Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Jubilee" channel.

@rilakkumabby The Bible was written by ancient humans, which explains its obsession with violence.
1
@rilakkumabby Yes, but the Old Testament is no less a part of the Bible, and no less an alleged authentic part of God's word.
1
t c: tend to agree with you, but then it could be argued with similar logic that we shouldn't have long jail sentences either, because no doubt, some innocent people have spent many years unjustly in prison.
1
@tc-zl5rs BTW I'm not advocating banning long prison sentences. "allows possiblity of the innocent to seek justice" Understood, but misses my particular point, which is that the possibility of rectification doesn't change the fact that there is virtual certainty that SOME of the innocent convicts will not be able to realize this possibility. Therefore, for the X% who don't get a retrial, there is also an absolute lack of a second chance too. So to me, it's a question of degree. The more permanent the punishment, the more the wrongly accused case makes sense. But I don't think there is some absolute distinction that states that the only proper upper boundary on punishment is the death penalty. But Just being very abstract. In practice I'm with you.
1
They do it to everyone for the most hard to fathom reasons. Not just alleged cultist conspiracy crackpots (no offense) but for even the most innocent website names that are posted.
1
But we may be born with tendencies toward becoming gay or straight. The whole subject is till fraught with uncertainty.
1
Idk: Because as a generality, child molestation is not as extreme as the worst crimes on the book. For example, stabbing a child to death. Would you agree?
1
I think for the worst type of sex offenders, yes. But for, say, a a high school teacher with weak boundaries who is seduced by her 15 year old student, does she deserve to die?
1
@a.d.r.m.7730 Agree. I think of the devastation a child might experience if her father was executed for having touched her once. The cure might be worse than the disease.
1
@a.d.r.m.7730 I'm all in favor of moderate length prison terms, and they have already shown very low rates of recidivism with house arrest. Without a say at least 5-10 years jail term, it sends the message this behavior is just a sickness but not a serious crime. My main concern is mixing these prisoners with other violent thugs who want to murder them. Why can't we have a prison devoted just to sexual predators? I think for "nonviolent" cases a 5-10 prison term and many decades of house arrest is a nice compromise between making society safe and showing some level of humanity to the perpetrators. Just my thoughts based on a former teacher of mine who faces such a situation right now. I somehow have sympathy for him, but know that his crimes cannot be excused. Some of his victims have mixed feelings about him too. Thanks for your thoughts.
1
Jason who?
1
I would would say Brandan and Candice are also in that category. What the discussion says to me more than anything is we humans are more in seek of belief than the hard evidence that underlies those beliefs. For example, little if any discussion of the evidence the Bible is God's word here. That is simply taken as given by believers. The hard evidence is frequently asked for, but so far as I am aware, never been proven by the standards of today's 21st century standards of evidence. If I am wrong, do direct me to it.
1
Maybe so, but rotting in prison is arguably a worse fate. When you're dead, you won't be experiencing this punishment, so in a sense it's the easy way out.
1
Slayers of infants devoid of all the qualities that make human life valuable. That's why there's a debate.
1
@youawesome2068 No one has yet provided a definitive proof abortion is wrong. Your post continues in that tradition.
1
@sydneyfreeman-coker1179 "...they stop short of thinking about the way that pervasive ideals of gender..." I am open to that definitely. Most of us have grown up with gender norms so ingrained they come 2nd nature, and I am much more aware of this than when I was growing up. At the same time, I think for the most part today's feminism takes as axiomatic that biology has little or no influence on how gender norms come about. But from a scientific point of view, that's an unjustified conclusion. Similarly, it may be unjustified gender norming, if you will, to conclude that the male ideal (allegedly) of status and high income should be seen as primarily a result of better access. Maybe the obsession with status and wealth should not be considered a particularly healthy goal. it typically requires being married to your job and making a lot of social sacrifice. Many women have found that lower pay translates into a more balanced life. Dominance tendency, and hierarchy, for example, might well have a biological element that differs in terms of gender. So it's possible that social privilege is not all that's operating here. My own guess is there's a complex mix of social/biological factors.
1