Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes

[Sknyjdwb]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

For the love of Santa, can we give that argument a rest?

Every time someone, somewhere, stops somebody else from doing something, that weak argument about a specific event gets used as a one-size-fits-all argument.

I very much doubt you are about to go as far as ending your life for the sake of this Christian group to do what they want. I also doubt that you would consider a man of religion stoning his wife to death for cheating on him one of those rights to defend.

Either apply that saying to every aspect of life indiscriminately - allow people to protest outside one-another's funerals, have their own race-hate-training television programmes, allow children's programmes to instruct children in the evils of homosexuality - or just leave that ridiculously pious argument to rest.

Whoa whoa whoa, what you are citing is not freedom of speech. You have the right to communicate any idea that does not harm, or infringe upon a persons right to their own ideals. Stoning someone to death is not free speech, that's what we call murder. That is an attack on one's free speech, and I do NOT defend that. Also Westboro Baptist church causes obstruction of process. I believe they can have their ideas and communicate them in the proper venue, but military funerals are not that venue. They are attacking people for their belief, which again I do not support. The argument isn't tired, it still holds true until you can disprove its validity.

 

[Dogstile]

Political correctness is bullshit.

That has nothing to do with it.
The app in question is claiming that "Being gay is a disease to be cured", that's not being politically incorrect it's being an asshole.
It's no more right than "Being white is a disease to be cured" or whatever else you want to throw out there.

And what, people aren't allowed to be assholes in this day and age?

 

[SanguineSymphony]

Its a goofy imbecilic app. But... Just because its idiotic and offensive I don't see the reason to take it down.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

"Ultimately, this issue comes down to what we, as a culture, believe about equality and the freedom to express our beliefs," said Chambers. "It is our hope that Apple will reconsider its decision and allow our organization to be part of the ongoing conversation about the challenging issues many face today."

Oh, sweet beans on toast. The irony is so thick you could spread it with a fuckin' knife. Watch where you're slingin' words like "equality" around, buddy...it could come back to bite you in your sanctimonious arse.

Also, to the poster above me...rock on, brother, rock on. I like what I hear.

EDIT: Ah, yes. One other little thing.

Because homosexuality is a behavior and a culture, not an inherent trait or fundamental religious beliefs.

No. No it is not. It is a "culture" only in that when confronted by a global society so indoctrinated with thousands of years of heterosexuality, there are a number of LGBT individuals who find it best to go on the offensive--as it were--with regards to their sexuality, and in so doing perhaps carve out a niche space within which they can thrive. Call that a "culture" if you will, but I call it a damn shame and a capital example of a prejudiced majority...and I assure you that, given the choice to exercise their genetic sexual preferences unhindered by the stigma of society or the paraphernalia of their "culture" that some of them have created partly in self-defense, the vast majority of homosexuals would do so.

And yes, it is a behavior. Much as my heterosexuality is a behavior, or the desire of a horse to copulate with another horse is a behavior. You appear to be employing a highly selective and quite narrow definition of "behavior" here--bear in mind that all human urges and needs tend to manifest themselves in behaviors, so take care in your labeling.

Finally, on to this.

not an inherent trait or fundamental religious beliefs.

Oh dear, where do I even begin? First off, let me just point out that religious beliefs are in no way fundamental. They are artificial constructs far more precious (note that I don't mean valuable when I say precious here. Look it up.) than any brand of sexuality. Secondly...I'm not sure you thought about what you were writing when you said that homosexuality isn't an inherent trait. I invite you to consider the phrase itself: homosexuality. It's a sexual behavior, no more nor less inherent than any sexual desire--which, given the continued existence of the evolutionarily modern human race for the last 50-odd thousand years, would appear to be pretty fucking built-in. Whether homosexuality represents a sexual tangent in a biological sense is a wholly different argument (short answer: no, or at least certainly not given population density in this age of the world, long answer: same as the short answer, but with more shouting), but for pity's sake stop trying to claim it to be somehow morally repugnant on the basis of a constructed belief system far less ancient and far less substantial than the sexual preference you're using it to denounce.

