“Former vice-chairman of county-level political congress executed for rape of 24 female students”
Filed under:News | Add comments
The People’s Daily website reports that Wu Tianxi (吴天喜), the former vice-chairman of the people’s political consultative conference for Zhenping county, Henan province, was executed on the afternoon of 13 August for crimes including the rape of 24 female school students.
“On the afternoon of 13 August, the former vice-chairman of the people’s political consultative conference for Zhenping county, Henan province, who had previously raped 24 female students and was responsible for 7 major crimes, was lawfully executed by means of lethal injection by the Nanyang Municipal Intermediate Court.”
“It is understood that Wu Tianxi used his long-term position as a senior figure in business, a people’s congress representative, and other positions of importance to acquire social influence, recruit individuals such as Wu Qingyou and Wu Changwei, employ violence and intimidation to engage in illegal criminal activitiy on an organized basis, and gradually forming a mafia-style group. In order to satisfy his own base desires, from 2005 to the start of 2007, under Wu Tianxi’s direction, a Mr. Liu Ms. Liu [EDIT: charles liu #13] arranged for other individuals to lurk around middle schools in Zhenping county, and use methods such as threats, coercion and physical violence to force 24 female students into Wu Tianxi’s office or into hotel rooms, where Wu Tianxi would rape them.”
“What is worth considering is that Wu Tianxi engaged in wrongdoing over many years, and his illegal activities were an open secret in the area. Why was it that he was never toppled from power? One of the principal reasons was the fact that local families who had suffered at his hands feared his immense wealth and influence locally. An even more important reason, however, is unrelated to the apprehensions of his victims, but involves the lack of effective supervision of Wu Tianxi’s actions by supervisory and regulatory authorities, or even their fundamental failure to perform their duties. Once supervision is absent, these kinds of ‘officials’ very quickly abuse their power as a tool for satisfying their own personal interests, acting with total impunity and harming ordinary citizens. What is especially unsettling is that when confronted by the evil conduct of these individuals who possess both wealth and power, the public authorities also seemed to be intimidated, and either did not dare or were unable to perform their supervisory and regulatory duties. The failure of public authorities to act, and the failure of legal authorities to speak, lend succour and protection to the criminal activities of these kinds of individuals.”
Title of original news story in Chinese: “奸污24女生县政协主席伏法”
I find it mind boggling that Wu Tianxi could go on raping so many students before he is caught. I wonder what can be done in China for local communities to protect themselves from people like Wu, where he is stopped after his first 1 or two victims. 24 is insane!
Do you agree Wu deserves the death penalty?
How has this problem been overcome in other societies?
There are currently no comments highlighted.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
This problem has never been overcome in any society. There are punishments created for these types of crimes, but even in America, things like this exists, except they are not people in power, they are people who look like a regular person. But creeps such as this exists everywhere. I suggest instead of death penalty, we do something worse. Ship all of them to the Middle East and let the religious Muslims stone them to death.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
China has had the death penalty for a long time, but there’s no concrete evidence that it keeps crime down there or in other countries. That leaves punishment, which people will be split on whether it’s good or not. My view is that it’s not suitable because (one reason) if you get the conviction wrong then you’ve murdered someone. It’s not possible to be 100% sure someone’s done a crime, even if they’ve confessed – especially in places like China where you get forced/coerced confessions (“yeah, just say you did it and we promise you’ll get let off”).
As for how he was able to do it, I think the article explains part of the reason.
1. Families were scared of his wealth and power.
2. Insufficient “supervision”.
Part of the issue is linked to the problems in China’s political system. There are too many officials for them ever to be properly monitored by the central authorities. The officials know that, which is why some abuse their position. They calculate that the chances of being caught are far outweighed by what they stand to gain/enjoy. Or they don’t even think like that, just believe they’re invincible and have a right to do as they please like some imperial mandarin. If you don’t let the people choose their real leaders at the local level, rather than figureheads with limited power, then you’re running the risk that individuals will follow the mantra “the hills are high and the emperor far away”.
So why were families scared? Because the Police and courts are seen as being corrupt and in the pocket of unelected politicians, their mates, rich men, etc. Because in China the laws that protect freedom of speech are too weak, and you can easily be arrested on a number of charges for essentially “causing trouble”.
If the CCP/Chinese State wants to retain such massive powers as it has to stop opposition to its monopoly on power, it constantly runs the risk of people abusing those powers one way or another. The only way to begin to stop these sorts of events happening are to make the courts fully independent, make the Police independent and reform it too, improve funding for both those institutions to improve pay and facilities and improve civil rights so that people can’t be silenced just because they’ve annoyed powerful individuals.
It’s the CCP’s/Politburo’s call. They can’t have their cake and eat it. It’s a choice between less power for them and better personal freedoms, and lots of power for them but too frequent abuses of power.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Another case of extremes of two countries: US and China (the title of my book which will be published in 2110). 🙂
US would spend millions in court cost to prosecute some one who is 99.9% guilty. Even the guilty is convicted, you need to pay him living expenses for life.
China just executes him for the cost of a bullet. It is effective to scare the rest of citizens not to be criminal. Hence it saves the police enforcement cost, prison space… To make it more cost effective, just rip the body open and recycle the organs (except the criminal mind and bad heart). 🙁
Middle ground is the better way to go.
On a separate topic: ‘Which is more trustworthy: the politician or the prostitute”. If each prostitute costs $20 (cheaper in China than US and they may give you frequency discount), it costs $20*24 = $480. It shows the politician is not too smart to risk his life for less than $500. 🙂
August 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
2 questions – First; what were the 7 major crimes? If he raped 24 women, then it would appear that the rapes are not regarded as the major crimes. Can someone advise on the other offenses? Is he being executed for the rapes or for corruption and bribery?
second question – middle school students? How old are these “women”? Middle school students tend to be children, or young adolescents (under 16).
And ok – a third. What’s happening to the individuals who picked up the victims and forced them into his office? They must have known what they were doing/what the result of their actions was going to be.
Re the death penalty, in any jurisdiction. there is a reason that murder is regarded as a greater offense than manslaughter. There can be a variety of differences, but for the most part, intent is a major element. To be guilty of murder (atleast in most common law systems) you need to have either intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, or knew that it was a likely outcome of your actions would result in either. We give leeway to people who commit crimes of passion or stupidity: voluntary manslaughter to the man who catches his wife in bed with his best friend; involuntary manslaughter for when the death is neither pre-planned or intentional – throwing a brick off an overpass and causing a car crash, for example.
State sanctioned executions are the ultimate act of intentional killing. If a murder decides they have the “right” to kill people, we rightly say – no, you don’t. But there doesn’t seem to be a similar response to the state saying we have the “right” to kill, the right to execute. Even if the people approve of the death penalty, they give the state permission to execute, it strikes me that this is not something that “the people” (in any state) can give the state permission to do. Do Not Kill Other People is a pretty much universal law; I do not see how creating categories where it’s OK to kill another person – be it for the greater good, for punishment, for justice – is (in a lived reality) any different from a murder deciding that it’s ok for them to kill.
