NationStates Jolt Archive

communication problem? no kidding...

if eating cream pie with a spoon is eating desert, then eating beef soup with a spoon is also eating desert. sorry honey, but it just ain't so. murder isn't defined by the impliment being used, it is defined by the motive for the act...if i kill somebody in self-defense, it doesn't matter if i used a knife, electric chair, or Wonky Widget, it's still not murder. if i decide that i want to see what it feels like to kill a man, just for the hell of it, then i will be committing murder no matter what i use to end his life.This is exactly what I said, just with more words.

so you believe that taking a knife and killing somebody, outside the context of self-defense, war, or the other legal justifications, is NOT murder? you believe that my decision to knife somebody because i personally believe they deserve death is NOT murder? you believe that my decision to kill somebody because of my opinion of them is MORE justified than if a court of law convicts and sentences them for a crime?

Exactly.
Making the titanic it not murder. It is bad luck.

The two other questions : no and no. This is just you not understanding what I'm saying, probably because of my lack of good english skills.

you claim that you never compared death-penalty supporters to murder, so i guess you must believe that knifing a stranger on the street for fun isn't murder, huh?

or are you saying you respect a murderer MORE than a non-murderer?

i don't support my personal right to end human life simply because i think it's the right thing to do. i don't support anybody else's right to make that choice on their own. what i DO support is the implimentation of a system of evidence, documentation, proof, and law, one which has the authority to dispense punishment for violations of the social order as set down in those laws. i don't believe that i personally have the right to confiscate the property of somebody who defrauds me, since that would be theft, but i believe a civil claims court has the right to impose a fine or confiscate the property of the person who has defrauded me; there is a huge difference, and i don't recommend you advertise your failure to grasp it...especially not to law enforcement officers.
Rant all you want. You are still wrong.

No - a state doesn't commit murder.

A murder is an UNLAWFUL killing (which may or may not be premeditated)

An execution is a LAWFUL killing (in accordance with prescribed laws)

So - a state doesn't murder.

Hitler and his helpers MURDERED 6 million people. The state of Nazi-germany followed its laws...

Hitler and his helpers MURDERED 6 million people. The state of Nazi-germany followed its laws...
Actually, between 10 and 14 million died in Nazi concentration camps, the true total is unknown.

Actually, between 10 and 14 million died in Nazi concentration camps, the true total is unknown.

Ah, ok... my bad. What I meant was 6 million jews, of course there where 8 million other people, too.... (really sorry about that)

Ah, ok... my bad. What I meant was 6 million jews, of course there where 8 million other people, too.... (really sorry about that)
Oh, no problem. I'm curious to hear the responses to your point abour war crimes. The general perception of leaders being tried by International Law for war crimes is just that --that they committed "atrocities" (another form of murder).

In the case of mentally ill people, it is not willingly.
Would you support the death penalty for the engeneers who worked on the Titanic?


In the case of the mentally ill, it often IS willingly... you are blinkered by your proximity to one individual... I have worked with mentally disturbed people, and have spent time with them, and I can vouch for the fact that many have 'compulsions' that they carry out with ABSOLUTE willingness, even if they regret that decision after the fact.


You have murdered many people. Supporting politicians to kill people is the same as killing them, just a weak and coward way to do it actually.


Show me the people who's blood is on my hands?
Show me the politicians I supported that kill people?
Show me the politicians I support?
Hell, you don't even know what country I'm from.

I am dismayed by the fact that you seem to perceive murder as some kind of proof of strength and ability. If you perceive me as 'weak' and a 'coward' JUST because I have never killed anybody, then I have no respect for your arguments.


I have more respect for those who actually do it with a knife, although they are still assholes.
For instance, I respect those who were on the plane to suicide themselves on a building more than Ossama ben laden who ordered them to do it. Both are assholes, but Ossama is the greatest one.


Bottle has responded to this inane point rather more eruditely than I could ever hope to.


You support the death penalty, he doesn't. He is therefore more compassionate and civilized than you are.


Unless he doesn't support it because he is indifferent. Or apathetic. Or socially irresponsible. Or 'unbalanced'. Or not bright enough to understand the concepts.

All of those things are possibilities... you are the only one here that can prove/disprove any of them.

Maybe I support the death penalty BECAUSE I am compassionate - and would rather see the perpetrators of crimes relieved of their guilt quickly, than live confined.


Come on. It is only revenge and emotional driven barbary. Of course it is not necessary. How many countries don't have it?
I was not talking about the US. I was talking about killing children and mentally ill people. Everything is not about the US.


I agree. I am not an American. Most of this discussion, however, has been about the US justice system. In that context, I wondered who it was you meant that 'executes' children... which you didn't respond to.


I'm boycotting products from countries still applying the death penalty.
Yemen, Nigeria, Pakistan, Congo, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, some states of the USA.

So much for your 'riots'. You have decided to salve your collective guilt by refusing to trade with entire communities, even though only a tiny fraction of any of those places MAY disagree with you.

Your response is, in fact, inflicting FURTHER suffering on the very people you claim to be supporting.

Maybe I support the death penalty BECAUSE I am compassionate - and would rather see the perpetrators of crimes relieved of their guilt quickly, than live confined

Compassionate?! That's a first. Most of the pro-death folks I argue with usually use the "those animals deserve to die" argument. So you're a mercy-killer? That's sickening. Maybe you should ask the convicts whether they would rather be "relieved of their guilt quickly" or live confined, before just assuming they all want to die.

Compassionate?! That's a first. Most of the pro-death folks I argue with usually use the "those animals deserve to die" argument. So you're a mercy-killer? That's sickening. Maybe you should ask the convicts whether they would rather be "relieved of their guilt quickly" or live confined, before just assuming they all want to die.
It's a typical US misconception that they know what everyone wants and deserves or that they know with 100% certainty what is right and what is wrong. Seeing that the DP is thus allowed and often times even celebrated in the US makes me wonder what the true motivation behind keeping it is. Sometimes I think that it is some sort of replacement for the "bread and games" spectacles older empires such as Rome used to apease the masses.

It's a typical US misconception that they know what everyone wants and deserves or that they know with 100% certainty what is right and what is wrong. Seeing that the DP is thus allowed and often times even celebrated in the US makes me wonder what the true motivation behind keeping it is. Sometimes I think that it is some sort of replacement for the "bread and games" spectacles older empires such as Rome used to apease the masses.

I want executions to be public. Maybe if people actually watched a human being killed in front of them, weeping and begging for life, they would rethink why they were so gung-ho for capital punishment in the first place.

Hitler and his helpers MURDERED 6 million people. The state of Nazi-germany followed its laws...

Are you sure that the persons putting people to death were acting within the Laws of their society? Or were they following orders? The two are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, in the case of dictatorial power - although the dictates of the ruler are much the same as law, unless they are CODIFIED into law, a person acting on those orders is, theoretically, breaking the law.

In the case of Nazi Germany, when acting on the dicates of the heirarchy, but outside of the law, German soldiers may have murdered civilians, and, indeed, Hitler may have ordered it - but the STATE didn't murder anyone.

And, if it was Law, then the German soldiers wouldn't have been commiting murder, either.

What we are basically talking about here are "Crimes Against Humanity", which is a specific legal term - and refers to such things as systematic exterminations.

The First point to make: Although it is often interpreted otherwise, by legal definition - a country can only REALLY commit 'Crimes Against Humanity' during time of war. Furthermore, it can only be a "Crime Against Humanity" if it can be proved that the 'victims' were non-combatant.

[These are the loop-holes that are probably going to allow Milosovic (spell?) to walk pretty much free....]

The Second point: International law, as it stands, only really categorises crimes as "against humanity" if there is evidence of targetting of specific sections of a population... eg. persecution based on race, religion or gender.

Further to that, the law currently requires that 'intent' be proved.

At risk of going on further, let me make my point.

Hitler did not commit murder (at least, he hasn't been recorded as doing so).
Hitler MAY have been responsible for "War Crimes".
Hitler MAY have been responsible for "Crimes Against Humanity".
Hitler is unlikely to stand trial for any of these charges.
The Hitler REGIME may have been responsible for "Crimes Against Humanity".
Depending on the Codified Laws of Nazi Germany: Individual Nazi's MAY have murdered people.
The German State did not murder people.

In the case of the mentally ill, it often IS willingly... you are blinkered by your proximity to one individual... I have worked with mentally disturbed people, and have spent time with them, and I can vouch for the fact that many have 'compulsions' that they carry out with ABSOLUTE willingness, even if they regret that decision after the fact.It is not true. You may have worked with mentally ill people, does that mean you know what they think? I've studied psychlogy for 5 years and I still don't know what people think. How could you?
A 'compulsion' is not carryied with willingness, or it is not a compulsion at all.
Imagine earing people in your head all day, not sleeping for 15 days and thinking people are trying to kill you. Your intention is not to kill, but they harrass you. After 15 days, your nervous system is out of control. Saying that you can act willingly in such a case is wrong.

Show me the people who's blood is on my hands?
Show me the politicians I supported that kill people?
Show me the politicians I support?
Hell, you don't even know what country I'm from.
So you're not supporting the death penalty in real life, do you?

I am dismayed by the fact that you seem to perceive murder as some kind of proof of strength and ability. If you perceive me as 'weak' and a 'coward' JUST because I have never killed anybody, then I have no respect for your arguments.
Not at all. Let me explain again. You're not a coward because you didn't murder. You are a coward because you are asking people to kill despite the fact that you can't do it yourself.

