votes for being different as well. We're not talking whether his differences in religion would make Romney unelectable, just whether that his religon would cause a loss of votes (at least a significant number of them).

Again, you don't understand how the lawful release of nuclear weapons occurs for the National Command Authority (NCA) under two-man rule provisions and procedures. Even if the president can't unilaterally order a nuclear strike, there are other things they can do... use executive authority to deply troops in (for example) middle eastern areas even if it is not in the country's best interest to do so, if he thinks it will "do gods work". (Although congress needs to be involved to declare war, the president still has certain abilities to act alone in that area.)

I never claimed there wasn't quirky claims in all religions. Yeah, belief in a Zombie Jesus (i.e. standard "christian" belief) isn't any less weird than belief in magic underwear. The issue is that the claims made by Mormonism are different that those of the Baptists/Methodists/Presbyterians/etc. And while some branches of protestantism may have restrictions on things like alcohol or pr0n, most christians probably understand where those bans are coming from. Most would probably think a ban on coffee is silly though.

Which is as it should be. Whether it should be that way was not the quesiton that was discussed in the opening post. The question is if it was discussed. The world does not always act according to logic. For the most part I agree... unless of course someone's personal beliefs might lead me to think they would not apply the proper logic/skepticism when dealing with problems in office. (For example, i would be less likely to vote for a creationist.) Who would have brought it up? The right wing? No, they would want to downplay anything that would make their candidate seem 'different'. The left wing? No, they realize that they don't want to be seen as a bunch of "godless heathens" so they probably won't touch religion with a 10 foot poll. I think most people have a general idea of how it differs, and if they cared, if it made a difference, it would be very easy to google it and find out. There's plenty out there regarding the Mormon religion and Romney. If such things would have made a difference, why do you think people didn't care enough to look into it more? And why do you assume that the principles of Mormonism aren't as well known as they should be? The fact that people could google what Mormons stand for doesn't mean that they automatically will, unless they had a reason (i.e. something to provoke their curiosity). As for why do I assume the principles aren't well known... how about a poll in the U.S. that showed more than half of all people admitted they knew "very little/not very much" about Mormonism. http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Romneys-Mormon-Faith-Likely-a-Factor-in-Primaries-Not-in-a-General-Election.aspx

Nobody is claiming Romney doesn't have the right to religious freedom. He can follow any religion he wants, and even as a member of that relgion run for any office he is entitled to. The question that was asked is "would it cause him to loose votes if the details of that religion were better known. I think in this case, "unusual" can mean "uniquely differing from different sects of christianity (not saying any more or less valid). I know of no other mainstream protestant church that believes in "magic underwear". No other that places restriction on the consumption of coffee. No other that believes in jebus visiting North America or visiting other planets.

Keep in mind that while he didn't appear to be penalized for his beliefs, it was also never really discussed in the election. Remember, the opening post asked if the electorate knew about Morman principles and practices (belief in Kolab, magic underwear). The assumption appears to be that most people don't know about these things, but might change their votes if they knew more. I rather suspect that while most people knew that Romney was a Mormon, they probably don't know what exactly that entails and how it differs from other brands of Christianity.) Again, Yes he "did well", but the question is how would things have changed if the principles of Mormonism were better known.

Because people tend to prefer their own religious mumbo-jumbo to other people's mumbo-jumbo. For anyone interested in learning about the founding of mormonism, I suggest the South Park episode "All About Mormons" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_Mormons