As such, no – Wu doesn’t deserve the death penalty. No one “deserves” to be killed (though someone who has raped a minimum of 24 school girls is about as close as one might get to a person who “deserves” death).
Re: how it’s been overcome. I don’t think rape or exploitation of power is something that has been overcome anywhere. I think reducing public shaming for rape victims goes a long way to getting offenses reported, possibly reducing the likelihood that (atleast) 24 rapes take place before action is taken.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
@jael
This monster does not deserve to live. People like this who abuse their power for putting someone else especially little girls or women at harm is a danger to this society.
@Raj
China really needs an independent judiciary branch so it can keep these politicians in check.. seriously…
August 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Maikia – I’m not saying he’s not a monster, but my personal opinion on the death penalty precludes me wanting to see even monsters executed. It’s a hard position to hold at times, and it’s cases like this that really test it.
I’m 100% with you on the need for an independent judiciary to keep politicians (and law enforcement) in check.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
@Raj, “especially in places like China”
Or Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib, or the UN (where’s the WMD?)
@Tony, “millions in court cost to prosecute some one who is 99.9% guilty”
Or millions in covert ops to cook up some yellow cake evidence (where’s the WMD?)
Wu deserved it. Under China’s system that is parternalistic, with officials holding greater power, greater responsibility, accountability like this is natural. One can throw out conjecture of Wu possible innocence, but where’s the evidence that he’s not guilty and thus REALLY is wrongly excuted under China’s laws?
August 21st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Charles
Or Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib, or the UN
It’s both boring (as you do it all the time) and pointless (because I don’t support human rights abuses committed by the US) for you to raise those issues. They don’t justify what happens in China. Moreover, the Abu Ghraib saga is over, Guantanamo Bay is going to be closed and I don’t believe the UN ever forced people to make confessions, nor did it back the US-led invasion.
Whereas people are still forced to give confessions in China. You show great disrespect to those who are let down by the Chinese judicial system by trying to divert the conversation away from the topic under discussion. Really if you’re that obsessed by the Bush era you should go start a blog/contribute to a blog that deals with that. Don’t drag threads down here with it.
Under China’s system that is parternalistic, with officials holding greater power, greater responsibility, accountability like this is natural.
Well it doesn’t seem to work, so perhaps it would be better to ditch it to avoid horribly punishing those who are innocent.
What is needed is a reform of the justice, civil and potentially political systems to ensure that officials don’t have so much terrifying power in the first place that gives them the ability and confidence to do these sorts of horrible acts.
where’s the evidence that he’s not guilty
I’m not saying he’s innocent, but to be clear isn’t it usually a case of the prosecution having to prove guilt?
August 21st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Thx Guys for chiming in.
I have a similar view as Miaka about the punishment.
Regarding death penalty as a deterrent – on a personal note – I traveled to Malaysia numerous times on business in the past, and each time before the plane lands, the attendant announces that drug trafficking in Malaysia is punishable by death. It made me think hard about whether my luggage was out of my sight during any moment of my trip there. So, I definitely believe it has a positive impact as a deterrent.
I tend to agree with Raj (#2) that elections will empower the local community and dampen the blatant abuse of power by local officials. That alone is not enough, and hence, I am 100% in agreement too with Miaka #5 for a strong judiciary.
That strength will come from having more legal professional trained as well. China needs more Allen’s.
The U.S. has 1 lawyer to 300 citizens. China’s ratio is 1 to 9000. Some people complain that the U.S. is a very litigious society. While true, it is also a sign of problems being resolved “peacefully” in society.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Raj @ 8, “usually a case of the prosecution having to prove guilt?”
Well, do you have any evidence the prosecution had not sufficiently prove guilt? How about evidence showing Wu or his accomplices (刘培/Liu Pei, etc.) were subjected to “enhanced interrogation”?
Wu and his accomplices were accused of child rape(4 of the 24 victims were under 12), organized crime and racketerring. Since Wu’s arrest in 2007 his case went thru two trials, an appeal, and required sentence confirmation by supreme court:
http://www.rztong.com.cn/shownews_17951.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/local/2008-04/25/content_8045851.htm
http://gb.cri.cn/27824/2009/08/14/3365s2592340.htm
http://bbs.cnr.cn/frame.php?frameon=yes&referer=http%3A//bbs.cnr.cn/thread-274487-1-1.html
And before any critic say anything about secret trial, Chinese media at the time already reported the fact close-door trial was due to young victims’ privacy.
As to victims not reporting sex crime and official abuse, related news said these types of reports are on the rise in China, as more citizens are educated on the subject.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Hi Charles, #10,
Thank you so much for being able to “reach” into the Chinese media to help shed more information – and importantly, your summary.
For FM readers who cannot read Chinese, I highly recommend something like the Google Language Tools:
http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en
Go to the middle of the page section, “Translate a web page”.
Copy and paste Charles’ link.
Select “Chinese” as the source and then “English” as the target.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Huaren, in your OP there’s a reference to “Mr. Liu”. Liu Pei is actually a woman. One of the 3 “virgin hunters” employed by Wu was once his victim.
The case broke when 5 attempted kidnappings happened in one day in Zhengpin, and one of the girl taken, Feng Shaonan (Baidu “冯小楠”) escaped from a hotel room after slipping a note to a bell hop. Three young women in a rental car were arrested after Feng was interviewed. The three woman said they were catching virgins for “Uncle Wu”.
Wu was the richest man in Zhengpin county, a very successful and decorated “rural entrapenuer” in the 90’s. Unable to manage his growing business with a middle-school education, his enterprise started to fail. After his wife became ill, he believed by harvesting virginity, he can turn his luck around.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Charles
Well, do you have any evidence the prosecution had not sufficiently prove guilt?
I said very clearly “I’m not saying he’s innocent” – I was talking about the general principle of establishing guilt, not proving innocence. Similarly I was expressing a general view that I don’t support the death penalty because generally one cannot be sure of guilt and when you get it wrong you can’t bring someone back to life.
That’s not rocket science.
related news said these types of reports are on the rise in China, as more citizens are educated on the subject
Educated on what – that officials don’t have a legal right to commit rape?
Charles, can’t you even admit that there’s a massive problem with the system that people like this guy have so much power and that the victims are so terrified they won’t speak out?
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 am
I’ve followed the conversation so far, and while I have to say there are some points that Raj makes that I disagree with strongly, I entirely agree with his belief that a much stronger local judiciary is needed. Of course, this will bring in the question of who watches the watchmen, but since there will be many people whose main job is handling complaints, the judiciary will watch itself. I remember there was a TV series about a person named “Ji Xiao Lan” which taught me a lot of more formal and conversational Chinese. In it, a highly ranked servant of the Emperor goes around handling complaints people have against corrupt officials etc. Something similar would be needed, though I’m sure the engineers in charge of cracking down on corruption recognize this fact. However, I would think it’s fairly difficult to start a strong judiciary system for 1.3 billion people essentially from scratch. There probably are a few test cases in china going on right now, though I’m not sure.
