The Law Man who shared Christchurch shooting video on Facebook sentenced to 21 months in jail

[demondavey]

Actually, I'm saying that the life of the child is not compared to the life of the adult who chose their actions.

My own position is that there isn't any reason to take a life unless it's threating yours, someone else's or your property.

So I won't have my position questioned, words put in my mouth and my position reframed to suit an argument against Alabama because it's politically incorrect not to be in support of ending unborn human life.

The adults that choose their actions? What like being raped and forced to have a child they never wanted?

Spare me, what a load of garbage.

 

[Taylor]

The adults that choose their actions? What like being raped and forced to have a child they never wanted?

Spare me, what a load of garbage.

And the child did what to warrant having it's life ended?

 

[demondavey]

Actually, I'm saying that the life of the child is not compared to the life of the adult who chose their actions.

My own position is that there isn't any reason to take a life unless it's threating yours, someone else's or your property.

So I won't have my position questioned, words put in my mouth and my position reframed to suit an argument against Alabama because it's politically incorrect not to be in support of ending unborn human life.

The adults that choose their actions? What like being raped and forced to have a child they never wanted?

Spare me, what a load of garbage.

 

[demondavey]

And the child did what to warrant having it's life ended?

What about the grown woman whose life is turned around from that incident? I am sorry, but the child is not supposed to be. You don’t force a life of responsibility on to a woman who is raped. If anything, it can straight up to adoption if it ‘has to be’.

 

[demondavey]

And the child did what to warrant having it's life ended?

It’s not like the child is wanted, or would be born into a family or home of desire or need for it. Yet you then justify your position that ‘adults choose their decisions’ so we can subject them to a death penalty.

It’s a load of convoluted and baseless rot you’re preaching.

 

[Malifice]

It's actually protecting the lives of the most innocent.

Wut?

Why stop there? Let's outlaw condoms and diagrams as murder weapons.

We have to protect the lives of those hypothetical people now don't we?

 

[Taylor]

Wut?

Why stop there? Let's outlaw condoms and diagrams as murder weapons.

We have to protect the lives of those hypothetical people now don't we?

Those things prevent the life forming, that's the ideal solution. Ending the inconvenient life once it's come into existence is ugly stuff.

Why stop there? Let's allow people to kill unwanted family members who pose a financial or otherwise burden. Not to mention welfare and lifelong student leeches.

Human life is either life or it's not. If you allow anyone to draw a line then drawing lines of value is on the table.

 

[CM86]

Those things prevent the life forming, that's the ideal solution. Ending the inconvenient life once it's come into existence is ugly stuff.

Why stop there? Let's allow people to kill unwanted family members who pose a financial or otherwise burden. Not to mention welfare and lifelong student leeches.

Human life is either life or it's not. If you allow anyone to draw a line then drawing lines of value is on the table.

Isn't conception the potential for human life?
So where is the line drawn for potential?

Or do you consider a fertilized egg to already be a human life?

 

[Taylor]

Isn't conception the potential for human life?
So where is the line drawn for potential?

Or do you consider a fertilized egg to already be a human life?

I think conception is the only reasonable point to call the start of human life.

 

[CM86]

I think conception is the only reasonable point to call the start of human life.

So a fertilized egg, is human life?

 

[Taylor]

So a fertilized egg, is human life?

Even though you're talking like Christopher Walken, yes.

It makes things like IVF interesting, as in donation after the process. But not anywhere near as such for a beating heart.

 

[CM86]

Even though you're talking like Christopher Walken, yes.

It makes things like IVF interesting, as in donation after the process. But not anywhere near as such for a beating heart.

I'm typing... you can't hear me.


And you're always very vague, but then get upset that people interpret you incorrectly. So I'm trying to make sure you're clear so I don't do you a disservice.


What part of a fertilized egg is comparable to a human life? In your opinion.
I asked if you thought it was a human life, or the potential to be a human life. You've said it's a human life.

So how are you similar to a fertilized egg?

 

[Taylor]

I'm typing... you can't hear me.


And you're always very vague, but then get upset that people interpret you incorrectly. So I'm trying to make sure you're clear so I don't do you a disservice.


What part of a fertilized egg is comparable to a human life? In your opinion.
I asked if you thought it was a human life, or the potential to be a human life. You've said it's a human life.

So how are you similar to a fertilized egg?

I've made what I believe to be the most true point for the start of human life, if you disagree you are welcome to pick a different point and demonstrate how that is actually where a human life begins.

I chose that point because it is where the unique DNA is formed. If you DNA tested the life form it would show as human. Different DNA to the mother around it.

 

[CM86]

I've made what I believe to be the most true point for the start of human life, if you disagree you are welcome to pick a different point and demonstrate how that is actually where a human life begins.

I chose that point because it is where the unique DNA is formed. If you DNA tested the life form it would show as human. Different DNA to the mother around it.

