There are a few people around here that need to visit reality. What is written in these books is of minor importance to what goes on in the real world. What is written in the books is very tame compaired to what goes on in the world on a daily basis. There are some sick puppies out there in society. Those who choose to turn a blind eye to the reality of the world are the reason these things keep happening. You are the same people who convict people who catch these sickos in the act and convict them because you don't want to admit that it can happen.
Molon Labe, Like UC, Another Great Idea Ruined by an Author's Sick Sadistic Fantasies
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
neoncowboy
Member
I'm missing something...
How did we arrive at the conclusion that Boston approves of the actions taken by his character, The Leopard?
Even after stepping in and explaining his reasons for inserting the morally difficult construct of this character...you're still insisting that Boston individually approves and endorses such behavior.
I was satisfied with his answer that no, he doesn't...but the point is to present YOU (the reader) with it so that you can chew on whether or not YOU (the reader) approve or don't approve.
How did we arrive at the conclusion that Boston approves of the actions taken by his character, The Leopard?
Even after stepping in and explaining his reasons for inserting the morally difficult construct of this character...you're still insisting that Boston individually approves and endorses such behavior.
I was satisfied with his answer that no, he doesn't...but the point is to present YOU (the reader) with it so that you can chew on whether or not YOU (the reader) approve or don't approve.
Bigjake
Member
Mr. T. Party,
Can we have a seen written involving Tong-Tool and The Leopard??
Can we have a seen written involving Tong-Tool and The Leopard??
Darth Ruger
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 525
Exactly. There are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of fiction suspense/thriller books out there centered around sick, twisted serial killers who do disgusting, exactingly calculated horrors to their victims and enjoy watching investigators figure it out while plotting their next victim's demise. Does this mean that every one of those authors is a bloodthirsty psychopath? What about film-makers that take it to the next level and take such stories and turn them into shocking R-rated movies that we can watch, instead of just read about? And are people who enjoy reading and watching these thrillers twisted perverts for seeking out such entertainment?
Why is this thread even here? Isn't it sufficient to just say you didn't like the book and leave it at that?
Dude, what the hell?
Why the attack? Why do you think this is a reasonable direction to push this discussion?
The Real Hawkeye
member
Yes, but I'm not talking about a test for replicant status, as in Blade Runner.
Boston T. Party
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 90
from "The Real Hawkeye":
an author whom you don't know, and after he also explicitly
denied your assertion. (I'm just curious: what are you not
so sure about in life?)
The Leopard's planning, cunning, and execution of plan (the "how's")
are admirable in the neutral/amoral sense--and my tone reflects that
(which I suspect is a partial source for your confusion). Whether the
"why's" are admirable is up to the reader. I've stated no personal
opinion either way, and one reason is that I am personally of two minds
on the matter--and I used my own feelings to construct the moral
questions involved.
If I approved of his actions, then why would I be wasting any time
merely discussing them, especially with online strangers? To me,
Thought is generally a means to the end of Action.
I think about things in order to do things.
If I agreed 100% with the Leopard, I wouldn't have spent the past
13 years merely writing books...
By imagining that I'm "defending the moral rectitude of the Leopard's
actions" you're missing the entire point, which was to portray the
Judge's actions in a noneuphemistic light in order to pose the moral
question of him being killed for his judicial rulings.
Gray is stripped of his "mandatory sentencing guidelines" and other
Nuremburg-type defenses. He sent a harmless woman to prison where
she was reasonably expected to die without her self-medication.
approval of most Americans. What country do you live in?
completely innocent of any wrongdoing...
A fair inference from the Jessup scenario is that Judge Gray
knew, or should have reasonably known, that she would suffer
grave health consequences (even death) if deprived of her medical
marijuana--especially since there was a very notorious prison death
for this very reason a few years ago. (Her defense attorney would
have certainly brought this up not only during her trial, but also at
her sentencing hearing.)