About the Politburo needing to give up central power in order to lower corruption, I think that relation is off. So far, giving local officials more power without a central place that they know has the power to replace them quickly if they gather evidence of any wrongdoing will probably lead to more corruption. The judiciary should be a part of the central government, and have their authority. Smaller cases can be tried in local courts, but any felony case should be tried in a federal court.
I also think that a large part of the problem right now is that promotions are given primarily based on economic gains. Most officials would prefer to focus all of their effort on increasing the local economy, since that would be their ticket to promotion. Thus, they won’t pay much attention at non economic issues until it’s too late. China’s had a breakneck industrialization, but part of the price for taking so many shortcuts is that parts of society are less developed than others. I’m sure now however, the highly industrialized areas of China will be forced to focus more attention on the noneconomic areas of society.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
@jael , I remember from the news before said all those girls are junior middle school students, which make them below 16, all minors. That explains the highest penalty applied for the crime.
I personally oppose death penalty, though not really in the mood for a debate here today .
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
A while ago I read this incident from a Chinese magazine (could be Ming Po Sunday) in very descriptive manner in order to sell magazines. Under current Chinese law, death penalty for having sex with 14 and under. 16 and under has different protection.
In US the legal adult age is 18. The lawyers here can confirm the adult age definitions between the two countries.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
Do Not Kill Other People is a pretty much universal law.
Jael,
What if you have to kill some to save some ? especially kill some criminals to save some innocent ?
It is “universal” law created by people who lived in small, quite and safe towns in which policemen had nap each day and had nothing to do and didnt know how many bullet in their guns.
BTW, in WWII, British special agents sank a ship in Norway, there were 12 civilians on the ship, 4 of them were children. The ship carried nuc material.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 am
wahaha – let me rephrase. Do Not Murder is a pretty much universal law.
Better?
Most societies proscribe a group of people that it’s ok to kill – apostates under some religious laws; corrupt officials in some country laws; child rapists in some countries. I do not believe that it is OK to kill these categories of people. I would suggest that these executions amount to state or authority sanctioned murder.
Anyway – I’m not going to be drawn into a hypothetical argument with you; we’re talking about a specific case here, not my personal stance on the death penalty. The question was – do you think he deserves to die; my answer was no, for the reasons I gave above. Your questions about killing to save the innocent are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
If you want to tell me why killing this man – a man already in captivity – is *necessary* (who it saves, the implications of not killing him, the moral imperative and the like) – I’ll respond. But I’m not going to be a drawn into a discussion of my belief system.
‘k?
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@Wahaha – Great, when discussing a matter in China, where people have touched on the validity of the death penalty, you decide to take the “you do it too” line even though what is being talked about is a matter of principle – nationality doesn’t come into it. Whilst I am not going to shed any tears over the death of this man, I do not support his execution, his death will not save any lives, or prevent any further harm.
By the way, whilst Operation Gunnerside, the British mission to destroy German heavy-water production in Norway, was carried out by British commandos, the SF Hydro (the ferry carrying the remaining heavy-water) was sunk by members of the Norweigian resistance, who did their utmost to try to reduce civilian deaths.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:41 am
@jael & foarp
You did not understand what Wahaha was saying. He did not use ‘you do it too’ to justify ‘so we can do it as well’. He was merely using examples to counter a statement (or should I say ‘a generalisation’) jael made earlier: Do not kill other people is pretty much a universal law. It’s like you saying ‘Everyone uses Microsoft Windows’, and Wahaha is saying, ‘no, I know someone who uses Linux’.
Jael, you then rephrased by saying: do not murder is a pretty much universal law. This, I believe, everyone in FM would agree. However, I do not think you fully understand what ‘murder’ means. To qualify for a ‘murder’, you need three criteria:
1 intension (premeditated)
2 killing of another human being
3 unlawfully
This means that when a government execute someone, it is not ‘murder’, because it is lawful. murder, like all crimes, is a breach of social code, a breach of the rules upon which our society has more or less agreed. As long as we elect civilian representatives to impose the death penalty, it’s very difficult for us to say that it constitutes murder in any commonly used sense of the word.
For reference, here is what you said in post #4:
‘State sanctioned executions are the ultimate act of intentional killing. If a murder decides they have the “right” to kill people, we rightly say – no, you don’t. But there doesn’t seem to be a similar response to the state saying we have the “right” to kill, the right to execute. Even if the people approve of the death penalty, they give the state permission to execute, it strikes me that this is not something that “the people” (in any state) can give the state permission to do.’
By your logic, all prison facilities are illegal then, because we have no right to lock people up and we should have no right to give this permission to the state!?
August 24th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Bridge – I do understand what murder is; the thing is, I see it differently to you. I don’t accept the “lawfully” element as a mitigation. I don’t see a “legal” killing of intent as any differnt to an “illegal” killing with intent. We’ve just said that under X circumstances, it’s OK to kill someone with intent. I simply do not believe this. Nor do I accept the we elect people to kill means that it’s not murder – soldiers following orders are not immune for prosecution for war crimes; we require them to take responsibility for their own actions. Same for politicians. That we say we’re ok with someone killing people in our name doesn’t make the killing right.
Now – please understand; I’m not trying to convince you I’m right. This is just my opinion. That’s it. An opinion. I’m not making any statement about incarceration (I do think that society permits restraint of people who are threats, I think death is a *very* different thing to restriction of freedom); I’m not interested in comparing systems that have the death penalty or the cultural differences. Just my opinion. I don’t think this man deserves to die.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:13 am
@jael
Fair enough. I understand your opinion, but I did not understand the logic or reasoning behind it. I am aware that a lot of opinions are not backed up by logic or reasoning (like red is prettier than blue), but I hope yours are.
You said that the state should not have the right to execute someone because the people who give her the permission do not have the right to kill – if we can’t kill, why can they, right? Based on this logic, I asked why, and you agreed, that the state should have the right to restrict someone’s freedom (i.e. locking up criminals)? Don’t the people have no right to lock up someone either?
August 24th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Bridge – re read the bit that’s in parenthesis in the second paragraph. I do think we have the right to restrict the movement of people who pose a threat to us; I think killing people is a very different matter to restraining them/locking them up. The absolute finality of death makes it different – enormously different.
ETR a chunk of text which could be misinterpreted as hostile – not intended, but things get misinterpreted easily on the internet, want to err on the side of caution 🙂 . j.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Just for the record, there’s a much worse example of civilians dying in a maritime operation during WWII: MV Wilhelm Gustloff, a passenger/hospital ship sunk in 1945 while evacuating refugees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff
I’m not sure what to make of these WWII examples for this discussion, though. These were extreme times and even the allied side made operations heavily criticized today (the Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden bombings, to name a few). These were justified at the time by wartime emergency. I’m not sure what would constitute a similar sense of “emergency” in a country not at war.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
When I said “justified” above, that’s what seems to be the viewpoint of the majority – I’m not endorsing it, neither am I sure what is right to do during a war.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Jael,
What is law for ? protect innocent people.
How does law accomplish that ? make potential criminals think twice before commiting a crime.