<p> I seem to remember you being infatuated with the BC Astrological Society in another thread.Hey, if you want to start another thread where you condemn the BCAS, go right ahead. I promise I will post in it right away, agreeing how it shouldn't be considered a charity. But the fact that one organization (and possibly more) are falsely considered charities doesn't mean that we should ignore other organizations that likewise are considered charities when they aren't. One unpunished mistake does not justify letting other mistakes go unpunished You see, this is where you seem to have problems with understanding. People don't just give money to the church "for a soup kitchen/food bank". They tend to give money that ends up in general revenue. With that money, the church will end up: - Paying for a minister to deliver sermons, run bible classes for members, handle church choir practice, etc. None of those activities are ones that feed or cloth the poor, or give them a place to live. (Things that are truly benevolent, helping people outside the church population. Things we should classify as charity. More importantly, they are not things that the government would have to replace.) Even if the priest/minister does some charity work, the strictly 'religious' part is a significant portion of what they do. - Paying for an organist, church choir robes, etc. Again, these are not things that feed, cloth or otherwise help the people outside the church community, and thus are not things that the government would have to replace. - Paying to heat and maintain a very large building, which in many (probably most) cases is used only for religious purposes. I pointed to 3 different churches in the city I grew up in, all 'mainstream' churches, none of which hosted soup kitchens, food banks, AA meetings, or anything similar. (So please don't give me any of that crap about "churches having food banks" and other such nonsense... the fact is, most churches do not host those things.) So yet another church "expense' that gets a tax deduction, even though in most cases does not help one poor person get fed, or give them a place to sleep for the night. Now, notice something there? I've outlined 3 major expenses that we give tax deductions for when people donate to the church, but none of those expenses feed or cloth the poor or disadvantaged, nor help them find a place to sleep. And none of those expenses are used for anything that the government would have to replace. In a previous post I described the church I used to attend and the one that my parents still do. (A very typical church, mainstream, in a typical small-to-moderate sized city.) Of all the money raised by the church, only a small percentage goes to non-religious activities that the government would have to replace if the church weren't there. (I estimated only about 10%). Compare that to a charity like the Red Cross, where the amount that actually goes to help the needy is on the order of 80-90%. And that is why we should no longer consider a church to be a 'charity'. Because almost every dollar collected in donations is used for some fuzzy-wuzzy religious purpose, usually directed at the very same people making the donations.

I have to say... while i did find that picture funny, I really have no idea who any of the people in the picture are. (I assume they're all some teen-idol type actors/celebraties) Is the guy in the 'Luke' position Justin Beiber?

Primarily donations from members (source of 90% of funding), either from living members, or from their estate after death... Some may donate because they will get an income tax deduction at the end, others may donate purely because they have a belief in what the church is doing. In other cases its a combination of the 2. There may be other streams of revenue: - Rental of the church itself (for things like weddings) - Investments (e.g. if a church had a surplus one year they may 'save' some of its extra money) http://presbyterian.typepad.com/beyondordinary/2011/05/where-does-the-money-come-from-financing-the-local-church-.html