My friend, please watch the language. Otherwise I will refuse to dialogue with you anymore. We're here to talk, not to insult each other and cuss.

First: I mean that an artificial culture has been built up around homosexuality.
Second: "Going on the offensive" and attacking those who believe homosexuality is wrong is not justified. If you live in a culture in which you are a minority, you have a responsibility to not cause deliberate offense just because you want to "get back" at someone, regardless of whether they wronged you. Revenge never solved anything. The wronged person may vindicated, but he is only causing more pain, most commonly to individuals who never wronged him.
Third: I do not care who you are or who wronged you, getting bullied or hated on for any reason, even for having homosexual feelings, is wrong. There is no need for homosexuals to create their own, hyper-promiscuous culture where STD rates are through the roof, most relationships are made and broken in less than three year's time, and crime rates, especially those involving sexual crimes, are higher than the general population.
BTW: These are statistics from the Netherlands, you can freely look them up if you do not believe me.

I find it funny that you say I am "indoctrinated" with thousands of years of heterosexuality, when I am only embracing my sexuality and I have only been describing the natural biological functions of human sexuality and why homosexuality fails to live up to that purpose.

Sex exists for two important reasons, to make children and bond a man and woman together. There are no other objective reasons which you could put forth that comes close to these two's importance.

Religious beliefs like your own, whether you believe in traditional religions, or the modern religion of Materialistic Empiricalism (i.e. you only believe what you can see and touch), are not "artificial". If you mean that they are only held by people, yes, only people can have religious beliefs. This does not mean that they are "pulled from thin air". Every person interprets the Universe according to his own perception and his own ability to reason. These ideas form his worldview, and his worldview is part of his religion. Would you therefore agree that the Scientific Method is an "artificial" construct, created only by humans? After all, nothing in Nature says anything about the concept of Science.

If by "artificial", you mean "man-made", then yes, some religions (such as the old pagan religions) are nothing more than a collection of traditions and ideas fashioned by people.

The problem is that my religion does not fall into this category. It is not "man-made" because its rituals, rites, and beliefs were not created by men, but handed down to prophets and apostles from God himself. They wrote their conversations with the Almighty in books like those of the Bible. And today, we practice the rules and rituals and believe the words of the Lord's prophets because they spoke with Him as a person speaks with his friend and shared His words with their writings and sermons. The Lord is the source of all Truth, even secular knowledge is a part of his wisdom. Will you say then that the words, commands, and decrees of God himself are "artificial"?

 

[HellspawnCandy]

I hate how people in my country think, once they have something awful silenced they say "YOUR FREEDOM IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED" yeah no.

 

[Grey_Wolf_Leader]

*snip*

If a man hears voices today he's locked up in a mental institution, but in the past he's talking to god. Sooo... how do you know there is a god?

Why do people insist on homosexuality being a disease? I know several religious people who don't feel that way (yes most of them are straight, before you ask).

If there is a god then he created them too, so why should they be cured? Clearly he created them for a purpose as he is all knowing (according to the bible). If he did create them, then why should they go to hell or be condemned for his actions?

Also if god loves all his children still applies today as it did in the past, then why do the bibles claim gays to be evil/sinners?

Since I said 'bibles' that brings me to this: Why is there more than one version of the bible and different religions if there is only one god?

First: I know there is a God because--actually, I could try to explain it to you, but explaining one's spiritual experiences to another who does not recognize what a spiritual experience is would be like trying to explain what salt tastes like when the other person does not know what salt is. Communication only works when both sides have an understanding of the concepts they are sharing. When I say "red", you immediately conjure an image of the color red. Why? Because you have seen the color red, and therefore know what I am talking about. Words like "feeling the Spirit" and "burning within my bosom" only conjure images of heartburn in your mind, not the acute spiritual feeling of mental clarity, logical sense, and emotional calm and "rightness". Words can't communicate the feeling of emotions and the enlightening feeling of something making logical sense.