Does your law system accomplish that ?
If a 20 year penalty can make a criminals thinks twice, then death penalty definitely saves lifes.
if your law system cant accomplish that(makeing potential criminals think twice), then you have a lousy system that should be abandoned.
__________________________________________
The reason to have death penalty is not and never for revenge.(though it is for the relative of victims.) What it is for is stopping criminals from making hideous crimes, hence saving innocent people, especially children who are defenseless.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:51 am
“….nationality doesn’t come into it.”
FOARP,
WTF ?
read this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
Capital punishment in China can be politically or socially influenced. In 2003, a local court sentenced the leader of a triad organization to a death sentence with two years of probation. However, the public opinion was that the sentence was too light. Under public pressure, the supreme court of China took the case and retried the leader, resulting in a death sentence which was carried out immediately.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Wahaha:
“If a 20 year penalty can make a criminals thinks twice, then death penalty definitely saves lifes.
if your law system cant accomplish that(makeing potential criminals think twice), then you have a lousy system that should be abandoned.”
So wait a tic… This man still raped 24 children in spite of his nation having the death penalty. By your own logic, this is a lousy system; the death penalty failed to deter his actions.
I’m not making any statement about any legal system; only the death penalty. You think that it’s Ok; I don’t. No problem. I don’t agree with you; nor do agree with American’s who think the death penalty is OK; nor Singaporeans, Saudis, Iranians, nor in those individuals in countries who do not have the death penalty and want it. It’s the act of killing with intent that is problematic; not the outcomes of the action or the social implications. For the most part I’m resoundingly utilitarian, but – for me – the willful killing of others is something that supersedes utility.
I don’t think crime deterrence is relevant (if the death penalty actually does deter crime; the evidence doesn’t not necessarily support this conclusion at this time.) I think the act of concious killing is wrong, wether it deters crime or not.
Also, I get the impression you might have misunderstood Forap. Popular opinion sways sentences everywhere, not just China, but this isn’t the issue. There are people that support the execution of prisoners all over the world. Again – not the issue.
The act of killing another person was what FORAP was talking about; we all die the same whatever nationality we are. Nationality does not come into it.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:41 am
“So wait a tic… This man still raped 24 children in spite of his nation having the death penalty. By your own logic, this is a lousy system; the death penalty failed to deter his actions”
No,
If no harsh penalty, there would be more SOB like him.
You cant eliminate crime, but you can stop some of them.
____________________________________________
“the evidence doesn’t not necessarily support this conclusion at this time.”
Rich country with well educated people have less criminal rates. It is stupid to compare the criminal rate in Britain to China’s.
__________________________________
“the act of concious killing is wrong,”
then you should ask your president or prime minister to dissemble the army, and stop producing any weapons.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Wahaha: “Rich country with well educated people have less criminal rates. It is stupid to compare the criminal rate in Britain to China’s.”
OK then, my ever logical friend, why not compare American crime rates with those of Western Europe? Take economic imbalances out of the mix and you’ll still struggle to make the case that state brutality is the key to low crime rates; the evidence would suggest the reverse.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:00 am
BC,
America doesnt really have death penalty, except several states like Texas.
Every child rapist in America knows that.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:04 am
UAE and Saudi suit you better?
August 25th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Ha, Saudi ?
hahahahahahahahaha,
Read Islam, then you will get answer.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:08 am
I didn’t realise Islam was a book.
But – your point was what, Wahaha?
August 25th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Wahaha, so you think that the crime rate in the USA is higher than that of Western Europe because the state doesn’t execute enough people? Your path of logic is so serpentine it’s beginning to tie you in knots…
August 25th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Your path of logic is so serpentine it’s beginning to tie you in knots…
I dont know.
Two @$$hole went into a McDonald in New york, had a nice dinner, forced 8 employees into the basement, then executed them…. for couple of hundred dollars.
I believe they wouldnt have done that if death penalty had been enforced, i dont care what you think. To me, if a child rapist has to be executed to save another child, I will support that, and I believe that is the case based on the number of kids missing each year.
__________________________
I didn’t realise Islam was a book.
But – your point was what, Wahaha?
I dont see what is funny about that. I think my point cant be clearer.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Wahaha Says: “i dont care what you think”
This comment gets to the core of why it’s an utter waste of my, jael’s, or anybody else’s time attempting to get through to you. Pathetic.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:35 am
After you used the phrase “tie you in knots”, what is the point arguing with you ?
I dont follow “universal law”, I dont follow theory, I dont follow hollow ideas, I follow facts, I follow what I have seen around me. and I believe those employees of McDonald couldve been saved with death penalty.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:36 am
does it have to be an argument? I mean, conceivably we could learn from each other – that’s the point of the blog right? How do we do this if we argue?
August 25th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Please don’t jump at me if this point has been raised, though I can’t find it in there: whatever the truth about the death penalty or harsh punishments, does it really deter people who are above the law most of the time? I think jael said something similar.
I think it’s speculation on everyone’s part. We don’t really know what effects different laws would have – perhaps they would, perhaps they wouldn’t. I read a story by someone I can try to find – basically about a young guy in the US who took two hostages and later chose to kill them, because he believed he would get capital punishment either way.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Here are two discussions about capital punishment, one negative, one positive:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119397079767680173.html
Both utilize facts. Take your pick.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Thx for the links Wukailong.
Not sure if people here have read – China’s Supreme People’s Court had ordered all lower courts to reduce number of death sentences or to use it only for more extreme cases. This was done earlier this year?
I also know for the USA, the average cost to keep an inmate in prison was $22,000 in 2001. That average must be a lot higher for 2009. I have always wondered why hasn’t this been outsourced yet! 🙂
August 25th, 2009 at 7:05 am
@jael,
It is interesting that you call the lawful ending of another person’s life ‘murder’ too. Basically you challenge the very definition of the word ‘murder’ and you condemn any sort of intentional killings, including killing in self-defense. Somehow, you believe that ANYONE has this gift of talking thing out in ANY desperate situations. OK, I understand that this is your opinion. I know you are not trying to change others’ opinions and believe me, I’m not going to change yours either. However, I still have trouble understanding the logic behind your opinion.
To others,
Here are some questions for you: Is death penalty really the ultimate punishment? Does it have the same effect on everyone? If a person values something more than his own life, is taking that something away from him a more severe form of punishment?
August 25th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Along the lines of Bridge, #43, 2nd paragraph quesiton:
I always wondered if it is better to have a murderer simply executed or have that person labor away in prison to pay back society until natural death.
I know this way of thinking might be too cruel to some, but just a thought. 🙂
August 25th, 2009 at 8:31 am
@Bridge: I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “Somehow, you believe that ANYONE has this gift of talking thing out in ANY desperate situations.”
Can you explain this in more detail?
August 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Bridge:
“It is interesting that you call the lawful ending of another person’s life ‘murder’ too. Basically you challenge the very definition of the word ‘murder’ and you condemn any sort of intentional killings, including killing in self-defense. Somehow, you believe that ANYONE has this gift of talking thing out in ANY desperate situations. OK, I understand that this is your opinion. I know you are not trying to change others’ opinions and believe me, I’m not going to change yours either. However, I still have trouble understanding the logic behind your opinion.”