Bottle has responded to this inane point rather more eruditely than I could ever hope to.

You can read my reply. she didn't understand what I was saying at all. I think you don't either.

Unless he doesn't support it because he is indifferent. Or apathetic. Or socially irresponsible. Or 'unbalanced'. Or not bright enough to understand the concepts.
Except he is socially responsible, very involved in politics and clever.
FYI, he is not autist. He is schizophrenic and paranoid, it doesn't affect his understanding of concepts.

Maybe I support the death penalty BECAUSE I am compassionate - and would rather see the perpetrators of crimes relieved of their guilt quickly, than live confined.
In my world this is not what compassionate means.

I agree. I am not an American. Most of this discussion, however, has been about the US justice system. In that context, I wondered who it was you meant that 'executes' children... which you didn't respond to.
It is nobody I'm aware of. I was just saying that the day my government starts executing children or mentally ill people I would riot.

So much for your 'riots'. You have decided to salve your collective guilt by refusing to trade with entire communities, even though only a tiny fraction of any of those places MAY disagree with you.

Your response is, in fact, inflicting FURTHER suffering on the very people you claim to be supporting.
The people I'm supporting are in the death row. They're not suffering further because of my boycott.

(*snip*)You're not a coward because you didn't murder. You are a coward because you are asking people to kill despite the fact that you can't do it yourself.

You can read my reply. she didn't understand what I was saying at all. I think you don't either.
I think they understood you. Bottle pointed out that your definition of what constitutes murder is broader than generally accepted. You didn’t respond to that.

Murder is not defined by "the intent to kill", or even "malicious intent to kill". It is defined by "unlawful intent to kill". My dictionary throws in "unjustifiable".

To support the State in capital punishment is not "cowardice because you won't or can't do the murder yourself."

I think they understood you. Bottle pointed out that your definition of what constitutes murder is broader than generally accepted. You didn’t respond to that.

Murder is not defined by "the intent to kill", or even "malicious intent to kill". It is defined by "unlawful intent to kill". My dictionary throws in "unjustifiable".

To support the State in capital punishment is not "cowardice because you won't or can't do the murder yourself."Is "cowardice because you won't or can't do the kill yourself" more accurate?

Murder is not defined by "the intent to kill", or even "malicious intent to kill". It is defined by "unlawful intent to kill". My dictionary throws in "unjustifiable".

To support the State in capital punishment is not "cowardice because you won't or can't do the murder yourself."Is "cowardice because you won't or can't do the kill yourself" more accurate?
Accuracy of phrasing isn't really the issue. If the idea is what you meant to say, then it's accurately phrased. (Incidentally, I should correct my own phrasing from "unlawful intent to kill" to "unlawful killing".) Where you see cowardice in a person who "supports" others who kill, I don't.

In my book "cowardice" is reserved for those who through fear don't follow through on something they said they were going to do, where not following through would hurt others.

You have given it a twist to say that supporting others to follow through where someone cannot follow through themselves, and where following through hurts others, is cowardice. I'm saying that's not properly cowardice at all. That's commitment. It may be commitment towards a "bad" thing, but there's no cowardice there.

Accuracy of phrasing isn't really the issue. If the idea is what you meant to say, then it's accurately phrased. (Incidentally, I should correct my own phrasing from "unlawful intent to kill" to "unlawful killing".) Where you see cowardice in a person who "supports" others who kill, I don't.

In my book "cowardice" is reserved for those who through fear don't follow through on something they said they were going to do, where not following through would hurt others.

You have given it a twist to say that supporting others to follow through where someone cannot follow through themselves, and where following through hurts others, is cowardice. I'm saying that's not properly cowardice at all. That's commitment. It may be commitment towards a "bad" thing, but there's no cowardice there.When I think about it you are right. It is not cowardice exactly.
I think it is worse in fact.
He supports people to kill people, but he would not be able to kill someone himself. It's not cowardice indeed, but it is much worse. It must be ignorance.

When I think about it you are right. It is noe cowardice exactly.
I think it is worse in fact.
He supports people to kill people, but he would not be able to kill someone himself. It's not cowardice indeed, but it is much worse.
how do you know he wouldn't be able to kill someone himself? i support the death penalty (sort of), and i am completely certain that i would be able and willing to kill in certain situations.

how do you know he wouldn't be able to kill someone himself? i support the death penalty (sort of), and i am completely certain that i would be able and willing to kill in certain situations.Yeah right.
You could kill someone with a knife and watch him in the eyes while he is dying?

Yeah right.
You could kill someone with a knife and watch him in the eyes while he is dying?
under the right circumstances, absolutely.

i could not, for instance, simply go out and knife a stranger...i'm not sure why, but i have a complete aversion to that. however, i have used a knife on somebody who was attacking me, and i would have killed him with it if i was able. i wouldn't have any problem killing somebody who was attacking my family or my lover.

i also know of some situations where i might commit unlawful murder, as well. for instance, i don't really know how i would act if somebody raped or murdered my little brother, but i think there is a distinct possibility i would hunt that person down and kill them. if i did that, i would totally deserve the death penalty, and my rational mind believes that such an action would be absolutely wrong, but i don't know if my rational mind would be able to restrain me in that situation. perhaps that makes me a very sick person, i don't know, i just know that there is a possibility i might respond in this way.

under the right circumstances, absolutely.

i could not, for instance, simply go out and knife a stranger...i'm not sure why, but i have a complete aversion to that. however, i have used a knife on somebody who was attacking me, and i would have killed him with it if i was able. i wouldn't have any problem killing somebody who was attacking my family or my lover.

i also know of some situations where i might commit unlawful murder, as well. for instance, i don't really know how i would act if somebody raped or murdered my little brother, but i think there is a distinct possibility i would hunt that person down and kill them. if i did that, i would totally deserve the death penalty, and my rational mind believes that such an action would be absolutely wrong, but i don't know if my rational mind would be able to restrain me in that situation. perhaps that makes me a very sick person, i don't know, i just know that there is a possibility i might respond in this way.Let say the man is attached on a chair. He can't move. He is here since several years and doesn't know what the sun light look like anymore.
You have a knife. Would you kill him and watch him on the eye while he is painfully dying and imploring that you forgive him?
Note there would be blood everywhere and a horrible noise coming out of his throat. He would probably vomit his blood and he would cry like a pig for several hours before dying. You have to watch the scene until the end.

Let say the man is attached on a chair. He can't move. He is here since several years and doesn't know what the sun light look like anymore.
You have a knife. Would you kill him and watch him on the eye while he is painfully dying and imploring that you forgive him?
Note there would be blood everywhere and a horrible noise coming out of his throat. He would probably vomit his blood and he would cry like a pig for several hours before dying. You have to watch the scene until the end.
If Bottle says "no" to those particular circumstances, does this prove some point to you?

If Bottle says "no" to those particular circumstances, does this prove some point to you?
Yes. To me, it proves that she is ignorant of what killing someone mean. She thinks it is something others do, some statistics on the paper. The death penalty is what I described. If she supports this she supports what I described but she is ignorant of that fact.

It is not true. You may have worked with mentally ill people, does that mean you know what they think? I've studied psychlogy for 5 years and I still don't know what people think. How could you?


Because I talk to people. To me, they have been people. To you, they were obviously 'case studies'. I'm sorry if my experiences haven't matched your text-books, but I'm going to favour real-life experience over nice hypotheses.


A 'compulsion' is not carryied with willingness, or it is not a compulsion at all.
Imagine earing people in your head all day, not sleeping for 15 days and thinking people are trying to kill you. Your intention is not to kill, but they harrass you. After 15 days, your nervous system is out of control. Saying that you can act willingly in such a case is wrong.


That doesn't make the crime right. Or any less fatal for the victim.
Wasn't it Rodriguez that thought that the devil was talking to him... ? Does that excuse his crimes?


So you're not supporting the death penalty in real life, do you?


Actually - no. I have never voted for a candidate that expressed a pro-execution stance. I have also never voted for a politician that expressed a anti-execution stance. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Incidentally - you neatly avoided responding to any of my points with this 'flippant' question.

Let me explain again. You're not a coward because you didn't murder. You are a coward because you are asking people to kill despite the fact that you can't do it yourself.


A coward is a person who feels fear, and doesn't act BECAUSE of that fear.
Bravery is feeling the fear, and acting REGARDLESS of the fear.
By your definitin, I am actually BRAVE on this issue.

Also - just because I haven't killed, and don't want to, doesn't mean I couldn't.

If someone hurt my little girl, I honestly believe that I could remove the 'sanctity' of their 'human life', with the knife you so desperately seem to want to see used.


Except he is socially responsible, very involved in politics and clever.
FYI, he is not autist. He is schizophrenic and paranoid, it doesn't affect his understanding of concepts.


He's allowed to vote, despite being a convicted violent criminal and unbalanced schizophrenic. Nice Political system... beginning to see why you have no death penalty...

FYI autists don't have difficulty understanding concepts either. They have problems interacting socially, but are usually excellent on concepts and understanding.


In my world this is not what compassionate means.


It's not my fault you don't understand the word.

I don't consider it humane to let someone's brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body.

Alive doesn't mean conscious. The blood loss via the neck ought to knock you out pretty instantly.

Let say the man is attached on a chair. He can't move. He is here since several years and doesn't know what the sun light look like anymore.
You have a knife. Would you kill him and watch him on the eye while he is painfully dying and imploring that you forgive him?
Note there would be blood everywhere and a horrible noise coming out of his throat. He would probably vomit his blood and he would cry like a pig for several hours before dying. You have to watch the scene until the end.