Second: I did not say it is a disease. You cannot "catch" it like you could STDs. It is a disorder. A malfunctioning of the biological systems. Think like Autism, but applied to sexuality as opposed to the neurological connections in the brain.
Third: The fact they have sexual feelings does not change the fact that they are sons and daughters of God. It does not matter what you do, you are to be treated with the respect and civility that mature siblings should treat each other with. We will only be held accountable for our individual behavior.
Gays are sinners when they commit homosexual acts. It is the same as when a heterosexual fornicates or commits adultery. He is a sinner because he has transgressed the same moral law of Chastity.

In other words, a person who commits a heterosexual act and a person who commits a homosexual act are both guilty of transgressing the same moral law. Heterosexuals who do not married are expected to remain celibate just like homosexuals.

Fourth: Those claiming to be religious who do not have any problem with homosexuality do not understand the fundamental importance of the family to religion. My religion's key doctrines are centered on an image of the Eternal Family, made of God (our literal Heavenly Father), and his offspring (us), bonding spirit siblings together in relationships (marriage) so that we may become like him.
Homosexuality is a perversion, mockery, and desecration of this image.
Fifth: I do not believe God created the Universe Ex Nihilo. Thus, when we are born into this world, he did not fashion our bodies to have particular weaknesses or strengths. Rather, this is part of the problem of living in a Universe that by its inherent nature is plagued by entropy. Malfunctions in DNA cause disorders, but only homosexuality has direct and important moral implications out of these many disorders.

The reason there are so many versions of the Bible and religions is because of the many different ways people have interpreted the ancient manuscripts and religious doctrines over the course of history. And changes in the culture have led to changes in perception, people have broken off from old churches and formed new ones, re-translated previous translations, and you get it. Rule of thumb, anything over 2000 years old is going to have a large and diverse fractured fanbase.

 

[Sarge034]

Also this is far from a free world, free country maybe, but not a free world.

Which is why I said "Kinda", silly billy.

As you belive this to be "the good truth"

And that is why I said "If they are right", sweetie. If they are, then it is good, as the truth is always good.

See, if you had read my post, you'd have noticed that 'if' and would not have just accidentally suggested I, a gay person, find them to be spreading the truth.

It's not going well for you =/

Well, since all you want to do is argue..... Sweetie, imma haveta go have a grown up conversation now. Sweetie, a grow up conversation is where people discuss the topic and talk about their poins of view, not try to troll everyone in the room. Have fun.

 

[Sarge034]

I hate how people in my country think, once they have something awful silenced they say "YOUR FREEDOM IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED" yeah no.

WHAT?!?!?!? A fellow American who think there has to be a balance between free speech and liable/slander?

this.....iS.......BLASPHEMY!!!!

OT- If they changed the name of the app and warned what the contents were, I think it would have been ok.

 

[Sarge034]

The death penalty is complete barbarism and has no place whatsoever in a civilized society, and the idea that murdering someone is okay because they killed someone else is vengeance-based retributive bullshit. Exacting a pound of flesh should never be the purpose of a system of justice. The only time that murder becomes justified is murder in self-defense.

What about executing a murder in a humane way unlike how they murderd their victims? No? Still fuled by revenge?

How about executing a murder so that I don't have to pay for them to be in prison for life? No? I'm to stingy with my money?

How bout letting the victims family and friends do what they will with the murder? Yes, that is revenge fuled.

How about executing a murder so that they can never murder again? Public service?

PS- Killing is not murder
You kill the enemy in war
You kill the attacker in self-defense
You murder an unarmed non-combatant
You murder an innocent person
AND
You execute murderers

 

[Saikonate]

What about executing a murder in a humane way unlike how they murderd their victims? No? Still fuled by revenge?