A few things. I don’t think you do actually understand my position.
I’ve said nothing about self defense (I’ve very intentionally not, because it’s not relevant to the death penalty, and once its brought up it becomes a total side show discussion that detracts from the death penalty one). Given I used the common law definition of murder in my opening post – which says nothing about SD I think you’re making assumptions here.
However, here goes: The short version is killing in self defense is undesirable, but it’s not murder: under common law, you can be convicted to manslaughter for excessive self defense (jurisdiction I’m most familiar with; others look at the same issue within a manslaughter case without specifically labeling it). Not that manslaughter is desirable, but it’s not murder. And if it’s deemed to not be excessive self defense? You don’t get either conviction.
re: ““Somehow, you believe that ANYONE has this gift of talking thing out in ANY desperate situations.”
I don’t think this 🙂 Don’t ascribe my thoughts to me: what you know about what I think is what I write here. Any extra interpretation is all you. That sentence should read “I believe that you think that ANYONE has this gift of talking thing out in ANY desperate situations.”. I don’t think this at all.
Re: the logic: it’s perfectly logical to me 🙂 Incredibly logical. Im using a very precise definition of what it is to murder and applying it consistently. It is murder when you kill someone with the intent to end their life (see my second para for self defense mitigations). It does make any difference if it’s you or me, or your cousin or Donald Trump or the head of the CCP or the President of the US or a state. An entity – human or state – that believes it has the authority to end lives solely they because it thinks this is acceptable given the result (reduction of crime, deterrent, revenge, whatever (note: not self defense)) is acting in a way that is consistent with the generally accepted meaning of the word murder. The death penalty fits this description. Where is the illogic? I’m not redefining anything; I’m simply applying a single definition across the board, rather than exempting state entities.
Anyway, I’ll say it again about the legal thing. I don’t accept that “legal” makes something OK. Some places it’s legal to execute apostates or deny wives food. It’s legal and practiced to deny the grandchildren of civil war veterans on the losing side access to higher education or government positions. It’s apparently legal to use “enhanced interrogation techniques”. It’s legal to deny the children of internal migrants access to schooling. It’s legal for politicians to accept “donations” from development companies. It’s legal to carry to concealed semi automatic weapon into a supermarket. (I’ve taken examples from many different nations here; I’m not picking on anyone.) Does that it’s legal to deny ones wife food make it ok? To torture? Legality and morality are very different things.
“Here are some questions for you: Is death penalty really the ultimate punishment? Does it have the same effect on everyone? If a person values something more than his own life, is taking that something away from him a more severe form of punishment?”
Does it have the same effect on everyone: Yes. Everyone dies when they are put to death.
:p /toungeincheek
August 25th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Hauren @ 42
“I also know for the USA, the average cost to keep an inmate in prison was $22,000 in 2001. That average must be a lot higher for 2009. I have always wondered why hasn’t this been outsourced yet! ”
Err…. Already the case. The actual prisons are outsourced; I’m not so sure you can outsource the whole justice system though 🙂 (Well, I don’t doubt you could, but agh; my brain hurts thinking about it).
August 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
In the end, capital punishment is a moral issue that needs to be decided individually to where the society forms an overall consensus. Here we have two basic arguments for either side. I’ll try to shoot each one down and then make my point.
If I look at Wahaha’s argument that capital punishment deters future murders, this has never really been proven either way. The data is too conflicting to come up with a valid judgment so the most likely effect is neutral. The monetary argument doesn’t work in the USA but would work for China. In the States, the cost of going through the appeal process is more expensive than keeping the prisoner alive. Should it be that way? That’s a value judgment where each society has come up with a different conclusion.
jael’s argument reminded me of the classic example of a circular argument fallacy. It goes like this:
* All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
* The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
* Therefore the death penalty is wrong.
This is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion. Whew, that’s a mouthful! I didn’t substitute any words in there, this is really the exact wording used when teaching this fallacy.
So in the end, each society has to decide what form of punishment they want. From my personal experience, virtually every Chinese person I’ve ever discussed this with (including my wife) fervently believes in the death penalty. To my wife, it’s so logical that there’s nothing to discuss; you kill so you are killed.
For my part, I’m against the death penalty not because the murderer is killed but because even with a lengthy appeals process, too many wrongful deaths have occurred. I’m sure with the far greater number of executions in China using no appeals process, there have been far more “wrongful deaths” but it’s not my place to tell them what they should do. That’s up to the Chinese people themselves, just as it’s up to the majority of Americans to decide whether they want the death penalty and so far, the majority are in favor of it. That’s fine by me even if I’m in the minority. That’s just how the system works. However, I do believe that prisons should be run similar to the way Sheriff Arpaio does it in Phoenix, tent cities, two meals a day, no weights, no TV, no adult magazines, hard work, etc. Prison isn’t supposed to be enjoyable.
So in the end, I can understand both Wahaha and jael’s positions. I think each has made an emotional decision and then tried to use logical arguments to justify that emotional decision. What the case of Wu Tianxi showed me was that wealthy political figures in smaller cities have undue influence and power and really stand above the law. This is the area of reform that China must deal with in the future. Based on current Chinese practice, Wu deserves the death penalty for his actions if the law is to be applied in a consistent way.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
nice synopsis. you’re right; the claim that intentional killing (in cold blood) is wrong is in personal decision; it’s a question of wether you accept that is correct idea or not.
🙂 anyway. You’re right; I’m not arguing to change the death penalty in China; every nation will do as it wills.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
@jael,
Thanks for the reply. I believe we have different ideas about intentional killing. To me, killings in some self-defence situations can be ‘intentional’ and I consider them morally correct – and of course, this is just my opinion. That is why I questioned the logic behind your opinion. I should’ve used a better example to counter ‘all intentional killings are wrong’ argument, but I shall stop for now as this post is about death penalty (a particular case of intentional killing). Also, thank Steve for doing a great summary.
1. I asked: “Here are some questions for you: Is death penalty really the ultimate punishment? Does it have the same effect on everyone? If a person values something more than his own life, is taking that something away from him a more severe form of punishment?”
2. Jael said: Does it have the same effect on everyone: Yes. Everyone dies when they are put to death.
I did not just mean physical effect. The question was actually asking if everyone would look at death the same way. Are we all equally afraid of dying? My answers to my own questions are:
1 Is death penalty really the ultimate punishment? – No. I believe in certain situations, some punishments are more severe than death penalty.
2 Does it have the same effect on everyone? – No. Some people are not afraid of dying.
3. 3 If a person values something more than his own life, is taking that something away from him a more severe form of punishment?” – Yes. But, we need to look at what this ‘something’ is first.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:31 am
Bridge: I don’t think we do. You say –
” To me, killings in some self-defence situations can be ‘intentional’ and I consider them morally correct”.