I am distressed that you are so IN TO death with knives.

You are beginning to sound like you enjoy this too much.

Yeah right.
You could kill someone with a knife and watch him in the eyes while he is dying?

Once again with the knives, you are becoming a kind of scary person to be talking to...

You may not have noticed, but MOST of the people expounding the philosophy of justification for Death Penalties, want it to be humane.

They talk lethal injections, for example... it is only you that seems to relish the protracted death and up-close feel of the knife and the blood, and the look of death in the eyes of your victim.

To me, that puts you in the same categorisation as the murderers.

Let say the man is attached on a chair. He can't move. He is here since several years and doesn't know what the sun light look like anymore.
You have a knife. Would you kill him and watch him on the eye while he is painfully dying and imploring that you forgive him?
Note there would be blood everywhere and a horrible noise coming out of his throat. He would probably vomit his blood and he would cry like a pig for several hours before dying. You have to watch the scene until the end.
the situation you describe is both silly and irrelevant. supporting the death penalty is not the same as supporting extended torture; injecting a lethal drug results in nearly instantaneous and painless death, while you are describing a prolonged, messy, torturous death. i don't support torture, so i wouldn't kill somebody in the way you describe. no, i wouldn't like watching while somebody bleeds painfully to death, but that has nothing to do with my support of the death penalty (since i don't know of anybody who proposes we execute via trama and exanguination) and it has nothing to do with my ability to kill.

also, if i were going to kill somebody intentionally and with prior planning (as in the case of executing a criminal) i would make a much better job of it than you describe. the chap certainly wouldn't be alive for hours to "cry like a pig," since i wouldn't just sit there and watch while he slowly died. if an execution is planned in advance then the condemned should be annesthetized and put down with the same compassion we show any living animal that must be killed. if this fellow is tied to a chair, as you describe, why would it be so difficult to kill him quickly? why would he be left alive to plead and cry? why not just end his life, and be done with it? it is not his suffering that we are interested in, only his death.

finally, your example is also trying to use the "if it's icky it mush be wrong" theory of morality. i don't have the stomach to torture another human, that is true; i also don't have the stomach to remove a person's appendix. does that mean that we should not allow anybody to have their appendix out? most of the population wouldn't be able or willing to sit by and watch an appendectomy, so does that mean the procedure is inherently wrong? i happen to think torture is wrong for reasons other than ickiness, but you seem to be simply trying to use shocking imagry to gross people out...as though that were some kind of support for any point at all.

The death penalty is what I described. If she supports this she supports what I described but she is ignorant of that fact.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. right. okay. you think the death penalty in America is carried out by tying a prisoner to a chair, slicing him open with a knife, and letting him die slowly while pleading and crying?

now i get where you are coming from. i was thinking all along that you were actually arguing the side you appeared to be, but now i get that you are just employing an extended parody. hilarious!

...and with an eardrum-bursting WOOOOOOOOSH, the point sails over Terminalia's head.

You never really had much of one to begin with.

Still nothing new with you. :)

Please don't confuse the death penalty with self defense.

I was merely responding to someones claim that all killing is wrong, no

matter what, next time try to read better. ;)

You never really had much of one to begin with.

Still nothing new with you. :)
WOOOOSH!!! :)

WOOOOSH!!! :)

your so trivial, its unbelievable actually. :)

Terminalia...ive been browsing some threads for a while. I'm curious how you can be "pro life" and yet support the death penalty.

If you want to look at it from a moral perspective..killing is wrong whether a foetus or a grown person. We're taught from a young age Two wrongs dont make a right.

From a (relatively purely) logical perspective.
Execution is cheaper than incarceration.
Abortion is cheaper than a lifetime of welfare or the funding that comes from the government for drug treatment (for crack babies) or special needs. (for children that will be born with a retardation of body or mind).

Your reasoning makes my freaking head explode man.

Nobody has the right to judge another person as fit to live or die. The death penalty is state sponsered murder, I dont care if the person you are killing is Hiter, you still dont have that right.

We in England dont have a death penalty but we still have a lower (percentage wise) murder rate than the United States, so please dont tell me it's a detterent.

There is no humane capital punishment.
The death penalty is barbaric. It should only take place in history books.

you say barbaric as if it were a bad thing.

KILL THE KILLERS!!!!!!
RAPE THE RAPIST!!(Or would they like that??) ;)

you say barbaric as if it were a bad thing.

KILL THE KILLERS!!!!!!
RAPE THE RAPIST!!(Or would they like that??) ;)

No, they wouldn't. For most rapists, it's a control thing, not a sex thing. So the last thing a rapist would want is to be is raped.

Nobody has the right to judge another person as fit to live or die. The death penalty is state sponsered murder, I dont care if the person you are killing is Hiter, you still dont have that right.

We in England dont have a death penalty but we still have a lower (percentage wise) murder rate than the United States, so please dont tell me it's a detterent.

A judge has the right to judge another person as fit to live or die, if the death penalty is available.

The death penalty ISN'T state-sponsored murder. It isn't murder, because a murder has to be unlawful, and a state imposed execution that follows the rule of law, is, by definition, LAWFUL.

"You still don't have the right" is your opinion, and entirely subjective.

The law of the land says that execution is a 'right' available to certain states.

The bible says that execution is a 'right' available to all.

Now, I'm not a christian, so the bible thing doesn't 'work' for me... but, the laws of a state are good enough reasons on their own.

And, you need to remember that statistics are just numbers. Yes, the annual murder rates are lower for the UK than for the US, but then the UK has far less organised-crime, less of a ghetto problem, and better assimilation of foreigners. Add to this that the US is a 'richer' nation, giving far greater incentive for crime.

Also, I seem to remember that, although England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have a no-gun policy, just a few years back Glasgow had the highest proportional number of civil mortalities caused by gun crime, of any world city.

I can see your arguement that the rule of Law is final, but I think that if there is an un-just law it is not only un-wise to blindly follow it, but that it is your duty to make sure it is changed.

I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus said a lot of things about not killing people, and not taking it upon yourselves to judge others. Where does the Bible say it is your right? (Not being sarcastic, I genuinly want to know where the Bible would say that)

Not to sure about the Glasgow thing though. You may be right, you may be wrong.

your so trivial, its unbelievable actually. :)
*bursts into tears*

seriously, please just go back and read the original post...the point is right there, in the form of something known as "humor." i believe in you, you can do this, i know you can get it if you put your mind to it.

c'mon everybody, let's make some noise for Termie! YOU CAN DO IT! YOU CAN DO IT!

Terminalia...ive been browsing some threads for a while. I'm curious how you can be "pro life" and yet support the death penalty.

If you want to look at it from a moral perspective..killing is wrong whether a foetus or a grown person. We're taught from a young age Two wrongs dont make a right.

From a (relatively purely) logical perspective.
Execution is cheaper than incarceration.
Abortion is cheaper than a lifetime of welfare or the funding that comes from the government for drug treatment (for crack babies) or special needs. (for children that will be born with a retardation of body or mind).

Your reasoning makes my freaking head explode man.

This is hardly a black-and-white issue. In my oppinion, murder and using the death penalty are two different things.

*bursts into tears*

seriously, please just go back and read the original post...the point is right there, in the form of something known as "humor." i believe in you, you can do this, i know you can get it if you put your mind to it.

c'mon everybody, let's make some noise for Termie! YOU CAN DO IT! YOU CAN DO IT!

I wouldn't be too sure...

I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm pretty sure that Jesus said a lot of things about not killing people, and not taking it upon yourselves to judge others. Where does the Bible say it is your right? (Not being sarcastic, I genuinly want to know where the Bible would say that)

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)
That night the angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning, there they were, all the corpuses of the dead. (2 Kings 19:35 NAB)
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
Matthew 10: 34-36
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mark 11:12-14, 20-22
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

So much for murder being against the Bible and Jesus. I could go on but that would take up too much space, Murder in the Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm).

Originally Posted by Copiosa Scotia
Justice is not about what anyone feels.Well it should be.
If that's so, then justice is entirely relative, unique to each individual, and not based on any "absolutes" of law and moral code like those outlined in the Bible. This attitude places man's opinion above God's Law.
Don't hit back; discover beauty in everyone. If you've got it in you, get along with everybody. Don't insist on getting even; that's not for you to do. "I'll do the judging," says God. "I'll take care of it."
Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he's thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. Don't let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good. -Romans 12:17-21

(*snip*) So much for murder being against the Bible and Jesus. I could go on but that would take up too much space.
The old Law (Old Testament) was replaced by a new Law brought about by Jesus (New Testament) --the whole forgiving and dying for sins thing.
But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan--the old covenant--had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said,

Heads up! The days are coming
when I'll set up a new plan
for dealing with Israel and Judah.
I'll throw out the old plan
I set up with their ancestors
when I led them by the hand out of Egypt.
They didn't keep their part of the bargain,
so I looked away and let it go.

This new plan I'm making with Israel
isn't going to be written on paper,
isn't going to be chiseled in stone;
This time I'm writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.
I'll be their God,
they'll be my people.
They won't go to school to learn about me,
or buy a book called God in Five Easy Lessons.
They'll all get to know me firsthand,
the little and the big, the small and the great.
They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven,
with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean. -Hebrews 8:6-12

*bursts into tears*

seriously, please just go back and read the original post...the point is right there, in the form of something known as "humor." i believe in you, you can do this, i know you can get it if you put your mind to it.

c'mon everybody, let's make some noise for Termie! YOU CAN DO IT! YOU CAN DO IT!