Isn't human DNA found in blood, hair, sperm etc?
Do you consider any of those, human life?

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I think he's the first in a line of many. Mentions it somewhere in the article.



Of course. What's your point?

Intent matters in the eyes of the law. You can't decontextualise his actions.

 

[Taylor]

Isn't human DNA found in blood, hair, sperm etc?
Do you consider any of those, human life?

There is a time when the DNA of three unique humans could be found inside me. Hopefully, trying for babies at the moment.

Seminal fluid of him, fertilised egg of the new human, everything else of me. Three unique DNA.

 

[Engimal v3]

Intent matters in the eyes of the law. You can't decontextualise his actions.

Given the reactions and PR outputs I've seen from social media companies and the law, it seems their their stance is that no one should be able to view the footage. I mean, Australia (at least temporarily) blacklisted any website that refused to remove the video.

I do understand your point though. This guy was presenting the video in a positive light, and that was taken into consideration in his sentencing. What worries me is that when the government decides a video can't be seen, people that share it for non-confrontational reasons are at risk.

I'm aware that probably sounds like a 'slippery slope' type argument, but I think it's a reasonable to become a bit uncomfortable when these sorts of things happen.

 

[Malifice]

Those things prevent the life forming, that's the ideal solution. Ending the inconvenient life once it's come into existence is ugly stuff.

It's a long bow to posit (as fact) life starts when an embryo is fertilized (although that depends on your definition of 'life'). It's an even longer bow to claim a Zygote is a 'person'.

At Common Law, a 'person' doesn't exist until birth. Philosophically/ religiously there is only evidence for a Zygote being 'living' if you assume the existence of a 'soul' (or similar sky fairy stuff) that comes into existence on conception. If you're coming from a position of philosophy or science, the Zygote has no brain, and no mind, and lacks sentience or sapience of any possible form, so if that's the standard you use, then it's not alive.

But fine. You consider a 'person' becomes 'alive' at conception. You're allowed that personal view. It does leave me with two questions though.

Question 1: If you consider a zygote (basically self replicating DNA soup) to be 'alive' and a 'person', when do you consider a person to be 'dead'? Conventionally (medically and legally) this is accepted to happen at brain death; if you suffer an irreversible complete loss of brain function, you're legally and medically dead.

Do you agree that total irreversible brain death is when a person is dead?

Question 2: If you agree that [brain death] is = to [death], how can I kill something that doesn't even start to form a brain stem until 6-8 weeks, and doesn't have brain waves (indicating a functional brain) until 22-24 weeks after gestation?

 

[Taylor]

It's a long bow to posit (as fact) life starts when an embryo is fertilized (although that depends on your definition of 'life'). It's an even longer bow to claim a Zygote is a 'person'.

At Common Law, a 'person' doesn't exist until birth. Philosophically/ religiously there is only evidence for a Zygote being 'living' if you assume the existence of a 'soul' (or similar sky fairy stuff) that comes into existence on conception. If you're coming from a position of philosophy or science, the Zygote has no brain, and no mind, and lacks sentience or sapience of any possible form, so if that's the standard you use, then it's not alive.

But fine. You consider a 'person' becomes 'alive' at conception. You're allowed that personal view. It does leave me with two questions though.

Question 1: If you consider a zygote (basically self replicating DNA soup) to be 'alive' and a 'person', when do you consider a person to be 'dead'? Conventionally (medically and legally) this is accepted to happen at brain death; if you suffer an irreversible complete loss of brain function, you're legally and medically dead.

Do you agree that total irreversible brain death is when a person is dead?

Question 2: If you agree that [brain death] is = to [death], how can I kill something that doesn't even start to form a brain stem until 6-8 weeks, and doesn't have brain waves (indicating a functional brain) until 22-24 weeks after gestation?

Nice work trying to pivot it to personhood. It's a unique human life from the point of conception. It doesn't need further qualification to give it a right to live. There doesn't need to be a soul for a life to have value. It's unique human DNA. There will come a time when a computer will be able to take your DNA and show a picture of you, you'd be able to do that with your conveniently dehumanizing term of soup. The image in front of you would be the life you are ending.

Now let's address your questions.

Yes, when you're brain dead then you're dead.

We are complicated creatures and we start small and simple. That doesn't mean we haven't started. All of us were that.

Just point me to the point when nothing exited and then the next moment a human life began that isn't conception. That's the only place I can see that is the cleanest and purest point to say.

A single cell is life. Two cells is life. It's got unique human DNA of it's own, it's human life. It grows into a full sized human. It's human life.

Far out, the conservative is the one refusing to draw a line on which human life has value while the lefties are using dehumanizing terms to avoid reality. What a world.

That it doesn't yet meet your threshold for life doesn't mean it won't. If you don't intervene it grows past the point at which your justification works.

But for you ending that natural process of life, it continues living. You have ended the life.