If you see above I said use of excess force in self defense was another element that differentiates between murder and manslaughter. For the argument I’m presenting, I’m using the strict legal definition of murder; intent is a major element of the crime but there are mitigators. If you’re saying – it’s ok to kill someone in self defense because not doing so would result in the death of the other person (and that’s generally held to be the only reasonable action) you’d not be committing murder.
Basically – in any situation where killing is held to be manslaughter or less (self defense; passion; whatever) the thing is – it’s not murder. In no case do we say that it’s OK for an individual to kill another to teach a lesson to other potential offenders- ever. Why is it OK for the state to do so?
Just as an aside – Do you mean “morally correct” or “not wrong”? I hope you’d be erring towards “not wrong” rather than “correct” or (aghaghaghag) “desirable”. If we can agree on this, I don’t think we’re toooooo far apart on self defense. (I know, semantics, semantics! 🙂 )
Re: Steve’s comment that holding intentional killing is wrong is an emotional position. I’ve thought about it some more, and I don’t know that it is. It would depend why I was claiming that position. If it was because of religious beliefs – then ok, emotional. Personal philosophy of pacifism – ok emotional. But I’m not using these as the basis of my argument.
I took the pretty much universal definition of murder and said – this instance of killing that, if it were carried out by a member of the public, would be considered murder should also be considered murder when it is carried out by the state. I keep saying legality doesn’t make morality; but I’m very consistently using the legal definition here. Murder laws say that to kill someone intentionally (without mitigating circumstances! 🙂 ) makes the killing murder, not manslaughter. Why is it illogical to point to what society has indicated intent makes a killing particularly heinous, and to want to see it applied across the board – not exempting some killings and not others?
Steve – one last question (and I don’t mean this in an offensive way, I’m genuinely curious). You say you don’t support the death penalty because too many people have been wrongly executed etc… That’s fair enough. But would you support the execution of an individual who was caught “with the smoking gun”; who was known to be guilty and accepted their guilt? I mean, if it’s a “they might make a mistake”; what if there was no possibility that a mistake was made? I know, it’s a system v individual case, the system itself is what’s flawed, even if its actions are right in a given circumstance – but would this be your response or is there something more I’m missing?
August 26th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Well, this guy was an animal and now he is dead. Looking at “justice” performed recently by the Scottish government in regards to the Lockerbie bomber definitely shows the other side of the extreme. As an American I would say that the US system is simply retarded. You get 1% of the whole population in jail costing the government some $30k per prisoner per year. People who are on the death row on average spend over 10 years before they are executed. Furthermore, even if the police manages to press charges against someone, the conviction rate is roughly 50-70%. This means that most victims of crimes will never get justice. This also means that those with a lot of money to hire good lawyers over the crappy public lawyers will have a much better chance of getting away with justice. Sadly, this is supposed to be one of the best systems in the world according to many.
At the end of the day, to reduce crime and corruption in society a free and independent press is needed. That’s what China desperately needs. The penalty for the crimes committed should be determined by the local government because each culture/nation is different. I was in Singapore recently and it’s a damn “fine” place. Everything is so clean and there is a good reason for that. If you make the place dirty you will get a hefty fine. If you sell any drugs you will get executed. Some people from the West actually think this is barbaric, whatever.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
With death penalty, your 1% of population in jail could be cut down 25% and capital crime will be cut down half I bet.
“Forgiving” church goers says no to death penalty but yes to bombing middle east.
We live in a world full of conflicts, do we?
August 26th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Hi jael~
Don’t worry, you never come across in an offensive way. 🙂
I’m not sure that your “universal” definition is really universal. State sponsored capital punishment is unusual in Europe but not in the rest of the world, so as a European position I’d agree but not as a universal one.
As to your question, first of all I have no moral qualms about executing murderers; my objection is with the accuracy of those judgments. However, where to draw the line? Theoretically, your example sounds like an open and shut case but I’d still be against it since it creates the potential for a slippery slope. For the same reason I think this guy in China should be executed (under the current law, he deserves to be), I also think that there shouldn’t be any exceptions if capital punishment is outlawed.
The problem is what hzzz outlined; governments who take someone like the Lockerbie bomber who would have received the death penalty if it was legal at the time, being allowed to go free for humanitarian reasons. There’s no way this guy should be shown any humanitarianism; he blew up hundreds of innocent people. Judgments like this cause many people to push for a death penalty so that miscarriages of justice like this aren’t allowed to happen. That’s the other side and it’s a legitimate argument.
In one of the two links Wukailong provided, some guy walks into a shop and blows away an innocent stranger with a shotgun. When arrested, he says he was “tired of living”. What he expected was for the state to take his life rather than his committing suicide. In this case, capital punishment actually instigated the murder. I’ll admit this is unusual but it can still happen.
That’s why I said I can understand both sides of the argument. For instance, I have a thing about child abuse. Emotionally, I think people who abuse or rape children should be tortured, drawn and quartered and have their remains eaten by vultures. That’s how much I despise these people. But I also know the real world doesn’t work like we’d want.
My mom used to own a nursery school. One of her teachers was accused of child abuse. My mom had things set up so that no teacher was ever alone with a child and knew this nice young girl was innocent, but she was treated as guilty until proven innocent by the authorities. Ends up the boy’s father was abusing him but this young lady’s life dream was crushed. She had wanted to be an elementary school teacher but after this, she wanted no part of teaching ever again. All that the authorities who had unjustly accused her could say was…. “nevermind”.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Tony:“Forgiving” church goers says no to death penalty but yes to bombing middle east.”
The “Church” is divided in a lot of issues….always slow to catch up with the times because most don’t know what they are talking about:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
I may not have a homosexual bone in me (I think) , but I have nothing against those so inclined to enjoy a happy gay relationship. Afterall , what the hell is the big deal?
Excerpt: “Jerry Falwell believed the Bible supported segregation in the church until a black shoeshine man asked him, “When will someone like me be allowed to become a member of your congregation?” Through those simple words, the Holy Spirit spoke new truth about the ancient biblical texts to the Rev. Falwell, and in obedience he ended segregation at Thomas Road Baptist Church.”
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/premaritalsex.html
Excerpt: “”God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality” Phyllis Trible discusses the legitimacy of polygamy in biblical times and women today want the same sexual freedom men have always had.”
Go figure, people.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:15 am
hey steve; thanks for the clarification. I understand what you are saying; honestly; I’ve gone through phases where I felt the same. I do not believe the same though now; it’s been a process. I appreciate your honesty. In as far as the definition; I’m using only the legal definition of murder – one that applies in common law and – as I understand it – China also. Universal was the wrong word (I often use the wrong word 🙂 ), but it’s a common definition. (If it’s not, I do hope someone is going to point it out). It’s holding the state to the standard it holds the people. That’s all.
Hzzzz – Singapore is fine, unless you want something different; then it’s constricting as anything. There has to be somewhere between the abomination that is the US system and the social uniformity of Singapore. I’m not so sure that Singapore has that free a press – they’re facing pressure to open up; including from within. This is a decent paper on the topic: http://jmsc.hku.hk/students/jmscjournal/critical/elainandmargaret_01.htm
“”Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primary purposes of an elected government,” said Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled Singapore from 1959 to 1990.”