More trivial stuff. :rolleyes:

Give it a rest, your boring me to tears lol

If that's so, then justice is entirely relative, unique to each individual, and not based on any "absolutes" of law and moral code like those outlined in the Bible. This attitude places man's opinion above God's Law.
Don't hit back; discover beauty in everyone. If you've got it in you, get along with everybody. Don't insist on getting even; that's not for you to do. "I'll do the judging," says God. "I'll take care of it."
Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he's thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. Don't let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good. -Romans 12:17-21

Right so if I confront an axe murderer I'll just buy him lunch.

Matthew 10: 34-36
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Mark 11:12-14, 20-22
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I like this version better:
Stand up for me against world opinion and I'll stand up for you before my Father in heaven. If you turn tail and run, do you think I'll cover for you?
"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut--make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law--cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me. -Matthew 10:32-37

As they left Bethany the next day, he was hungry. Off in the distance he saw a fig tree in full leaf. He came up to it expecting to find something for breakfast, but found nothing but fig leaves. (It wasn't yet the season for figs.) He addressed the tree: "No one is going to eat fruit from you again--ever!" And his disciples overheard him. -Mark 11:12-14

In the morning, walking along the road, they saw the fig tree, shriveled to a dry stick. Peter, remembering what had happened the previous day, said to him, "Rabbi, look--the fig tree you cursed is shriveled up!"
Jesus was matter-of-fact: "Embrace this God-life. Really embrace it, and nothing will be too much for you. This mountain, for instance: Just say, "Go jump in the lake'--no shuffling or shilly-shallying--and it's as good as done. That's why I urge you to pray for absolutely everything, ranging from small to large. Include everything as you embrace this God-life, and you'll get God's everything. And when you assume the posture of prayer, remember that it's not all asking. If you have anything against someone, forgive--only then will your heavenly Father be inclined to also wipe your slate clean of sins." -Mark 11:20-25
It's a parable, you see.

The old Law (Old Testament) was replaced by a new Law brought about by Jesus (New Testament) --the whole forgiving and dying for sins thing.
But Jesus' priestly work far surpasses what these other priests do, since he's working from a far better plan. If the first plan--the old covenant--had worked out, a second wouldn't have been needed. But we know the first was found wanting, because God said,

God in Five Easy Lessons.
-Hebrews 8:6-12
Is it just me or does that sound like it popped out of the 21st Century?
I also cited places where Jesus killed a fig tree and declated himself a bringer of war.
Matthew 10: 34-36
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mark 11:12-14, 20-22
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

The fact it was a parable doesn't change the fact he killed a fig tree.

Right so if I confront an axe murderer I'll just buy him lunch.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Take Paul's. ;-)

[QUOTE=Freoria]Terminalia...ive been browsing some threads for a while. I'm curious how you can be "pro life" and yet support the death penalty.

Babies commit no crimes, why do they deserve to die, their innocent as.


If you want to look at it from a moral perspective..killing is wrong whether a fetus or a grown person. We're taught from a young age Two wrongs dont make a right.

I prefer the term developing human being, advocates of open slaughter with

abortion, use terms such as fetus or 'it' to take away any guilt associated

with killing a human being.


From a (relatively purely) logical perspective.
Execution is cheaper than incarceration.

Can be.

Abortion is cheaper than a lifetime of welfare or the funding that comes from the government for drug treatment (for crack babies) or special needs.

Your assuming this is the case with all or most abortions when it isnt, most

abortions come from matters of inconvienience.

Also in Australia we have whats known as the welfare generation, or mums

having babies for dollars, in other words more cash off welfare for more kids.

While this is a terrible and selfish reason to have kids its better than abortion.

We dont have the crack babies so much here, heroin babies unfortunately

yes, women who addict their kids to drug addiction from before birth should

be steralised for being the self centred idiots that they are.



(for children that will be born with a retardation of body or mind).

I support abortion in this case, but that depends on how much damage were

talking about, if the retardation is slight then no, moderate, no, severe yes.

Still a very sad decision to have to make.


Your reasoning makes my freaking head explode man.

I hope this has cleared things up a bit for you then.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Take Paul's. ;-)

Paul advocates buying lunch for someone who murders does he?

The fact it was a parable doesn't change the fact he killed a fig tree.
So you believe that Jesus has the power to perform miracles and kill fig trees?

If so, then the answer is "yes"; if not, then you're free to claim the tree died of its own accord and Jesus used it to make a moral.

This is hardly a black-and-white issue. In my oppinion, murder and using the death penalty are two different things.

Ah the truth, how sweet it is.

[QUOTE]Babies commit no crimes, why do they deserve to die, their innocent as.
I prefer the term developing human being, advocates of open slaughter with abortion, use terms such as fetus or 'it' to take away any guilt associated with killing a human being.

That's the problem, you call it a baby, when it is a fetus. Tell me honestly that you believe an egg cell just fertilized by a sperm is a human being. You would kill a full grown man before that single cell. Now that's sick.

Can be.

Discussing whether or not execution is beneficial by putting a dollar sign on human life disturbs me.

Your assuming this is the case with all or most abortions when it isnt, most abortions come from matters of inconvienience.

Do all? Would you ban all abortions? Or allow in case of rape? Or allow if the husband is drunk? Or allow if the condom rips because Trojan screwed up?

Also in Australia we have whats known as the welfare generation, or mums having babies for dollars, in other words more cash off welfare for more kids.
While this is a terrible and selfish reason to have kids its better than abortion.
We dont have the crack babies so much here, heroin babies unfortunately
yes, women who addict their kids to drug addiction from before birth should be steralised for being the self centred idiots that they are.

I agree, that is a very serious concern...but enforced sterlization? Could you support something like that?

I support abortion in this case, but that depends on how much damage were talking about, if the retardation is slight then no, moderate, no, severe yes.

Now you choose which babies to kill and which to let live, based on how retarded they may or may not turn out to be?

Paul advocates buying lunch for someone who murders does he?
That's your interpretation of Paul's words. I just quoted him.

Nobody has the right to judge another person as fit to live or die. The death penalty is state sponsered murder, I dont care if the person you are killing is Hiter, you still dont have that right.


Right so if you could go back in time theoretically, and assassinate Adolf

Hitler in the first world war when he was a corperal on the western front, you

wouldnt do it, even though it would save millions of people from being

murdered themselves.

If you say no, then you should think about what has more priority in this

case, saving millions of people from being murdered or staying on your moral

soap box.

That's your interpretation of Paul's words. I just quoted him.

Whats your interpretation.

Right so if you could go back in time theoretically, and assassinate Adolf

Hitler in the first world war when he was a corperal on the western front, you

wouldnt do it, even though it would save millions of people from being

murdered themselves.

If you say no, then you should think about what has more priority in this

case, saving millions of people from being murdered or staying on your moral

soap box.

How about, imprison Hitler for life?

I mean, that would accomplish everything that killing him would.

Just a thought.

Right so if you could go back in time theoretically, and assassinate Adolf
Hitler in the first world war when he was a corperal on the western front, you
wouldnt do it, even though it would save millions of people from being
murdered themselves.
If you say no, then you should think about what has more priority in this
case, saving millions of people from being murdered or staying on your moral
soap box.
This is a fascinating scenario that I've heard mentioned before, and of course the answer is, Who's to say that killing Hitler wouldn't have made things worse? Perhaps the Third Reicht would have been more efficient under another leader. Perhaps they would have developed the atom bomb before the U.S. did and used it more extensively.

Don't hit back; discover beauty in everyone. If you've got it in you, get along with everybody. Don't insist on getting even; that's not for you to do. "I'll do the judging," says God. "I'll take care of it."
Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he's thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. Don't let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good. -Romans 12:17-21Paul advocates buying lunch for someone who murders does he?
My interpretation is that even the worst of persons will respond to kindness and compassion.

This is a fascinating scenario that I've heard mentioned before, and of course the answer is, Who's to say that killing Hitler wouldn't have made things worse? Perhaps the Third Reicht would have been more efficient under another leader. Perhaps they would have developed the atom bomb before the U.S. did and used it more extensively.


I doupt it, Adolf for all his faults was a great and charismatic public speaker

who also knew how to manipulate people to his side, I dont think there was

anyone else around at that time that could have done such a great con job

as he did.

I believe if Adolf Hitler had been bumped off even as late as 1938 WW2 would

not have happened, in Europe anyway.

Of course, there was always Stalin..

How about, imprison Hitler for life?

I mean, that would accomplish everything that killing him would.

Just a thought.


On what charges?

Were talking 1918 here remember, not 1945.

My interpretation is that even the worst of persons will respond to kindness and compassion.

Im sure they would, and then they would probably use you to the hilt.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]That's the problem, you call it a baby, when it is a fetus. Tell me honestly that you believe an egg cell just fertilized by a sperm is a human being. You would kill a full grown man before that single cell. Now that's sick.

Well first you call 'it' a fetus when I call 'it' a baby in developemental stages,

and yes I do believe an egg that has been fertilised has just as much right

to be recognised as human as you and I.

Would I kill a fully grown man.. could you be more specific about why in your

arguements?

Discussing whether or not execution is beneficial by putting a dollar sign on human life disturbs me.

Its a side issue not the main one.


Would you ban all abortions?

No, and Ive said as much already.

Or allow in case of rape?

Yes, said as much already.