There's no humane way to execute someone because it is by definition inhumane. You're not putting down a pet that's terminally ill and in pain, you're killing another human.

How about executing a murder so that I don't have to pay for them to be in prison for life? No? I'm to stingy with my money?

It's more expensive to carry out the death penalty than it is to put someone in prison for life, so I don't see what your money has to do with it. And if it weren't, then yes, putting a price tag on another person's life makes you pretty stingy.

How about executing a murder so that they can never murder again? Public service?

Barbaric. Put them in jail for life if they're not able to be rehabilitated. The death penalty benefits no one. Even if you could make a convincing argument for some sort of benefit to some party or parties, I think all of those are effectively outweighed by the possibility of executing an innocent person. In fact, we've probably already done that [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann]. That's blood on all of our hands. Innocent people are released from prison all the time, and a number of them have been death row inmates - even if Todd was guilty, the possibility alone that we could ever execute someone for a crime they didn't commit is horrifying enough to get rid of the death penalty altogether.

PS- Killing is not murder
You kill the enemy in war
You kill the attacker in self-defense
You murder an unarmed non-combatant
You murder an innocent person
AND
You execute murderers

You can call it whatever you'd like (and I'm rolling my eyes as you resort to a semantic argument), but you're still taking the life of another human being.

 

[greendrag13]

I've seen the race as a disease comparison come up quite a few times, and I've got a question about it now. If someone believed race was a disease, Is that bigotry?

What would matter in this case is whether their belief that race was a disease was correct or not. Since it isn't, yeah, I'd call it bigotry.

After reminding myself of the precise definition of the word, I find you are correct here. Bigotry and discrimination are not as interchangable as I've treated them in this post.

Discrimination against groups has always been about treating someone as less than human

Or just differently than you'd treat someone not belonging to that group. I don't think anyone would argue that denying service at a restaurant to a gay person was treating them as "less than human", but it's most certainly discrimination.

Personally, I consider denying any group a privilege you grant to humans in general is treating them as less than human, unless it is for a personal reason with the EXACT individuals denied. The denial implies that they are inferior to 'normal' humans in some way; less than human. If the privilege was based on belonging to a group, its not so much discrimination as preferential treatment. If I have a bar and I want to see more women in it, I might make drinks cheaper for women, not because I hate men, but because I want to attract women. The difference is whether the focus is on exlusion of others or inclusion of the selected.

From an evolutionary standpoint, different colors of skin are genetic changes that are hereditarily passed on, and if any were inherently detrimental, they could be considered genetic diseases. Is it discrimination to offer a 'cure' to people who are unhappy with the color of their skin?

Careful, you're treading into dangerous territory here. We know that certain genetic traits cause people to be more vulnerable to certain conditions - for example, fair-skinned people are more vulnerable to UV radiation, and people with red hair are more sensitive to thermal pain. A great many genetic traits are inherently detrimental in some form or fashion - 'curing' them, attempting to 'improve the genetics' of the population at large, is an argument for eugenics, which I don't think you're prepared to advance.

I am not at all claiming that anything along these lines *should* be done, simply that it would not be discrimintation if it were offered as a choice. The purpose of my entire post was to question the idea that offering an optional 'cure' for an inherent trait is undeniably discriminatory.

 

[Nieroshai]

Also, sexual pleasure is a privilege. If reproduction was a right, which it isn't, reproduction is still more important than the orgasm. So you cannot, I repeat cannot equate homosexuality to race. You can't stop being black, but sexuality can be changed either way by societal and familial pressures. And since sexuality is not a right, I simply can avoid sex, be it hetero or homo or auto(masturbation). It's oh so fascinating that you equate homosexuality as a taboo to the Holocaust as well. I guess this IS a society where absolutely everything we want is somehow a right, and taboos are the height of fascism. How about the right to sex with whomever I choose whenever I want it? Even if it's in my neighbor's house or if it's his wife? Do I still have that right if the other person doesn't want it? Why not? I desire it, so it's my right.