(sound familiar? 🙂 )
The Singaporean system of tight, tight control I think works in part because of the very small size of the country and very small number of people. It gets harder to exert this degree of control over a larger population and area of land.
Re “The Church”. There is no such thing. There Christian sects covering a vast, vast range of positions; pretty much any ideological philosophy can find a home in ‘A Church’ somewhere; but ‘The Church’ is a fictitious creation. HKer – re your gay example; the Episcopalian’s will ordain active homosexual bishops; Southern Baptists will excommunicate for the same.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:03 am
hzzz: “I was in Singapore recently and it’s a damn “fine” place. Everything is so clean and there is a good reason for that. If you make the place dirty you will get a hefty fine. If you sell any drugs you will get executed. Some people from the West actually think this is barbaric, whatever.”
Some people from Singapore also think it’s barbaric, although they have to be very brave to the point of foolhardiness to raise their voices on the matter. Challenge the regime and you’ll face a lifetime of persecution via the state’s deeply corrupt legal system.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Most folks may prefer to live in an authoritarian society like Singapore than the so-call democratic society like NYC. Caning must work effectively. Day and night when you compare subway in NYC to most Asian cities. Singapore has a highly educated middle class though.
Sometimes a little discipline is good for you and the society. If you do not flush the toilet, you get a fine (not a lash). They must be watching you via the cameras in the rest room, haha. I really hate the toilet unflushed in Chinese restaurants – another evidence that Chinese are selfish. I’m a Chinese American. If you’re too fat, the government in Singapore force you to participate in some kind of exercise.
However, there are some bad extreme cases. Recently a Malaysian lady got 6 or so lashes for drinking in public. It only applies to Muslim women. Why do the beautiful Muslim women cover the faces (ugly ones are OK to do so, haha)? Some traditions are bad for modern society.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Indeed, more people throughout human history have suffered, been mislead and died from superstitious malpractices, persecutions and wars in the name of religion (which promise redemption and better lives through oppressive moral codes, blind faith & unquestioning loyalty ) than from anything else.
#56 jael Says“The Church”. There is no such thing….‘The Church’ is a fictitious creation.”
You are absolutely right there. Perhaps I should have used Christendom or simply many factions of Christianity – from the Vatican to denominational Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants to the Charismatics to the Mormons etc…But for the sake of simplification I’d opted for the “Church” – is divided in a lot of issues….always slow to catch up with the times because most don’t know what they are talking about:
#58 Tony: “However, there are some bad extreme cases. Recently a Malaysian lady got 6 or so lashes for drinking in public. It only applies to Muslim women.”
Malaysian authorities refuse to cane female
Herald Globe
Monday 24th August, 2009
Malaysian religious authorities have stopped the sentence of caning, which was to have been carried out on a Muslim woman who was caught drinking beer.
Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno was sentenced by a religious court last month to six strokes of the cane.
While Islamic officials detained her on Monday in order to transport her to a jail for the sentence to be carried out, government authorities stepped in to cancel the caning and insisted she return to her home.
Kartika was to be the first woman to be caned under Islamic law in Malaysia, which had been regarded as a moderate Muslim-majority country.
The 32-year-old woman has now insisted she needs a document explaining her status, not knowing whether the sentence has been overturned or postponed.
Earlier, Kartika had asked to be punished in public as a warning to fellow Malaysian Muslims.
http://story.heraldglobe.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/89d96798a39564bd/id/534444/cs/1/
August 28th, 2009 at 3:49 am
@TonyP4 (#58): The subway in NYC is the crappiest I’ve seen, but it isn’t necessarily like that in every other part of the world except Asia. The London subway was great and I like the Stockholm subway too. The Beijing subway is good if you take one of the new lines (like 13 or 10) but quite crummy (though slowly being improved) if you take line 2, the oldest one.
Maybe all people are selfish by nature and won’t care about society or the environment until you install a reason in them. This can either be strict laws (Singapore), some sort of internalized sense of “order” (Sweden, Germany) or shame (Japan). I’m guessing wildly here! 😀
August 28th, 2009 at 5:51 am
TonyP4 Says: “If you’re too fat, the government in Singapore force you to participate in some kind of exercise…”
Yes, the government in Singapore encourages exercise of every part of the body but the brain. Repressive regimes infantalise their populations.
“Why do the beautiful Muslim women cover the faces (ugly ones are OK to do so, haha)?”
It’s always nice to leaven the ultra-nationalism at Fool’s Mountain with a bit of snickering childish misogyny. Recent studies funded by George Soros have revealed that the average age at which the patriotic Chinese male leaves puberty is 59 years, 3 months, and 6 days.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:40 am
“Recent studies funded by George Soros have revealed that the average age at which the patriotic Chinese male leaves puberty is 59 years, 3 months, and 6 days.”
Yep, George Soros, “the man who broke the Bank of England,” whose philosophy is much influenced by the philosophy of crtical rationalism of Karl Popper, who held that “scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.”
Popper’s Falsifibility theory contents that “no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. “
August 29th, 2009 at 1:42 am
#Wukailong, your guessing is quite correct.
#HKer, thanks for the update. Drinking beer in public deserves 6 lashes? What kind of religion is it?
#Barney, I do not think you’re Chinese but 59 years is good ammunition for Chinese bashers. I have not read any books on human science, so my literacy age is about 11 at most. I need to use the dictionary to find out what does ‘misogyny’ mean. Here are some posts to verify that I adore women. 🙂
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/08/23/the-chinese-female-army-a-liability-or-an-asset/
http://tonyp4joke.blogspot.com/2009/08/poitcally-correct-to-women.html
http://tonyp4joke.blogspot.com/2009/08/perfect-machine-pg17.html
Have humor and enjoy life!
August 29th, 2009 at 1:56 am
HKer, this is for your fun and God scores one too.
——
Who is God?
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem Science has with GOD, the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, you Believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is GOD ALL – POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill.
But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent )
Professor : You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, Young Fella.
Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . .. .
Professor : That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer)
Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the World, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who Created them ?
(Student had no answer)
Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you..
Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD?
Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor : Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing.. I only have my Faith.
Professor : Yes,Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )
Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat, a Little Heat or No Heat. But we don’t have anything called Cold.
We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as Cold.
Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. We cannot Measure Cold.
Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )
Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is Night if there isn’t Darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir.
Darkness is the Absence of Something
You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn’t it? In reality, Darkness isn’t.
If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality.
You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD.
You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure.
Sir, Science can’t even explain a Thought.
It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )
Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and
Cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor,
Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir?
Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
(The Class was in Uproar )
Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor’s Brain?
(The Class broke out into Laughter )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . . .
No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol,
Science says that You have No Brain, sir..
With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?
(The Room was Silent.. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)
Professor : I guess you’ll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly !
The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH.
That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.
NB:
That student was Albert Einstein.
Concentrate on this sentence
‘When God takes something from your grasp, He’s not punishing you, but merely opening your hands to receive something better. Concentrate on this sentence…. . ‘The will of God will never take you where the Grace of God will not protect you.’