Or allow if the husband is drunk?

Hes more likely to be passed out if anything.

Or allow if the condom rips because Trojan screwed up?

So get him to wear two if your that worried about them, as a Roman Catholic

Christian, I think this reflects sadly on modern societys slide into the gutter if

anything.



I agree, that is a very serious concern...but enforced sterlization? Could you support something like that?

Yes definitely, would you support a woman who knowingly brings crack babies

into the world?

Now you choose which babies to kill and which to let live, based on how retarded they may or may not turn out to be?

Like I said its the mothers and fathers choice, as in to let live here, I merely

stated which abortions I would support in this case.

Well first you call 'it' a fetus when I call 'it' a baby in developemental stages,

and yes I do believe an egg that has been fertilised has just as much right

to be recognised as human as you and I.

Would I kill a fully grown man.. could you be more specific about why in your

arguements?

Since this is the capital punishment thread, you have indicated you support capital punishment, but not most abortions. Meaning, you think it is alright to kill a full grown human, but wrong to kill a single cell.

Its a side issue not the main one.

It shouldn't be ANY issue, how much money you can save by killing someone.


So get him to wear two if your that worried about them, as a Roman Catholic

Christian, I think this reflects sadly on modern societys slide into the gutter if

anything.

Ah, good ole Catholics. I have nothing more to say on religion, except that it has no place in policy, legislation, or law.

Yes definitely, would you support a woman who knowingly brings crack babies into the world?

No I do not support women who bring crack babies into the world, but enforced sterilization is a little too draconian I believe.

Like I said its the mothers and fathers choice, as in to let live here, I merely stated which abortions I would support in this case.

Now it's the parent's choice? If they have choice over the life of their fetus now, why not choice in other instances?

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Since this is the capital punishment thread, you have indicated you support capital punishment, but not most abortions. Meaning, you think it is alright to kill a full grown human, but wrong to kill a single cell.

Impregnated cell..

Do I think its allright to kill a full grown human.. can you give me some

grounds first? ;)


It shouldn't be ANY issue, how much money you can save by killing someone.

Why not, its capital punishment, why foot the honest law abiding, hard

working taxpayer with a large bill, when it can be done much cheaper,

example: we throw out all the stupid tecnicalitys that hold up executions and

get it over with in a few days, this would also save the familys of the victims

alot of unesscessary grief and let them get on with their lives.

Also, lethal injection, electric chair etc would cost a bit of money, and is not

as humane sometimes as led to believe, especially the electric chair (Green

mile)

guilotines are much more easy to maintain, and still if properly done, the most

humane way to execute someone.




Ah, good ole Catholics.

Another hater :rolleyes:


I have nothing more to say on religion, except that it has no place in policy, legislation, or law.

What about society, do you think religon has any place in that?



No I do not support women who bring crack babies into the world, but enforced sterilization is a little too draconian I believe.

I think it makes good sense, why subject innocent babies to stupid mothers

and instant drug addiction, isnt that draconian?


Now it's the parent's choice? If they have choice over the life of their fetus now, why not choice in other instances?

Their fetus.... do you even realise how pathetic that sounds?

This is a choice I support if the baby is severly retarded, or severly deformed,

again its not something I like, but I would give my support here.

'brain live on for 5-15 seconds detatched from the body' .... just enough time for those extremist Muslims to realise that they are going to a place other than heaven!

Yeah...send all the suicide bombers to the guillotine!!!



:rolleyes:

Because I talk to people. To me, they have been people. To you, they were obviously 'case studies'. I'm sorry if my experiences haven't matched your text-books, but I'm going to favour real-life experience over nice hypotheses.Don't try to look more stupid than you are. Doing a psychological study involves talking to people.

That doesn't make the crime right. Or any less fatal for the victim.
Wasn't it Rodriguez that thought that the devil was talking to him... ? Does that excuse his crimes?

It doesn't make it a crime at all. It makes it an accident.
Try hearing power picks in your head for 15 days long non-stop. We'll then see how much control you have over your nervous system then.

Actually - no. I have never voted for a candidate that expressed a pro-execution stance. I have also never voted for a politician that expressed a anti-execution stance. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Incidentally - you neatly avoided responding to any of my points with this 'flippant' question.
What was your point again?

A coward is a person who feels fear, and doesn't act BECAUSE of that fear.
Bravery is feeling the fear, and acting REGARDLESS of the fear.
By your definitin, I am actually BRAVE on this issue.

Also - just because I haven't killed, and don't want to, doesn't mean I couldn't.

If someone hurt my little girl, I honestly believe that I could remove the 'sanctity' of their 'human life', with the knife you so desperately seem to want to see used.
OK you are not a coward.
You support the death penalty, it is already bad enough. I'd say you are either uneducated babarian or just ignorant.

He's allowed to vote, despite being a convicted violent criminal and unbalanced schizophrenic. Nice Political system... beginning to see why you have no death penalty...
He is not a criminal, because he is mentally ill.
Here we don't kill our bad mechanicians either.
The political system is ok.

FYI autists don't have difficulty understanding concepts either. They have problems interacting socially, but are usually excellent on concepts and understanding.
Thx for the information

It's not my fault you don't understand the word.
I was using the word just how I understood it. I explained what I meant and this is just what is necessary for us to understand each other. End of story, no need to have a debate on the meaning of the word.

the situation you describe is both silly and irrelevant. supporting the death penalty is not the same as supporting extended torture; injecting a lethal drug results in nearly instantaneous and painless death, while you are describing a prolonged, messy, torturous death. i don't support torture, so i wouldn't kill somebody in the way you describe. no, i wouldn't like watching while somebody bleeds painfully to death, but that has nothing to do with my support of the death penalty (since i don't know of anybody who proposes we execute via trama and exanguination) and it has nothing to do with my ability to kill.

also, if i were going to kill somebody intentionally and with prior planning (as in the case of executing a criminal) i would make a much better job of it than you describe. the chap certainly wouldn't be alive for hours to "cry like a pig," since i wouldn't just sit there and watch while he slowly died. if an execution is planned in advance then the condemned should be annesthetized and put down with the same compassion we show any living animal that must be killed. if this fellow is tied to a chair, as you describe, why would it be so difficult to kill him quickly? why would he be left alive to plead and cry? why not just end his life, and be done with it? it is not his suffering that we are interested in, only his death.It is the same thing. Killing with an electric chair, or injection or a knife, what's the difference? You think the man suffers less? He does suffer in death row. He is not an animal who doesn't know what is going to happen.
And yes in some countries they use a knife, it's the same.
What is the point of killing if you don't want him to suffer then? Don't tell me it is to save costs...

finally, your example is also trying to use the "if it's icky it mush be wrong" theory of morality. i don't have the stomach to torture another human, that is true; i also don't have the stomach to remove a person's appendix. does that mean that we should not allow anybody to have their appendix out? most of the population wouldn't be able or willing to sit by and watch an appendectomy, so does that mean the procedure is inherently wrong? i happen to think torture is wrong for reasons other than ickiness, but you seem to be simply trying to use shocking imagry to gross people out...as though that were some kind of support for any point at all.
No because the death penalty is not the same thing. As I understood it, it was about dettering possible criminals. Therefore it is supposed to scare people. Nothing to do with taking the appendix out.
I'm sorry if it hurts your feeling, but the death penalty is a barbaric practice. It is dirty and supposed to be dirty on purpose, no matter which tool you use.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. right. okay. you think the death penalty in America is carried out by tying a prisoner to a chair, slicing him open with a knife, and letting him die slowly while pleading and crying?

now i get where you are coming from. i was thinking all along that you were actually arguing the side you appeared to be, but now i get that you are just employing an extended parody. hilarious!
I was not talking about america. Sorry but sometimes I don't talk about america. Try learning something from the world for a change.

Im sure they would, and then they would probably use you to the hilt.
Use? What do you mean?

So you think Paul gives poor advice in the Bible?

Hmm...Capital Punishment..

Issues like these are quirky little things.

Some people argue only to the extent of their wisdom..others to the extent of their knowledge...others even just to the extent of personal experience, which delivers high emotional chords.

If I say..."An eye for an eye"....you would say I'm archaic in your own way and may add slogans such as .."makes the whole World blind." You might even agree and then justice is served for you.

If I say..."Love your neighbor as yourself"..you would respond heartily with.."If I killed someone..I'd take the consequences." or you just might not cherish your life enough to care in which case..."Who cares"??? ah, right. But why then are you voting for or against an issue? (For select persons). Others might understand the highly painful act of Love and Greater Good fighting Greater Evil. Everything has it's opposite and everything includes a neutrally useless reasoning..some call it balance..but you'd have to be emotionless for it to work.

I actually saw some people bringing up abortion here. I don't know exactly why but..I guess to compare..killing innocent human beings while serving justice as to denying human existence while serving as a solution to some type of 'accident'. I think there's something people missed while 'growing up' called responsibility for their actions. It's an interesting concept, I'm sure but it's very mathematical usually. Comically.."Don't do that" Childish.."But...why not." reply: "Because somebody's gonna get hurt, and when somebody gets hurt, somebody gets angry, and when somebody gets angry, somebody's going to get a baseball bat, and when that happens, you're going to get hurt."

Childish " But..I don't want to get hurt" reply: "Ok, good..don't do that."

;)

This is a fascinating scenario that I've heard mentioned before, and of course the answer is, Who's to say that killing Hitler wouldn't have made things worse? Perhaps the Third Reicht would have been more efficient under another leader. Perhaps they would have developed the atom bomb before the U.S. did and used it more extensively.