Sexual pleasure may be a privilege, but sexual desire is not. A homosexual person who dies a virgin is still a homosexual, the fact that they desire the same sex is enough for some people to condemn them regardless of whether or not they at upon it.

You are also completely ignoring the main point I made. If you had sex in someone else's house without them knowing/wanting you to do it then you are infringing on their rights, if you sleep with someone else's partner then you are hurting that partner.

Two homosexual people sleeping together, with consent, are not harming anybody by default.

Let's see if I can open up an actual dialogue here without starting a flame war...

If God didn't want homosexual people why did he create them? He is all powerful and all knowing, and so you honestly cannot argue that it wasn't intentional. You can try and say that he did it to "test" people but that doesn't make sense, because if he is all knowing then he would know that not everyone would pass, and yet he created them anyway, which puts the blame squarely on him not the people involved.

If God is all knowing and all powerful then the concept of free will cannot exist. Which means we cannot sin, which means that we cannot be blamed for what we do.

It seems I must specify. IF Biblical texts are true, (please bear with the assumption) desire is often in opposition to that which is required by the Law. Sure homosexuals exist, but in the Old Testament homosexuality is said to be worthy of death, which in the New Testament it is then said all sin makes humans worthy of death. Once again by the text, this time in Genesis, humans were not "mortal" until they disobeyed and earned death.
Once again according to the text, all the corruption in the world is not God's creation but ours. We created murder, we created adultery, we lied about stealing from the tree, we decided an anus might be more fun than a vagina. God did not, and why would he condemn something that he created? That is counterproductive.
Haha, your understanding of omnipotence is backwards. Simply because one can control everything and know everything, does not mean that individual does control everything. How can we disobey if we have no free will? Why would he bother telling automatons they are disobeying, why not just scrap the faulty ones? Along with the concept of will, I chose despite having attractions that I will never have a male partner, because it is my responsibility to obey the rules I follow. Why punish a mindless shell or promise salvation to a husk? You are using lack of biblical knowledge to define a Biblical God, which is like using Looney Tunes to explain to your friend what a rabbit is. Also, if God is perfect, he would not lie. If he can or will not lie, then why would he tell us there is sin when there is none?

...of course, all this goes out the window if God does not exist, but that's for another thread.

 

[Shycte]

Also this is far from a free world, free country maybe, but not a free world.

Which is why I said "Kinda", silly billy.

As you belive this to be "the good truth"

And that is why I said "If they are right", sweetie. If they are, then it is good, as the truth is always good.

See, if you had read my post, you'd have noticed that 'if' and would not have just accidentally suggested I, a gay person, find them to be spreading the truth.

It's not going well for you =/

Well, since all you want to do is argue..... Sweetie, imma haveta go have a grown up conversation now. Sweetie, a grow up conversation is where people discuss the topic and talk about their poins of view, not try to troll everyone in the room. Have fun.

The irony of your post is hilarious. Thank you for the laugh

Was there a problem with me pointing out all your errors? Sorry about that.

I think he was looking to discuss with someone who's willing to litsen to reason, but who knows, I might be wrong.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Despite Apple's somewhat draconian monitoring of its App Store [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96435-Edge-by-Mobigame-Again-Pulled-from-App-Store], there have been a lot of questionable Apps that have somehow filtered through and made available to the public. The latest of these is Gay Cure, which was uploaded by Exodus International, a Christian group from Orlando, FL. It debuted on February 15th, and immediately received attention for its inflammatory title and premise that homosexuality was a disease to be cured. A petition organized by Change.org garnered 140k signatures asking Apple to remove the app, who had somehow given Gay Cure a 4+ rating meaning that it contained "no offensive material." Last night, the leader of Exodus International Alan Chambers said on Twitter that it had officially been removed.

HOLY FUCK. THE APP STORE APPROVAL PROCESS ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING RIGHT.