Yes you did. Don't really get what you're whining about. My point was even if they helped people in the past, does not mean that they should be so tasked as to do so in the future. There are a lot of ways: - With the elimination of church tax exemptions, the government would receive more revenue that could be directed at actual need - Its possible that some people would redirect their religious donations/volunteer work to secular charities to provide the same benefit once the religious tax exemption was removed - There's also no guarantee that the churches would stop whatever charity work they do if tax exemption were removed. After all, if their claim is that "we're doing gods work" many will continue to donate even if their donations are no longer tax exempt. (Do you really think that removing tax exemption will cause all donations to drop to 0 overnight?) Actually it was you that used the phrase 'a lot'. Irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. No, actually its quite relevant... despite the fact that Robbins is runnig a 'for profit' business, the point is: - In both cases people give something (donations to the church/ticket sales to Robbins) and receive something in return (a sermon from the church/self help from Robbins). The fact that Robbins is a 'business' doesn't change the dynamics of paying for a service you receive. Ummm.... that's pretty much what 'benevolence' is... Benevolence... definition (from the dictionary)... desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness. the fact that a church is classified as a "charity" does not mean that it should be classified as a charity. That is my argment. No, but people donate to the church. And the people who donate are overwhelmingly the people that receive the church services. And without any donations the church would disappear. So even if its not a defined "payment" for attendance, its functionally the same. They require that someone gives them money. Yes, there may be people who give nothing but still attend the church. Most do not. Never denied this. Preparing sermons takes time, as does planning services (Things like choir practice). Those things are not helping the "community at large" either. And yes, the church may do more than just 'give sermons'... but many/most of those other activties are likewise directed at members of the church rather than the non-church population. No, actually I have a very good idea of what 'churches' do. I used to be a member of a church. Even taught Sunday school (before I became an atheist). My parents are still members of the same church. Let me give a description... its a smaller church located in the suburbs of a small city. Fairly smaller congregation, and really only the Minister on staff. But, its one of the mainstream churches (so its not like I'm talking about a Pat Robertson-type ministry.) - The church itself does not host AA meetings, food banks or soup kitchens on site. So, you can't argue that the church building itself is used "for social services". (Heck, there are actually 3 churches in that neighborhood and none of them host those type of activities.) The only thing the church is used for is, well, religious activity... church services, meetings involving members of the church (e.g. monthly "pancake breakfasts", etc.) - The church allows people to specify where their donations go... either "church upkeep" (paying minister salary/building maintenance, etc.) or "mission and services" (i.e. things that actuall do help outside the church community). Very little (if I remember, I think it was less than 10%) was directed for "mission and services". - Yes, the minister did more than "give a weekly sermon" (although with rehersals, preparation, etc. that would take a fairly substantial amount of time.)... some of the other activites were: visit church members outside the church, for example in hospital (again, that's somethig that's dealing with only church members themselves), run 'bible study' and similar classes (again, that's something that was directed at church members), have meetings with the ministers of other churches in the area. Notice something? None of those activties are ones that help the community outside that of the church itself. - The only thing that the church did that could be considered "charitable" (i.e. something that was directed at people outside the church population) was that the Minister would work at a local food bank/soup kitchen for a couple of hours 2 days a week. So, for all the money collected in donations (and all the tax deductions granted), the only benefit to society outside the church (i.e "social welfare) was... a half day work per week at the soup kitchen. Even if you assume it was a full day, the amount of "charity" (I'm defining as something that helps outside of the donating public) that would only be 20% of the minister's time. Once again, I never claimed that they didn't do "social work that would otherwise have to be done by the government". What I said was that very little of what the church does are things that the government would have a need to fill... - The government would not have a need to give sermons - The government would not have a need to give mass/hear confession - The government would not have a need to visit sick paritioners - The government would not have a need to maintain a large building (i.e. the church) for services. And even if things like AA meetings were held at the church, there is no reason the same function couldn't be done in other government buildings (e.g. schools)

And I never said you were making that claim either. Your comment was that they "provided a lot of social services". I replied by saying that they should (not) be considered a primary channel for charity in the future.. Notice your use of "a lot" and my use of the phrase "a primary" (rather than "the primary") channel for charity? That's odd. I didn't say anything about the donations people make. Ummm... all churches and charities function by donations (whether its in the form of cash, goods, or time spent). The fact that they're exceptions does not invalidate my rule. Once again... .no it is not. The main function of the church is to cater to its attendents and donors. In that way, it is no more benevolent than Tony Robins is when he holds his self-help workshops. Its only benevolent when the church provides assistance to those outside the church population. Yes you are, even if you don't recognize it. Definititon of charity: Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. Something given to help the needy; alms. You know what's not part of that definition? People paying for a service and receiving it (such as: making a donation to a church so you can in turn get a weekly sermon/receive mass/etc.) And Tony Robins returns something to society in the form of whatever self-help claptrap he's providing to his paying people. Should you also claim tickets you buy yourself to see Tony Robins as a 'charitable expense'? I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I'm saying. Are you suggesting that churches do not provide social services to their communities that would otherwise have to be picked up by the government or secular third-sector organizations? I really don't know how to make it any clearer. I've done my best to provide useful parallels between what a priest does in "preaching to his flock" and what Tony Robbins does. Yes, some churches do this. I never denied that they did. But here's the point... Such services are only a small part of what a church does. If a priest spends 6 days of the work serving in a purely religious function (giving sermons, listing to confession, etc.) and only 1 day running a soup kitchen, then what he is doing is not 100% charity. (Since the people donating to the church are usually the ones receiving the benefit.) What he's doing is only 1/7 of a charity. Similarly, even if they do run an AA meeting in their basement, that's only a small faction of the church's property. Most of the church is used for the church membership itself during their religioius functions. No, that even if a church provides "social services", it is not the primary goal of the church. The primary goal is to serve its donors (the people that pay for and receive whatever religious service they desire). That is not charity... that is the equivelent of paying for a self-help seminar from Tony Robins. Whatever 'social services' it provides (i.e. things that benefit people outside the church's member population) are at best a small fraction of what the church actually does.