Exactly. While it may be fun to conjure up images of alternate pasts, and try to figure through what might/might not have been different - it is not a 'tool' you can use to support an argument in debate, since it is, by nature, based entirely on speculation.

For example... if Hitler HAD died during World War I, Germany still would have been crippled by the massive post-war reperations costs, would still have been stuck in a cycle of super-inflation, during the worst depression in the last hundred years.

With great poverty comes great unrest, and someone was going to be able to capitalise on that unrest, whether it was Hitler or some other.

At least Hitler left a legacy of industry in his country, and held off from attacking the UK, and made bad decisions in the Desert War, and on the Russian Front. Another leader MIGHT not have left the world so fortunate a legacy.

Then again, of course... an aspirant "neo-Ghandi" might have risen to prominence, leaving the world a place of sunshine and giggles for the next 50 years... but it's all specualtion.

Don't try to look more stupid than you are. Doing a psychological study involves talking to people.


Flame. I haven't implied you were stupid. I suspect you are biased by your proximity to the subject, and incapable of seeing 'round' that bias, but I haven't suggested you were stupid. Kindly pay me the same courtesy.


It doesn't make it a crime at all. It makes it an accident.
Try hearing power picks in your head for 15 days long non-stop. We'll then see how much control you have over your nervous system then.


Actually, no. It is still a crime. You may be able to argue diminished responsibility, or some form of reduced culpability - using 'schizophrenia' as an 'excuse' - but the act itself was criminal.

If you heard 'power picks' in your head for 15 days, you should seek medical help, if you did not believe you could competently control yourself any longer.


You support the death penalty, it is already bad enough. I'd say you are either uneducated babarian or just ignorant.


Flame. I am actually fairly well educated, much of it at learning establishments, but lot of it has been personal improvement. I am also not ignorant. That would claim I was uninformed on this matter (or in general), and that is something I most certainly am not.

You don't support the death penalty, and that is your choice. I think it is a blinkered choice - for the reasons already stated. I do support the death penalty, and that is my choice. I am free to hold that opinion.


He is not a criminal, because he is mentally ill.
Here we don't kill our bad mechanicians either.
The political system is ok.


You can still be a criminal AND be mentally ill.
re: the bad mechanics... there is a difference between an accident and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence that involves loss of life, should carry a murder charge (with whatever punishment your society attaches to that).

I beleive the same should be true for drunk-driving.


I was using the word just how I understood it. I explained what I meant and this is just what is necessary for us to understand each other. End of story, no need to have a debate on the meaning of the word.

You used the word incorrectly. You attacked me for my lack of compassion - while not fully understanding what that meant.

Use? What do you mean?

So you think Paul gives poor advice in the Bible?

I don't think you really WANT to know what Terminalia was implying.

Flame. I haven't implied you were stupid. I suspect you are biased by your proximity to the subject, and incapable of seeing 'round' that bias, but I haven't suggested you were stupid. Kindly pay me the same courtesy.It is strange for an argument in my opinion. So you think that when you study a subject, you are biased and that somebody who doesn't have any kind of interest in a subject will be less biased than the one who know what he is talking about?
You would trust the newbie for making your computer secure more than the computer scientist?

Actually, no. It is still a crime. You may be able to argue diminished responsibility, or some form of reduced culpability - using 'schizophrenia' as an 'excuse' - but the act itself was criminal.No it wasn't. It was an accident.

If you heard 'power picks' in your head for 15 days, you should seek medical help, if you did not believe you could competently control yourself any longer.
Yes and if you are drug addict, you should stop taking drug, it is as simple as that.

Flame. I am actually fairly well educated, much of it at learning establishments, but lot of it has been personal improvement. I am also not ignorant. That would claim I was uninformed on this matter (or in general), and that is something I most certainly am not.

You don't support the death penalty, and that is your choice. I think it is a blinkered choice - for the reasons already stated. I do support the death penalty, and that is my choice. I am free to hold that opinion.
You are free to hold an uninformed opinion indeed.

You can still be a criminal AND be mentally ill.
re: the bad mechanics... there is a difference between an accident and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence that involves loss of life, should carry a murder charge (with whatever punishment your society attaches to that).

I beleive the same should be true for drunk-driving.OK now it is about the death penalty for drunk drivers...
What about the death penalty for every drug addict?
Why don't you support the death penalty for children by the way? If they commit a crime, it is a crime, right?

You used the word incorrectly. You attacked me for my lack of compassion - while not fully understanding what that meant.
OK I was wrong when I used the word.
But I still think you lack what I think you lack, even if I don't have a word for that.

So you think that when you study a subject, you are biased and that somebody who doesn't have any kind of interest in a subject will be less biased than the one who know what he is talking about?


No - I mean that your proximity to a family member, who you say is mentally unstable (or was, anyway) and who you have said you would riot against your government if they imposed a death penalty for.

I think you are too close to the subject to give it an objective view.


No it wasn't. It was an accident.


You said earlier that he tried to kill someone. You either 'exagerrated' then, or now. If he TRIED to kill someone, that is a crime.


Yes and if you are drug addict, you should stop taking drug, it is as simple as that.


No - but if you are a drug addict, you should seek help, or do you not agree?
Especially, if you cannot function as a 'normal' social being.


You are free to hold an uninformed opinion indeed.


Flame. My opinion is not uninformed. We have already covered this.
My opinion is different to yours... I pay you the courtesy of accepting that you have a basis for your belief. I also say that I think you are too close to be thoroughly objective. I have NOT claimed that you are uninformed.


OK now it is about the death penalty for drunk drivers...
What about the death penalty for every drug addict?
Why don't you support the death penalty for children by the way? If they commit a crime, it is a crime, right?


No - it is still about the death penalty. I just think that people who KNOWINGLY go and get drunk, KNOWING that they are going to drive afterwards, are guilty of the crime of murder if someone is killed.

I don't support the death penalty for children because they haven't reached the age of majority, and therefore have little experience. Sometimes, I can almost think it might be justified (look at the James Bulgar case) - but I still find myself trying to believe that they are just 'innocent' of the ramifications of good and evil.

Flame.
Well done! I approve of this method of identifying what is perceived to be a flame. It raises everyone's awareness.

[QUOTE=Tumaniia]Yeah...send all the suicide bombers to the guillotine!!!

No send the people who send them.

I don't think you really WANT to know what Terminalia was implying.


flame.

Use? What do you mean?

So you think Paul gives poor advice in the Bible?

Ignore Graves comment on what I meant by that, he has a rowboat brain and

a battleship mouth.

I think Paul gave some great advice, but from a lot of personal experience

I've had, the worst people you can run into when shown compassion usually

take that as a sign of your weakness and try to take advantage of you, I

may be a bit too bitter from being done over by junkies a few times.

Well done! I approve of this method of identifying what is perceived to be a flame. It raises everyone's awareness.

Thanks. :)

I was looking for some way of communicating to the poster that they keep flaming me... despite my repeated requests not to.

I figure if I put it upfront, they see straight away I object, and then they can follow my reason, and apologise or argue, depending on whether or not they think I was justified.

flame.

How? I didn't flame you... I didn;t even make a comment ABOUT you or TO you.

I pointed out to Willamena that she probably wouldn't want to know what you meant by your post (number #312, I think).

"Im sure they would, and then they would probably use you to the hilt."

Why don't you explain what you meant by "USE YOU TO THE HILT"? Do it in easily understood terms, please. I would be interested to see what you meant.

Now. You need to retract your "FLAME" statement, and I expect an apology.

and held off from attacking the UK, and made bad decisions in the Desert War, and on the Russian Front.

If Hitler had listened to Gurderian, his top general in France, he would have

won the war in Europe, that is, he should have pressed on with blitzrieg all

the way to Ireland, therefore denying the US a great base to launch D-Day

from.

After Dunkirk the British were on the ropes, he should have pressed on with

the attack.

As for Russia, he tried to grab too much, his main reasons for attacking

Russia was to seize the Caucasian oil fields, he should have just taken that in

the summer of 41 and dug in hard to defend it, not split his armies up into

three different directions, and also terribly ill equipped, to handle in all ways

the upcoming Russian winters.

Declaring war on America was however his greatest mistake, to appease his

Japanese ally in the Axis pact, Hitler got far too greedy and well and truly

overstepped his mark.

The US would have probably left Europe alone if the Germans had

left them alone, and not allied themselves with the Japs.

War is the father of all history, and the current world situation is a legacy

soley from WWII's blunders and victorys.

Ignore Graves comment on what I meant by that, he has a rowboat brain and
a battleship mouth.


Flame. You explain what you meant, then.
Then explain how I was flaming you by what I said.
Then, retract your insulting statement.
Then, if you have a shred of courtesy, I expect a formal apology.


I think Paul gave some great advice, but from a lot of personal experience
I've had, the worst people you can run into when shown compassion usually
take that as a sign of your weakness and try to take advantage of you, I
may be a bit too bitter from being done over by junkies a few times.

That is WHY you show them compassion. That is what makes you a better soul than they.

Mathhew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you".

Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also".

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Flame. You explain what you meant, then.
Then explain how I was flaming you by what I said.

I have already explained it to Willamenia, see for yourself, your flaming of my

comment was obvious for all to see.

Then, retract your insulting statement.

Then, if you have a shred of courtesy, I expect a formal apology.

Sorry, but you ask too much.


That is WHY you show them compassion. That is what makes you a better soul than they.