"It's official, the @ExodusInl App is no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you. #freedom," Chambers' Tweet read [http://twitter.com/#!/AlanMChambers/status/50367690149347329].

The "it could happen to you" is pretty inspired. "Uh oh, I should have defended this app, now what's going to happen when I submit my bigoted app to Apple?" The "#freedom" bit really drives it home.

Later, in a statement released today [http://exodusinternational.org/2011/03/apple-suppresses-diversity-by-pulling-iphone-application/], Chambers further complained about his app being removed. "We are extremely disappointed to learn of Apple's decision to deny equal representation in the public square," he said. "Discrimination of thought and belief obstructs essential dialogue and authentic diversity." Chambers goes on to point out that the App Store contains all kinds of Apps dedicated to celebrating LGBT culture.

The app store isn't the "public square", it's an entirely closed system requiring approval of submissions. It's about as far from "public" as a software distribution scheme could possibly get. As such, there is no reason to expect "equal representation". And the rest just starts to get silly: Apple is "obstructing...authentic diversity" by removing an app that specifically condemns a particular form of diversity? We should maybe add in some more tutorial apps about geocentrism because the app store is too full of education apps advocating heliocentrism? Equal representation is, implicitly, equal representation of equal alternatives. The view that homosexuality is a disease, and a "curable" one at that, is not of equal status to the alternative. In fact, it's not even clear what the alternative is. The LGBT apps aren't about homosexuality not being a disease, the majority probably have nothing to do with that issue.

"Ultimately, this issue comes down to what we, as a culture, believe about equality and the freedom to express our beliefs," said Chambers. "It is our hope that Apple will reconsider its decision and allow our organization to be part of the ongoing conversation about the challenging issues many face today."

Actually, this issue ultimately comes down to what Apple, a private company, believes about equality and the freedom to express beliefs. Moreover, this isn't a challenging issue, it's not equal to the "alternative". Essentially no actual expert believes homosexuality to be a disease. Even if you think it's a choice, even if you think it's a bad choice, no one sensible thinks that it's a "disease".

I think what Chambers and Exodus International are missing is that none of the Apps about the homosexual community claim to "cure straightness" or somehow imply that being straight is not God's will.

Exactly, they're assuming an alternative side in the app store that doesn't even exist.

Apple hasn't commented on the removal of Gay Cure. The app just disappeared without an announcement, statement or any fanfare at all. I hope that the person responsible for approving the application was at least reprimanded or instructed to avoid such inflammatory apps in the future. The last time an anti-homosexual app was removed, the Manhattan Declaration in Nov. 2010, Apple said at the time, "We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

I think this is actually the more interesting question.

For the record, I don't think that it's wrong for a church or Christian group to proselytize however it wants, but the title of the App in question made too many assumptions for it to be admissible. Whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not is up to you, but asserting that it is something which can or should be "cured" is just bollocks.

Exactly. Also, asserting that homosexuality is wrong or right may be a matter for churches to discuss, but it isn't a matter Apple is in any way required to address. They're free to ignore the issue or even to decide that they want to promote one side over the other and you have no "right" that is violated in any of these cases.

 

[Sarge034]

There's no humane way to execute someone because it is by definition inhumane. You're not putting down a pet that's terminally ill and in pain, you're killing another human.

Just because they are not terminally ill or in pain does not make this inhumane. By definition execution is putting a condemned person to death [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS419&site=webhp&defl=en&q=define:execution&sa=X&ei=hEKMTfLXN4eqsAPpzIX0CA&ved=0CBcQkAE]. The definition of inhumane is lacking humane feelings, such as sympathy, understanding, etc; cruel; brutal [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inhuman]. The fact that so much time and effort is put into making this as painless as possible shows human feelings such as sympathy. As opposed to making them die the way they murdered their victims.

It's more expensive to carry out the death penalty than it is to put someone in prison for life, so I don't see what your money has to do with it. And if it weren't, then yes, putting a price tag on another person's life makes you pretty stingy.