Gray's personality and philosophy combined to create a willful ignorance
of the matter.
Nobody but Judge Gray placed Katherine Jessup in prison. He alone
had the power to protect her health, and her life. He could have at
least properly allowed her medical marijuana defense to be considered
by the jury.
Both the Leopard and Gray committed homicide; Murder 1 in the first,
and arguably some variant of manslaughter in the second.
Again, here are the issues:
Did Gray do anything wrong?
If so, what punishment was appropriate, given that a harmless
woman died alone, scared, and in prison?
Can such a punishment be morally dispensed by a private citizen?
OK, you think the Leopard went too far.
Well, what would you have had him do?
Nothing? A stern lecture? A severe beating? FMJ to the head?
What?
E.g., one can go to prison for negligent homicide (i.e., where
there was no mens rea or intent to kill).
Gray's greatest crime, especially as a judge, was that he was
intentionally ignorant and close-minded, which can only lead
to gross unfairness and thus gross injustice. A fair argument
is that the man had become morally insane.
Is it sane to incarcerate a harmless woman dying from terminal
cancer because she grew and smoked her own flowers? To
imprison her when such would clearly lead to her health declining,
or even her death?
The Leopard may indeed be a psychopath (i.e., one who suffers
from a mental disorder). He was clearly very disturbed by the death
of his daughter and wife, and blames in part the anti-drug legal industry.
But the fact that you never once posited that Gray may also
be a psychopath I find very interesting.
2) The evidence of #1 is that I would not have resorted to the
ridiculous and pointless punishment of liening the child's future
for the $5,000.
Please stick to attributing thoughts, words, and actions to yourself.
Attributing them to others--especially in regards to hypothetical
situations--is the habit of, to use your term, "a primitive mind."
_______________________________________________________
Regarding Tong Tool's odd non sequiturs, he's welcome to start his
own thread on the matter (with, I hope, some background info to
his inexplicable comments).
Boston T. Party
http://www.freestatewyoming.org
http://www.javelinpress.com
Join the Free State Wyoming Forum:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php
That's two absolutes in the same paragraph regarding
an author whom you don't know, and after he also explicitly
denied your assertion. (I'm just curious: what are you not
so sure about in life?)
The Leopard's planning, cunning, and execution of plan (the "how's")
are admirable in the neutral/amoral sense--and my tone reflects that
(which I suspect is a partial source for your confusion). Whether the
"why's" are admirable is up to the reader. I've stated no personal
opinion either way, and one reason is that I am personally of two minds
on the matter--and I used my own feelings to construct the moral
questions involved.
If I approved of his actions, then why would I be wasting any time
merely discussing them, especially with online strangers? To me,
Thought is generally a means to the end of Action.
I think about things in order to do things.
If I agreed 100% with the Leopard, I wouldn't have spent the past
13 years merely writing books...
You continue to get it backwards.
By imagining that I'm "defending the moral rectitude of the Leopard's
actions" you're missing the entire point, which was to portray the
Judge's actions in a noneuphemistic light in order to pose the moral
question of him being killed for his judicial rulings.
Gray is stripped of his "mandatory sentencing guidelines" and other
Nuremburg-type defenses. He sent a harmless woman to prison where
she was reasonably expected to die without her self-medication.
It's done every day in courtrooms across the land, to the vast
approval of most Americans. What country do you live in?
Thank you for not going so far as to assert that Gray was
completely innocent of any wrongdoing...
A fair inference from the Jessup scenario is that Judge Gray
knew, or should have reasonably known, that she would suffer
grave health consequences (even death) if deprived of her medical
marijuana--especially since there was a very notorious prison death
for this very reason a few years ago. (Her defense attorney would
have certainly brought this up not only during her trial, but also at
her sentencing hearing.)
Gray's personality and philosophy combined to create a willful ignorance
of the matter.