I show them compassion, but theres a difference between helping them and

being taken for a fool, if someone you knew was a drug addict, asked you for

a hundred dollars, would you give it to them?

I wouldnt, but if the same person asked for a bowl of soup, or some cans of

food, I would give them that, as I have.

Mathhew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you".

Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also".

In King Solomons section of Proverbs, there are also alot of warnings to be

wary of dishonest people, and not to be taken for a fool.

How? I didn't flame you... I didn;t even make a comment ABOUT you or TO you.

I pointed out to Willamena that she probably wouldn't want to know what you meant by your post (number #312, I think).


Why don't you explain what you meant by "USE YOU TO THE HILT"? Do it in easily understood terms, please. I would be interested to see what you meant.

Now. You need to retract your "FLAME" statement, and I expect an apology.
Haha ;-)

Terminalia's response was quite appropriate and thoughtful.

I think Paul gave some great advice, but from a lot of personal experience
I've had, the worst people you can run into when shown compassion usually
take that as a sign of your weakness and try to take advantage of you, I
may be a bit too bitter from being done over by junkies a few times.
Well, I'm glad to see you temper your literal interpretations of the Bible with experience and reason. Paul's is good advice, but only as a philosophy.

Well, I'm glad to see you temper your literal interpretations of the Bible with experience and reason. Paul's is good advice, but only as a philosophy.

I see it as something to be given if deserved.

It is the same thing. Killing with an electric chair, or injection or a knife, what's the difference? You think the man suffers less? He does suffer in death row. He is not an animal who doesn't know what is going to happen.


if you think that somebody suffers equally regardless of how they are killed then you are up for an interesting shock whenever you start being taught basic human anatomy and biology. the death scene you described is a hideous torture scene, and is totally different from (say) death by opiate overdose; if you overdosed on heroine you would be just as dead as somebody who was knifed painfully until they expired, but you would have been physically incapable of suffering due to the effects of the opiate. you simply COULD NOT have suffered, because the "suffering" pathways in your brain would not have been able to function to overcome the drug action.

granted, i am sure that one will suffer emotionally if one know's that death is impending. but we are talking about PHYSICAL suffering, and your bait-and-switch is irrelevant.


And yes in some countries they use a knife, it's the same.

you were asking me how i personally felt about the death penalty, in a discussion talking about the developed nations in the world. the technique you describe has not been used in any developed nation for centuries, if EVER, and your choice to bring it up had nothing to do with the discussion. you were simply trying to use emotive, gross-out tactics to dodge the issue.


What is the point of killing if you don't want him to suffer then? Don't tell me it is to save costs...


the point of killing him is to end his life. his suffering doesn't benefit me at all, but his death does. when he violated the fundamental freedom(s) of another human by raping or murdering them, he lost any claim to his own rights. i believe that he should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to return to the public at large, so that would mean life in prision without the possibility of parole; i personally believe that a) there is no reason tax payers should support his continued life, and b) he will suffer MORE from a life in prison than from a quick death, and therefore it is more humane to simply end his life.


No because the death penalty is not the same thing. As I understood it, it was about dettering possible criminals. Therefore it is supposed to scare people. Nothing to do with taking the appendix out.

first of all, i don't believe the death penalty has anything to do with deterring criminals, and studies on the subject support me...it doesn't deter any more or less than any other system of justice in America, quite frankly, so i don't try to claim that it's a better deterrent. i don't care about that.

my reference to the appendix opperation was to make the point that you are trying to use the gross-out factor as some sort of argument. it's a lame tactic, and a boring one. move on.


I'm sorry if it hurts your feeling, but the death penalty is a barbaric practice. It is dirty and supposed to be dirty on purpose, no matter which tool you use.
i'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but making a statement of your opinion doesn't accomplish anything because nobody cares. if you can't back up your opinion with rational arguments, evidence, and objective reasoning then your opinion isn't worth anything around here. just because you say something doesn't make it true, and you aren't special just because you are capable of having an opinion.

you can keep telling us the death penalty is barbaric all you like, because you are totally failing to support that point with anything approaching logic...you're basically arguing against your own position, at this point, by virtue of the embarassing job you're making of this. i would suggest you start presenting arguments soon, before irreperable harm is done to your position and credibility.

Capital punishment:

A :sniper:
F :mp5:
R :gundge:

No - I mean that your proximity to a family member, who you say is mentally unstable (or was, anyway) and who you have said you would riot against your government if they imposed a death penalty for.

I think you are too close to the subject to give it an objective view.
So, what you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that my uncle is just a statistic. I may not want him to die, but that just because I'm too close and therefore not objective. You don't know him at all, so you are more objective and you know better that he should die. That I will miss him is just because I'm subjective, because in reality, he is a statistic and he should die.
Is that what you are saying? That if you know the man who must die, you don't know if he should die or not?

You said earlier that he tried to kill someone. You either 'exagerrated' then, or now. If he TRIED to kill someone, that is a crime.
He tryed to kill someone because of his mental illness. He wasn't in his right state of mind. Now it depends on your definition or TRY. His right mind didn't try to kill.

No - but if you are a drug addict, you should seek help, or do you not agree?
Especially, if you cannot function as a 'normal' social being.
Yes you should but sometimes you can't.

Flame. My opinion is not uninformed. We have already covered this.
My opinion is different to yours... I pay you the courtesy of accepting that you have a basis for your belief. I also say that I think you are too close to be thoroughly objective. I have NOT claimed that you are uninformed.
I was not flame. Get over it.

No - it is still about the death penalty. I just think that people who KNOWINGLY go and get drunk, KNOWING that they are going to drive afterwards, are guilty of the crime of murder if someone is killed.

But they DON'T KNOW they are going to kill someone. Like those who built the titanic knew it was going to hit an iceberg. It was not a crime.

I don't support the death penalty for children because they haven't reached the age of majority, and therefore have little experience. Sometimes, I can almost think it might be justified (look at the James Bulgar case) - but I still find myself trying to believe that they are just 'innocent' of the ramifications of good and evil.
But you support it for mentally ill people, right?

the point of killing him is to end his life. his suffering doesn't benefit me at all, but his death does. when he violated the fundamental freedom(s) of another human by raping or murdering them, he lost any claim to his own rights. i believe that he should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to return to the public at large, so that would mean life in prision without the possibility of parole; i personally believe that a) there is no reason tax payers should support his continued life, and b) he will suffer MORE from a life in prison than from a quick death, and therefore it is more humane to simply end his life.a) The cost saving argument is null. The price of a human life is much more than the cost you can save by ending it.
b) no he doesn't and if he does, he can always end his life himself. What do you think all those lawyers are fucking doing when they try to save their customers from the electric chair? Trying to make them suffer more?
And what about all the family of the criminal?

you can keep telling us the death penalty is barbaric all you like, because you are totally failing to support that point with anything approaching logic...you're basically arguing against your own position, at this point, by virtue of the embarassing job you're making of this. i would suggest you start presenting arguments soon, before irreperable harm is done to your position and credibility. That you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I say nothing.
And I'm not about to present arguments against the death penalty because they are obvious to anyone. I'm just about to kill any argument for the death penalty because none of them make any sense.

a) The cost saving argument is null. The price of a human life is much more than the cost you can save by ending it.
b) no he doesn't and if he does, he can always end his life himself. What do you think all those lawyers are fucking doing when they try to save their customers from the electric chair? Trying to make them suffer more?
And what about all the family of the criminal?
That you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I say nothing.
And I'm not about to present arguments against the death penalty because they are obvious to anyone. I'm just about to kill any argument for the death penalty because none of them make any sense.

Obviously they AREN'T, because not everyone is against the death penalty.

And you aren't going to be able to 'kill any argument for the death penalty' without explaining WHY it's a bad argument, are you.

Saying 'it's bad' over and over and over again will a) not convince anyone b) not contribute anything and c) make you look like a troll.

By refusing to debate, you are only SUPPORTING Grave's claim that you are too close to the issue to form a coherent view.

So seriously, consider presenting actual points - it can only benefit you.

Obviously they AREN'T, because not everyone is against the death penalty.

And you aren't going to be able to 'kill any argument for the death penalty' without explaining WHY it's a bad argument, are you.

Saying 'it's bad' over and over and over again will a) not convince anyone b) not contribute anything and c) make you look like a troll.

By refusing to debate, you are only SUPPORTING Grave's claim that you are too close to the issue to form a coherent view.

So seriously, consider presenting actual points - it can only benefit you.
Let me spell it out for you.
Explaining why the death penalty is bad is pointless, because it is just stating an opinion.
If I have to debate with someone supporting it, I will point out his contradictions. This is the only way to have a meaningful debate.
Now reread my whole post please, not just the text in bold. The rest of the post was my argument.
I think it is typical of the people around here. They take a little part of your post, they find incorrect grammar or that you don't use the right word or anything totally pointless and they claim all your posts are shit.
Argue with the rest of the post, instead of crying "flame".

Let me spell it out for you.
Explaining why the death penalty is bad is pointless, because it is just stating an opinion.
If I have to debate with someone supporting it, I will point out his contradictions. This is the only way to have a meaningful debate.
Now reread my whole post please, not just the text in bold. The rest of the post was my argument.
I think it is typical of the people around here. They take a little part of your post, they find incorrect grammar or that you don't use the right word or anything totally pointless and they claim all your posts are shit.
Argue with the rest of the post, instead of crying flames.

Very well, I shall address your points:

"The price of a human life" - only if you believe human life has an intrinsic value - essentially, this is based only on your opinion.