Source please? All I could find was figures from 76-94 that actually said how much it cost and they showed it was cheaper to execute. I also found a bunch of source-less claims from 08 that said it cost more, on pro-life sights.

Barbaric. Put them in jail for life if they're not able to be rehabilitated. The death penalty benefits no one. Even if you could make a convincing argument for some sort of benefit to some party or parties, I think all of those are effectively outweighed by the possibility of executing an innocent person. In fact, we've probably already done that [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann]. That's blood on all of our hands. Innocent people are released from prison all the time, and a number of them have been death row inmates - even if Todd was guilty, the possibility alone that we could ever execute someone for a crime they didn't commit is horrifying enough to get rid of the death penalty altogether.

"The death penalty benefits no one. Even if you could make a convincing argument for some sort of benefit to some party or parties."

Now you have to make a decision here. Can it benefit someone or can't it?

The death penalty benefits no one? Not the victim? Not the victim's family and friends? Not society? You know what? Shit happens and people die. There is always the possibility that they get it wrong. However, if everyone does their jobs then there are multiple safety layers to protect against wrongful convictions. It should not have taken the jury 2 hours to convict him, but the evidence they were presented left them no reasonable doubt. It was the system ignoring a scientific breakthrough that killed him, not the legal system. I read all 17 pages and I have to ask, why do you bring up a case from 92 to argue against the death penalty today? The breakthroughs in forensic science have been unbelievable. You do know that now they can do a chemical analysis of the accelerant and match it to samples found in possession of the suspect. I'll also admit that the eye witness testimony was not air tight, but it never is. There are still things that don't make sense. He had time to put pants on, but not save his kids? One of which that was beside him. No, if he wanted to save the kids he would have ran out of there stark naked with at least the one beside his bed. Why was the refrigerator blocking the only other way out of the house? You are right innocent people are released from prison all the time, just not from Death Row all the time. Since 73 my source shows there being 1243 executions and only 138 acquitted. However, my source was published in 93 and it states it has been getting updated but cannot confirm. So either 3.7 people have been released per year (assuming numbers have been updated up to 2011) or 6.9 people (assuming report is only good from 73-93). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

PS- Killing is not murder
You kill the enemy in war
You kill the attacker in self-defense
You murder an unarmed non-combatant
You murder an innocent person
AND
You execute murderers

You can call it whatever you'd like (and I'm rolling my eyes as you resort to a semantic argument), but you're still taking the life of another human being.[/quote]

My semantics do not do my point justice.

Shooting this piece or shit that would gladly kill me and my friends is not the same as murdering them.

Yes you are still taking the life of another person. The only difference is the intent of the person dying. I will gladly kill the enemy who will be shooting at me (intending to kill me mind you) in about 13 months, and I will not hesitate to kill the stupid bastard that breaks into my house. I will not however, commit murder under any circumstances.

The loss of life IS tragic. You know, if people stopped murdering other people this would not be an issue. Until then, fry the murdering scum.

 

[Saikonate]

Just because they are not terminally ill or in pain does not make this inhumane...

Forgive me, when I said "by definition", I meant "in all cases". I'm pretty sure you knew this though.

Source please? All I could find was figures from 76-94 that actually said how much it cost and they showed it was cheaper to execute. I also found a bunch of source-less claims from 08 that said it cost more, on pro-life sights.

Consider me replying to this sidebar the maximum amount of effort I'm willing to put into the topic. I don't have the inclination to pull sources for you. Rest assured that if I'm saying it, it's true. Or don't. It's not a huge deal to me either way.

"The death penalty benefits no one. Even if you could make a convincing argument for some sort of benefit to some party or parties."

Now you have to make a decision here. Can it benefit someone or can't it?

I've already made my decision, it can't. I was hedging against the argument I expected you to make.

The death penalty benefits no one? Not the victim? Not the victim's family and friends? Not society?