 

[Taylor]

A lot of middle aged professionals might have made choices in their lives that they found peace by using terms that sanitize what has happened.

It's only natural they fight against the reality to protect themselves from what that introspection might reveal.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Meanwhile, also in New Zealand a 78 year old man has avoided a conviction after admitting to touching and squeezing a toddler's penis in a swimming pool changing room. Apparently it's normal in China for elderly men to fondle little boy's penises that they don't know without even buying them a Happy Meal first.

'Cultural mistake' led to touching boy's genitals in changing rooms in Christchurch

A Chinese man who tweaked a boy's penis in swimming pool change room avoids conviction on cultural grounds.

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Malifice]

Nice work trying to pivot it to personhood. It's a unique human life from the point of conception.

What do you mean 'pivot to personhood'?

How can a person (which is what we're talking about here) be both 'alive' and 'not a person'? That's logically not possible.

Yes, when you're brain dead then you're dead.

A foetus (pre 22 weeks) is brain dead, ergo by corollary (and by your own admission) it can not be alive.

It literally has yet to possess a functioning brain yet; heck at 8 weeks or less, it hasnt even formed a brain stem.

Your argument seems to be that (pre 22 weeks) a foetus is simultaneously:

a) Not a person, and
b) Dead, yet also
c) A living person, capable of being killed.

How is this possible?

 

[Taylor]

How can a person (which is what we're talking about here) be both 'alive' and 'not a person'? That's logically not possible.

That's exactly why I dismiss your use of personhood. It is a human life.

A foetus (pre 22 weeks) is brain dead, ergo by corollary (and by your own admission) it can not be alive.

It literally has yet to possess a functioning brain yet; heck at 8 weeks or less, it hasnt even formed a brain stem.

Your argument seems to be that (pre 22 weeks) a foetus is simultaneously:

a) Not a person, and
b) Dead, yet also
c) A living person, capable of being killed.

How is this possible?

It's a human life. That's how human life grows.

By the same logic Jellyfish are not alive. That would be silly. As is what you're trying to argue.

You're trying to draw a false logical argument. My argument is very clear. It has unique human DNA because it's when human life begins.

My argument is that it is a human life and that's the end of my qualification requirements. You brought up the concept of person hood, you brought up brain dead being the death of a human and then you tried basing your argument off it.

I sure hope you're never my lawyer building strawmen like that.

Find the start of a human existence before which nothing was there and after which they are present.

The only one I can find is conception, that's when their DNA is formed, that is where the biological processes of life have begun.

 

[Malifice]

That's exactly why I dismiss your use of personhood. It is a human life.


It's a human life. That's how human life grows.

By the same logic Jellyfish are not alive. That would be silly. As is what you're trying to argue.

You're trying to draw a false logical argument. My argument is very clear. It has unique human DNA because it's when human life begins.

My argument is that it is a human life and that's the end of my qualification requirements. You brought up the concept of person hood, you brought up brain dead being the death of a human and then you tried basing your argument off it.

I sure hope you're never my lawyer building strawmen like that.

Find the start of a human existence before which nothing was there and after which they are present.

The only one I can find is conception, that's when their DNA is formed, that is where the biological processes of life have begun.

It's not a straw man. You literally agreed 2 posts up that when someone is brain dead they are not alive anymore.

If (brain dead) = (not alive) which is a position you expressly agree with above - then a pre 22 weeks foetus (which is brain dead) is thus logically also (not alive).

That's no 'straw man'. That's me directly refuting your argument with your own logic.

A foetus or pre-foetal Zygote at the sub 22 week mark has no brain function. It is thus brain dead. It (logically) thus can not also be alive.

It might gain brain function should you choose not to terminate (at which point it becomes alive) of course.

Combined DNA is not a 'life'. It has no brain function or sentience or consciousness.

I just find your argument to be arbitrary. Why pick the moment of DNA blending with the father to define when something starts to live? Why not pick the moment you match with the father on Tinder or something?

 

[Taylor]

It's not a straw man. You literally agreed 2 posts up that when someone is brain dead they are not alive anymore.

If (brain dead) = (not alive) which is a position you expressly agree with above - then a pre 22 weeks foetus (which is brain dead) is thus logically also (not alive).

That's no 'straw man'. That's me directly refuting your argument with your own logic.

A foetus or pre-foetal Zygote at the sub 22 week mark has no brain function. It is thus brain dead. It (logically) thus can not also be alive.

It might gain brain function should you choose not to terminate (at which point it becomes alive) of course.

Combined DNA is not a 'life'. It has no brain function or sentience or consciousness.

I just find your argument to be arbitrary. Why pick the moment of DNA blending with the father to define when something starts to live? Why not pick the moment you match with the father on Tinder or something?

Brain dead = dead. It doesn't mean the opposite the definition of alive. That's your logical flaw. Brain function or sentience or consciousness are not required for the definition of life.