Nobody but Judge Gray placed Katherine Jessup in prison. He alone
had the power to protect her health, and her life. He could have at
least properly allowed her medical marijuana defense to be considered
by the jury.
Both the Leopard and Gray committed homicide; Murder 1 in the first,
and arguably some variant of manslaughter in the second.
Again, here are the issues:
Did Gray do anything wrong?
If so, what punishment was appropriate, given that a harmless
woman died alone, scared, and in prison?
Can such a punishment be morally dispensed by a private citizen?
OK, you think the Leopard went too far.
Well, what would you have had him do?
Nothing? A stern lecture? A severe beating? FMJ to the head?
What?
It's very important, I agree, but it's not everything.
E.g., one can go to prison for negligent homicide (i.e., where
there was no mens rea or intent to kill).
Gray's greatest crime, especially as a judge, was that he was
intentionally ignorant and close-minded, which can only lead
to gross unfairness and thus gross injustice. A fair argument
is that the man had become morally insane.
Is it sane to incarcerate a harmless woman dying from terminal
cancer because she grew and smoked her own flowers? To
imprison her when such would clearly lead to her health declining,
or even her death?
The Leopard may indeed be a psychopath (i.e., one who suffers
from a mental disorder). He was clearly very disturbed by the death
of his daughter and wife, and blames in part the anti-drug legal industry.
But the fact that you never once posited that Gray may also
be a psychopath I find very interesting.
1) You don't know what I would do.
2) The evidence of #1 is that I would not have resorted to the
ridiculous and pointless punishment of liening the child's future
for the $5,000.
Please stick to attributing thoughts, words, and actions to yourself.
Attributing them to others--especially in regards to hypothetical
situations--is the habit of, to use your term, "a primitive mind."
_______________________________________________________
Regarding Tong Tool's odd non sequiturs, he's welcome to start his
own thread on the matter (with, I hope, some background info to
his inexplicable comments).
Boston T. Party
http://www.freestatewyoming.org
http://www.javelinpress.com
Join the Free State Wyoming Forum:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php
The Real Hawkeye
member
Let me rephrase: The author would place such a lien if he wished to remain consistent. He is, of course, at liberty to be inconsistent.
Boston T. Party
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 90
The child was incapable, then, of knowing what he was doing.
Judge Gray was capable of knowing what he was doing,
but refused to accept the consequences of it.
If TRH continues down this road, he will risk having to defend the
infamous Nazi Judge Roland Freisler...in order to "remain consistent."
Then, TRH can presume to judge the Leopard.
Boston
Judge Gray was capable of knowing what he was doing,
but refused to accept the consequences of it.
If TRH continues down this road, he will risk having to defend the
infamous Nazi Judge Roland Freisler...in order to "remain consistent."
That is the vital question to ask and answer, first.
Then, TRH can presume to judge the Leopard.
Boston
The Real Hawkeye
member
I am a libertarian. Naturally, the law in question is ridiculous and evil on several levels. The question is the degree of guilt borne by the individual judge who merely applied the law as delivered to him. I happen to be of the opinion that soldiers who obey evil orders are far less guilty than those responsible for generating said orders, so I am not inconsistent in this. That is not to say that people who are habitually dangerous to liberty have a right to continue being such and live, regardless of where on the chain of command they find themselves. Benedict Arnold was such, and he was taken care of, but I don't think they tortured him first. Julius Caesar was such, and he too was taken care of. Nothing personal. Just business, as it were.
Travis Lee
Member
As I recall, Benedict Arnold retired to England to land, a title, and a financial reward. He died from natural causes, and not at the end of a sword or a rope.
The judge in Molon Labe died in a similar fashion to that of a woman he sentenced to prison, not caring that she would likely die, and after she did die, he had no remorse for having been responsible for her death.
I call that judge a sociopath, and I call his demise karmic justice.