No, none of those people or parties benefit from it.

You know what? Shit happens and people die. There is always the possibility that they get it wrong. However, if everyone does their jobs then there are multiple safety layers to protect against wrongful convictions.

And yet, Innocence Project estimates that 2.3% to 5% of our prison population is innocent. As I mentioned before, multiple death row inmates have been exonerated. Saying "if everyone does their jobs" is a fallacious argument because we already know that everyone doesn't.

It should not have taken the jury 2 hours to convict him, but the evidence they were presented left them no reasonable doubt. It was the system ignoring a scientific breakthrough that killed him, not the legal system.

If the death penalty didn't exist, he wouldn't be dead regardless. There will always be situations similar to Todd's. The only constant is that if we don't have a death penalty, we can never wrongly execute someone.

I read all 17 pages and I have to ask, why do you bring up a case from 92 to argue against the death penalty today?

Because it's an excellent illustration of my point, not to mention a heartbreaking indictment of the death penalty.

The breakthroughs in forensic science have been unbelievable.

Unless you're going to make the argument that science is now (or will be) perfect, always yields perfect and complete data, never makes a mistake, and that juries, judges, appeals courts, defense lawyers, etc. never make a mistake, and all parties involved perfectly process all available information and make a correct decision 100% of the time, this argument is insufficient. The simple fact is that any system based on humans is going to be imperfect, and the possibility of an innocent execution will always exist. The only way to guarantee you never kill an innocent person is not to kill people to begin with.

My semantics do not do my point justice.

Shooting this piece or shit that would gladly kill me and my friends is not the same as murdering them.

Yes you are still taking the life of another person. The only difference is the intent of the person dying. I will gladly kill the enemy who will be shooting at me (intending to kill me mind you) in about 13 months

I don't know how to respond to this except to say that that it's not entirely surprising. I think that's all I can say on the subject that would be constructive.

I will not hesitate to kill the stupid bastard that breaks into my house. I will not however, commit murder under any circumstances.

lollin' at these two sentences next to each other. Killing someone for breaking into your house isn't self-defense, tex.

The loss of life IS tragic. You know, if people stopped murdering other people this would not be an issue. Until then, fry the murdering scum.

There will always be sick people out there. It's my hope that someday the U.S.'s justice system will actually seek to rehabilitate criminals rather than merely punish them, but it seems like there are enough people like you out there with some sort of bloodlust or need for vengeance that it'll stay this way for a while. Most of the planet has abolished the death penalty either formally or in practice, you know. The U.S. is a primitive holdout.

Oh well.

 

[DevilWolf47]

I'm not surprised that it was removed, nor am i offended. "Gay Cures" do cause significant harm and as such are not protected by the first amendment for the same reason i couldn't claim to be using my free speech if i advised someone to cut their own dick off. What pisses me off is that this app was released in the first place. I have a distinct impression that if the complaint was on a smaller scale, Apple would have ignored it.

As to Exodus... all i have to say is that you bastards are worst than anything you claim homosexuals are. Trying to "Cure" something that is not an ailment is inexcusable on any level. Anyone who claims to cure homosexuality should be dismissed as a lunatic.

 

[wfieldb]

No, none of those people or parties benefit from it.

I had to reply to this part. The families and friends of victims that are murdered absolutely benefit from the comfort in knowing that whoever did it can never hurt anyone again. You can't tell me you wouldn't feel the same way, no one can unless they've been in that situation. Don't try the "then just put them in prison for life" argument because they can still hurt other inmates and guards or hell even break out. At best you can guess you wouldn't want whoever it was to be put to death, You can't possibly know for certain.

 

[chronobreak]

Why not just re-release it as an app to help people of faith (whatever faiths it is that take issue with homosexual relations), who happen to be gay, abstain from commiting the sin of homosexual sex? Instead of marketing it as a "cure", they could just as easy do a "self-help" sort of deal.