August 29th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Very funny story. One thing of course, is the fact that a person’s brain has been empirically proven to exist. And so, we logically surmise that if the professor is a person, he will also have a brain.
Likewise, the theory of evolution relies on more than faith. It relies on deduced empirical evidence, isolated areas (like islands), and microevolution.
Thus, science is based on much more than faith. Any attempt to say science and religion are both the same is laughably ridiculous. I don’t mind if someone keeps their religious beliefs, but don’t try to say that they share the same underpinnings.
The story you’ve just told is a funny religious joke, but inaccurate. Also, Albert Einstein never had such a conversation. http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
According to Einstein, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony in
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Which is much more deist and agnostic than any standard Christianity sect.
Also, this topic is getting way offtopic, but I just couldn’t resist posting a reply.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:49 am
@ James: Hah, you beat me to it! I can always tell when stories are made up. They always seem to be attributed to either Albert Einstein, the Dalai Lama or George Carlin. 😛
August 29th, 2009 at 5:46 am
#64
Tony, thanks for the joke: BTW, have you ever heard these brilliant lines?
“Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs MONEY! ” George Carlin.
#66
LOL…Steve, I assure you these are in truth George Carlin’s words: “I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a man nailed to two pieces of wood.”
August 29th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Wealth, power & superstitions
Wealth: http://www.ronpaul.com/
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton(1834–1902).
Superstitions: http://www.helium.com/items/851187-ritual-related-raping-young-girls-increasing-worldwide-superstition-drives
August 29th, 2009 at 8:36 am
TonyP4 Says: “Here are some posts to verify that I adore women…Have humor and enjoy life!”
Tony, weren’t you one of the people who on another thread was bemoaning the public image of Asian men in the West? Complaining about alleged stereotyping of Asians as sexless losers who struggle to form relationships with women? I’m sure you were.
Your links are utterly without humour or grace. If you think they indicate adoration of women you’ve got a lot of growing up to do. Sample quotes for those without the will to click on them:
“She is not a ‘BABE’ or a ‘CHICK’- She is a ‘BREASTED AMERICAN'”
“She is not ‘EASY’ – She is ‘HORIZONTALLY ACCESSIBLE.'”
“She does not have ‘BREAST IMPLANTS’ – She is ‘MEDICALLY ENHANCED.'”
“She does not have ‘MAJOR LEAGUE HOOTERS’ – She is ‘PECTORALLY SUPERIOR.'”
“She is not a ‘TWO-BIT HOOKER’ – She is a ‘LOW COST PROVIDER.'”
“The best engine in the world is the Vagina.
It can be started with one finger.
It is self lubricating.
It takes any size piston.
And it changes its own oil every four weeks.
It is only a pity that the management system is so temperamental..!”
It says a lot about you that you insensitively post these links on a thread regarding sexual abuse. Do yourself, me, and everybody else a big favour and drag yourself out of your extended snickering puberty. Treat women with respect and – it really is that simple – you’ll soon find that they return the compliment.
August 29th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Barny, do you not enjoy horizontally accessible breasted americans with medically enhanced superior pectorals that provide a low cost service?
August 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am
James, if you want to be Butthead to Tony’s Beavis then that’s your decision. But if you think a thread relating to sexual abuse is the place for such juvenile and misogynistic “wit”, then understand that you’re reinforcing prejudices regarding perceptions of Asian men.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am
no, Barney – it’s our perception of misogynistic, immature men. The Asian bit is incidental.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Jael, I’m not blind to the fact that dumb male rage is an international phenomenon, but here’s a reminder of what you had to say on another recent thread relating to a comment that I made regarding attitudes to women:
“Barry [I’ll forgive you for that] – it’s not a HK thing. I think it’s more an East Asian thing; I’ve lived in various parts of the region and there are patterns…We white women are considered the sluts of the world – not just by angry HK men, but by pretty much everywhere that’s not the west…You ever heard a Chinese woman complain about gender inequality and the social expectations placed on her in a Confucian system? Well, please want to believe me that they’re even less attractive when you’ve been bought up outside the system…”
If this was a forum with the stated aim of patriotically “Blogging for America” and somebody came out with the line that “She is not a ‘BABE’ or a ‘CHICK’- She is a ‘BREASTED ASIAN'” then I’d be commenting that the poster was reinforcing prejudices regarding American men, but Fool’s Mountain is, apparently, “Blogging for China”.
August 29th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Alright, this is enough.
Barny, I don’t know what your problem is, but these jokes don’t reinforce anything. This thread has long since been derailed, and right now we’re discussing whatever it is we want to discuss. You’re obviously suffering a detach from reality if you don’t realize that these jokes are a staple of American culture. What preconceptions am I supposed to be reinforcing? The fact that I can make jokes about sexism and word use?
Honestly I never really cared much for TonyP4’s jokes, but I couldn’t resist poking fun at your self righteoussness on an internet forum where the topic had been derailed dozens of posts ago. Unlike you though, I won’t try to launch personal attacks and start a flame war.
August 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I think it’s time for somebody to pen a follow up to Allen’s classic “Are Chinese racist or simply politically incorrect?” thread. I feel that the conclusions will be similar: Are Chinese men misogynistic? Of course not, misogyny is a purely Western sickness. Chinese men are simply politically incorrect…
August 29th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Dose anyone know what punishment Wu Tianxi’s gang members got? How many are they?
August 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Hi Barny, just enjoy life. The more serious on life, the more miserable from life.
I’ve many female friends (many are old classmates). We enjoy each other e-mails by making fun of each other. Those jokes are circulated to me (some making fun of females are from females) and I put them in my blog for laughter. Most are not written by me (I do not have the talent). Hence, I do not share the glory and the blame for these jokes, but the fun. They never offend anyone intentionally until now.
I do not think I ‘was bemoaning the public image of Asian men in the West’. Would you re-post what I said, so I can repent tomorrow if necessary. 🙂
My single post attracts another 19 replies. Most be a slow day! My Letter on Chinese Female Army only generates 3 replies.
Here is another sick joke (could be true) from the Miss Universe contest. It is sent to me from a female. I have a good laugh of it. Barny, I put a sign of PG17 just in case. However, my nephew of age 16 only reads my posts that are rated PG17.
http://tonyp4joke.blogspot.com/2009/08/miss-unversal-question-pg17.html
August 29th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Tony – If I tell you I find these jokes offensive, will you please not post any more of them here at Fools Mountain? Or threads like the Chinese army one? I see you have many female friends and you share only for fun; never to insult. These insult me. I’m sure you don’t’ want to insult anyone; so please, please stop posting them here, or giving us links to these “jokes”.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Jael, will do.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Thank you very much, TonyP4.
j
August 31st, 2009 at 6:22 am
jael, we don’t own FM, so I think it’s out of line for any of us to tell Tony what to do. I believe FM admins have rules about this – post them in off-topic section.
Tony, I’m less easily offended, and I would like to read your jokes in the off-topic section.