Law was created so that society would have a buffer from vendettas, and revenge killings. Law has become so divorced from justice, that vendettas and lynching parties may well make a serious comeback. "Clean up squads" are already dispensing private justice in Columbia and Brazil.
As I see it the LEOPARD was a warning, not a prescription.
--Travis--
The judge in Molon Labe died in a similar fashion to that of a woman he sentenced to prison, not caring that she would likely die, and after she did die, he had no remorse for having been responsible for her death.
I call that judge a sociopath, and I call his demise karmic justice.
Law was created so that society would have a buffer from vendettas, and revenge killings. Law has become so divorced from justice, that vendettas and lynching parties may well make a serious comeback. "Clean up squads" are already dispensing private justice in Columbia and Brazil.
As I see it the LEOPARD was a warning, not a prescription.
--Travis--
Boston T. Party
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 90
from TRH:
by hedging for the judge's sake with "merely."
A harmless woman was placed in a situation where she
could be expected to die, and she did. That she was placed
there was fractioned out to the participation of hundreds
of people, from congressmen, to police officers, to Judge
Gray, to FCI staff. And this splintering of guilt amongst
hundreds of perpetrators (each portion being small enough
for the individual to easily ignore, or comfortably shoulder)
is the genius of the oppressive State. Every actor has but
a share or two in the great cooperative, and as mere shareholders,
limited liability. Huge injustices are committed, but nobody
can be held responsible.
"After an avalanche, every snowflake pleads 'Not Guilty!'"
-- from Molôn Labé!
The Leopard concluded that innocent people were being made
to suffer, and in some cases, die. He concluded that such was
a crime, but one safe from orthodox prosecution. He concluded
that Katherine Jessup's death must be paid for. He concluded
that Judge Gray was the most logical singular party responsible
for what happened to her, as a judge is the sine qua non to
the entire montrosity of jailing harmless people.
The Leopard did not bother himself with the impossible accounting
question of assigning various levels of guilt, in particular to the
enforcement personnel. He looked for linchpins, such as Judge
Gray, Senator Hengel, etc.--the key players of regulatory tyranny.
And he made them each pay for the total culpability of the respective
laws (anti-medical freedom, anti-RKBA, anti-honest money, etc.).
The Allies did exactly the same thing in judging and executing the
key Axis figures in 1946, vs. hunting down every concentration camp
guard and SS bureaucrat (which was infeasible).
What the Leopard asked in every instance was:
Who is guilty enough to take the full hit for a system of which they
were only a part?
Who had the power to protect the harmless, but chose not to?
_____________________________________________________________
Finally, is it "torture" to precisely dispense a punishment equal in suffering
caused by the crime--or is it not only justice, but the most effective
kind of justice because perpetrators must experience the exact nature
of what they inflicted upon others?
Strong questions, rarely asked, and even more rarely answered.
from Travis Lee:
If such a warning is heeded, no prescription would be needed.
Boston
Yes, that is the issue, but you telegraph your view on this
by hedging for the judge's sake with "merely."
A harmless woman was placed in a situation where she
could be expected to die, and she did. That she was placed
there was fractioned out to the participation of hundreds
of people, from congressmen, to police officers, to Judge
Gray, to FCI staff. And this splintering of guilt amongst
hundreds of perpetrators (each portion being small enough
for the individual to easily ignore, or comfortably shoulder)
is the genius of the oppressive State. Every actor has but
a share or two in the great cooperative, and as mere shareholders,
limited liability. Huge injustices are committed, but nobody
can be held responsible.
"After an avalanche, every snowflake pleads 'Not Guilty!'"
-- from Molôn Labé!
The Leopard concluded that innocent people were being made
to suffer, and in some cases, die. He concluded that such was
a crime, but one safe from orthodox prosecution. He concluded
that Katherine Jessup's death must be paid for. He concluded
that Judge Gray was the most logical singular party responsible
for what happened to her, as a judge is the sine qua non to
the entire montrosity of jailing harmless people.