And once again blueblood managed to repeat the same tired junk that's already been debunked. And once again, since you seem to be incapable of understanding, I'm not disputing that the league has grown. The problem is that: - While the league has grown, so have the costs. If I double my revenue but triple my expenses, I'm not necessarily any better off, and may actually be worse off than before. Please try to undertand that point. Its rather important. - Much of the revenue increase is due to increased ticket prices. This harms the fans who might, you know, actually want to attend a game or 2 but cannot anymore. As Black Dog stated, that's a fallacious appeal to authority. The fact that a persion is an expert in one area of business does not mean that they will be an expert in all areas of business. Assuming Mr. Billionaire will be an expert in running a hockey team if he made his fortune selling food would be foolish. In case you didn't notice, the league is in financial trouble now. Or perhaps you didn't know... over half the teams are lost money in 2011. http://bizofhockey.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=442:inside-the-forbes-2011-nhl-valuations&catid=33:nhl-news&Itemid=51 And in case you didn't know, the league was never in danger of folding back in the "glory days". Yes, some individual teams may have struggled and had to move (just like today) but the NHL was not in danger of going under. Well, lets see... Tampa Bay entered the league in 1992. So they've been around for decades. Last year, they lost over $8 million. (A loss of 10%). What about the sharks? They've been in the league even longer. And they lost $7.8 million last year. So, you argued "give it years/decades". We've given it decades. Teams down there are still loosing money. Oh and before you claim "well the teams have to win to be financially successful", Tampa Bay has won a stanley cup. And the Sharks have won multiple division championships. Errrr... not really. Not only did the NBA sign a TV deal that was worth (I think) 5 times what the NHL deal was worth, lets look at 2012 TV playoff ratings for the finals, shall we? - The NBA finals had games that had between 15 and 19 million viewers, pretty much on par from the previous year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NBA_Finals#Broadcast) - Game 3 of the NHL finals had a viewship of 1.7 million (or roughly 10% of the NBA audience). Furthermove, ratings seemed to have decreased by about 1/3 from the previous year's final. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/star-power-hasnt-been-enough-to-ignite-nhl-tv-ratings-in-the-us/article4234785/) So, just how long will it take the NHL to catch up to the NBA if the NHL viewship is decreasing while the NBA viewership is steady or increasing? Is there some sort of bizarre reverse math in place? And yes, there may be some difference due to the penetration of cable into various markets, but the fact that the ratings for the NHL finals decreased since the previous year means that the channel isn't the only factor. First of all, you do realize that the league can block the sale and/or relocation of a team, right? Secondly, you seem to be missing the point... Yes the owner sold the team, but why? If you think hockey is such a big money maker, and that those billionaires are in it "for the long term", why would they have felt the necessity to move? Even if there was "a recession down there", that kinda shows your claim that this is a long term strategy is kind of debunked if it can be derailed by an economic downturn. Oh, and I should point out... the group that used to own the Trashers also owns the Atlanta NBA team. They kept the NBA team, despite there being "a recession down there". Yes they do... But the point is, the Thrashers moved from "new territory United States" (the area that you claim is where the league needs to expand and will become insanely rich) back to a more traditional hockey territory. Actually we just prefer to, you know, look at actual data rather than trusting in billionaires who have seen their teams loose money year after year.... The NHL had no need to be spread out over the same geographical region as the NFL/NBA/MLB. The league could still be profitable even if they constrained themselves to more traditional hockey markets. It does a Canadian fan absolutely no good to have a team placed in (for example) Florida, especially if that florida team is going to struggle. All it does is increase competition for existing players (and possibly drive up ticket prices).