The Leopard did not bother himself with the impossible accounting
question of assigning various levels of guilt, in particular to the
enforcement personnel. He looked for linchpins, such as Judge
Gray, Senator Hengel, etc.--the key players of regulatory tyranny.
And he made them each pay for the total culpability of the respective
laws (anti-medical freedom, anti-RKBA, anti-honest money, etc.).
The Allies did exactly the same thing in judging and executing the
key Axis figures in 1946, vs. hunting down every concentration camp
guard and SS bureaucrat (which was infeasible).
What the Leopard asked in every instance was:
Who is guilty enough to take the full hit for a system of which they
were only a part?
Who had the power to protect the harmless, but chose not to?
_____________________________________________________________
Finally, is it "torture" to precisely dispense a punishment equal in suffering
caused by the crime--or is it not only justice, but the most effective
kind of justice because perpetrators must experience the exact nature
of what they inflicted upon others?
Strong questions, rarely asked, and even more rarely answered.
from Travis Lee:
If such a warning is heeded, no prescription would be needed.
Boston
k_semler
member
@Boston T. Party:
So, where would you rank the morality aspect when he was poisoned, (was it CN, I forgot), and shoved in that hole? When he finally croaked, and lye was thrown over his body before being covered in plastic and buried, so that it would dissolve the remains in a few weeks, and the only evidence would be a slight surface indentation, my only reaction was "Good, that Fscker got what he deserved! Turn about's fair play!"
Was it wrong? Under normal circumstances, probably. Was it deserved? Without a doubt. Do I sympathise and understand why? Yes, I believe I do. Would I do it? Probably not. I would just barracade him in his house, and burn him out, and probably gaseous HCL into the air. Waco, anybody? Paybacks are hell, aren't they?
Yes, I'll admit I can be sadistic to the point of getting joy out of "getting even", but only if reactions are justified.
So, where would you rank the morality aspect when he was poisoned, (was it CN, I forgot), and shoved in that hole? When he finally croaked, and lye was thrown over his body before being covered in plastic and buried, so that it would dissolve the remains in a few weeks, and the only evidence would be a slight surface indentation, my only reaction was "Good, that Fscker got what he deserved! Turn about's fair play!"
Was it wrong? Under normal circumstances, probably. Was it deserved? Without a doubt. Do I sympathise and understand why? Yes, I believe I do. Would I do it? Probably not. I would just barracade him in his house, and burn him out, and probably gaseous HCL into the air. Waco, anybody? Paybacks are hell, aren't they?
Yes, I'll admit I can be sadistic to the point of getting joy out of "getting even", but only if reactions are justified.
GruntII
member
Actually the little ribbon is dectectable.I have friends at TSA and elsewhere who moan about people who trust nothing but cash for vacation because of it. They generally end up paying special attention to those who have more than just a couple hundred dollars in cash when thye go thru security.It has just enough metallic content that when say a thousand dollars in tens and twenties is carried thru a machine set up to be sensitive enough it will trip.
The tech is there ot makre the stip ven more detectable an may have been utilized by now in the War on Drugs or War on Terror.
The Real Hawkeye
member
That's what they said, but in reality he was killed by an assassin a couple of years after his treachery.
No, all kidding aside, I didn't know that he escaped punishment. I must be thinking of someone else. He certainly deserved the noose if he didn't get it.Boston T. Party
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 90
from Hawkeye:
By the great-great-greatgrandfather of the Leopard!
Seriously, what a shame that Arnold lived out his days in
safety and comfort, like Kim Philby. We can only hope that
such vile men were robbed of peaceful sleep in the meantime.
Yes, he was.
By the great-great-greatgrandfather of the Leopard!
Seriously, what a shame that Arnold lived out his days in
safety and comfort, like Kim Philby. We can only hope that
such vile men were robbed of peaceful sleep in the meantime.
- Status
Similar threads