"What do you think all those lawyers are fucking doing when they try to save their customers from the electric chair" - they are doing their jobs. Even if they fully believe the person they're defending deserves the death penalty, they are required to defend him... they don't really care whether he suffers later on or not (or they aren't supposed to).

"And what about all the family of the criminal?" - what about the family of the victim, and of possible future victims? The purpose of the death penalty (when properly used) is to prevent individuals who are deemed a danger to society (including those in prison) from harming others. The family of the criminal deserve some thought, as do the family of the victims - but the penalty is in place to protect FUTURE victims.

And I'd like to note that I am a) against the death penalty in the current social climate because it's abused and not efficient and b) I think health care should get more support so that people who commit crimes due to mental instabilites don't have to go through this sort of system. Hopefully this will help you see I'm not flaming. I honestly don't like seeing people try to debate when they refuse to put forward points for debate. It bogs everything down in opinions and flames.

"The price of a human life" - only if you believe human life has an intrinsic value - essentially, this is based only on your opinion.I think Bottle has this opinion as well, because she said the criminal should not suffer. I think it means she thinks his life has a value.

"What do you think all those lawyers are fucking doing when they try to save their customers from the electric chair" - they are doing their jobs. Even if they fully believe the person they're defending deserves the death penalty, they are required to defend him... they don't really care whether he suffers later on or not (or they aren't supposed to).
It doesn't adress the point. Why does the defendant take a lawyer if his best interest is served with the death penalty?

"And what about all the family of the criminal?" - what about the family of the victim, and of possible future victims? The purpose of the death penalty (when properly used) is to prevent individuals who are deemed a danger to society (including those in prison) from harming others. The family of the criminal deserve some thought, as do the family of the victims - but the penalty is in place to protect FUTURE victims.
The interest of the family of the victim is not served by killing the criminal. Moreover, there will be no future victim while the criminal is in jail.

And I'd like to note that I am a) against the death penalty in the current social climate because it's abused and not efficient and b) I think health care should get more support so that people who commit crimes due to mental instabilites don't have to go through this sort of system. Hopefully this will help you see I'm not flaming. I honestly don't like seeing people try to debate when they refuse to put forward points for debate. It bogs everything down in opinions and flames.
I agree with you. I think I have points though.
However, english is not my first language and I lack some diplomatic skills and sometimes I talk direct and harsh. People think I'm flaming. Please don't consider how I say what I'm saying but try to see the point I'm trying to make.

I think Bottle has this opinion as well, because she said the criminal should not suffer. I think it means she thinks his life has a value.


Well, that remains an opinion, but yes, I'll conceed this is a gray area. For example, I feel that dogs that have attacked humans should be put down in the most humane way possible, because they shouldn't suffer more than necessary, but I still believe they need to be put down (as always, there are gray areas in this, but in general; if the dog has attacked once, it's a danger to others and needs to be put down). Note I'm not saying criminals facing the death penalty are animals. I'm just trying to show that wanting their death to be humane doesn't necessarily mean you can't believe death is the best option.

It doesn't adress the point. Why does the defendant take a lawyer if his best interest is served with the death penalty?
Because for the criminal, it's easier to grasp and fear the immediate notion of death than it is the long term suffering of incarceration (god, I cannot spell, I apologise). The human mind is very good at dealing with short term consequences (say, death as a result of pleading guilty), but not so good at dealing with long term consequences (long term imprisonment).

The interest of the family of the victim is not served by killing the criminal.
I agree, but my main point was that the death penalty is not in place to serve the family of the victim, and family of the criminal are in the sam boat. The death penalty is in place to protect society from those that may reoffend. In short, it's there to protect FUTURE victims.

I'd also like to point out now that one of the reasons I currently don't suppost the death penalty is that it IS used, on occasion, to benefit the victims family' thirst for revenge or closure. I DON'T support this, and will not support capital punishment until there are more safeguards in place to keep emotion out of the judgements.

I agree with you. I think I have points though.
However, english is not my first language and I lack some diplomatic skills and sometimes I talk direct and harsh. People think I'm flaming. Please don't consider how I say what I'm saying but try to see the point I'm trying to make.
*slaps forehead*. I should apologise - often I get caught up in debates on this (and other) forums and forget that others may not have English as a first language. I'll try and keep in mind from now on that your opinions are being thrown across the language barrier, and try to work based more on the content and less on the structure. I can agree you have points now that you have shown them more clearly. So it's all good... we can disagree (and not even that, really, since I oppose the death penalty currently anyway), and still not flame. :D.

"The price of a human life" - only if you believe human life has an intrinsic value - essentially, this is based only on your opinion.
This whole thread is opinion.

"What do you think all those lawyers are fucking doing when they try to save their customers from the electric chair" - they are doing their jobs. Even if they fully believe the person they're defending deserves the death penalty, they are required to defend him... they don't really care whether he suffers later on or not (or they aren't supposed to).
Yeah, they are supposed to. Because they're not just lawyers, they're human. (Most of 'em, anyway.)

"And what about all the family of the criminal?" - what about the family of the victim, and of possible future victims? The purpose of the death penalty (when properly used) is to prevent individuals who are deemed a danger to society (including those in prison) from harming others. The family of the criminal deserve some thought, as do the family of the victims - but the penalty is in place to protect FUTURE victims.
Actually, that could be argued, too. Any "future victims" are entirely speculative, especially if based on extrapolation of actions without testamony from the killer. Also, what you're claiming here is that he is being killed for what he/she might do rather than for what he/she has done. Do you believe that? Do you believe it's right to do that?

This whole thread is opinion.
Yes, but most of it is justified opinion - my issue was the lack of explination, which has been remedied, so it's all good ;).

Yeah, they are supposed to. Because they're not just lawyers, they're human. (Most of 'em, anyway.)
I was under the impression lawyers were MEANT to leave their own opinons out of the issue. A defense attorny can't stand up and say "You know what? I think this guy did it. Give 'im the chair". They are meant to deal only with the evidence. They aren't defending people because they particularly care whether they suffer (if they think they're innocent for sure they might not want them to, and if they think for sure they're guilty they might WANT them to)... they defend people because that's the job they're being paid for.

Actually, that could be argued, too. Any "future victims" are entirely speculative, especially if based on extrapolation of actions without testamony from the killer. Also, what you're claiming here is that he is being killed for what he/she might do rather than for what he/she has done. Do you believe that? Do you believe it's right to do that?
Well, I don't support the death penality currently. And heck, I think a better system to get rid of serious felons (rape and murder, specifically) is the convict system (buy an island, send them there). But since I don't support the death penalty, and was playing Devil's Advocate, you'd have to address the question at those who do support it... I can't personally answer. If it's a threat to society at large, it needs to be removed from society - the issues are how the threat is measured, and how they are removed.

(if they think they're innocent for sure they might not want them to, and if they think for sure they're guilty they might WANT them to)..

But wouldn't that mean that they would try to have the death penalty for the innocent (I mean if they couldn't get a non-guilty plea) and jail for the guilty?
(I'm basing this on the assumption that the death penalty is less suffering than jail).

Note this question is more directed at Bottle than yourself.

I have already explained it to Willamenia, see for yourself, your flaming of my
comment was obvious for all to see.

Sorry, but you ask too much.

I show them compassion, but theres a difference between helping them and
being taken for a fool, if someone you knew was a drug addict, asked you for
a hundred dollars, would you give it to them?
I wouldnt, but if the same person asked for a bowl of soup, or some cans of
food, I would give them that, as I have.
In King Solomons section of Proverbs, there are also alot of warnings to be
wary of dishonest people, and not to be taken for a fool.

I didn't see an explanation of the "use you to the hilt" reference, could you tell me which post it was in?

Regardless... the implication of the original post was unsavoury, and that is what I mentioned to Willamena. I didn't actually make any comment ABOUT the content, other than that she might not want to know.

So, no flame.

Re: Solomon v's Jesus... but which one is the model for your life? Are you a Solomonian or a Christian. Solomon is good, but Jesus is god, right?

So, what you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that my uncle is just a statistic. I may not want him to die, but that just because I'm too close and therefore not objective. You don't know him at all, so you are more objective and you know better that he should die. That I will miss him is just because I'm subjective, because in reality, he is a statistic and he should die.
Is that what you are saying? That if you know the man who must die, you don't know if he should die or not?


You're almost there. You are too close, because of your relationship. So you cannot be objective. That is all true. I am not close to him (I can't even prove he exists), so I AM more objective.

I'm not saying he should die. If he commits a crime punishable by the death penalty, then he should. That you will miss him IS ENTIRELY subjective.

I'm not sure I like the ramifications of your final point, but it is quite close to what I am saying... you are too close to the issue to make a balanced decision about the fairness of his treatment.


He tryed to kill someone because of his mental illness. He wasn't in his right state of mind. Now it depends on your definition or TRY. His right mind didn't try to kill.


And that doesn't matter. You said he tried to kill. If he succeeded, the person is just as dead from his 'mentally unbalanced attempt' as they would be from a premeditated murder by a more rational mind.


I was not flame. Get over it.


Actually, it was a flame.... and 'get over it' isn't a response to ameliorate that.


But they DON'T KNOW they are going to kill someone. Like those who built the titanic knew it was going to hit an iceberg. It was not a crime.


Drunk drivers, setting out to drink, knowing that they will drive are making a choice. They are deciding that they are going to drive a heavy, powered vehicle on public accessways, whilst being severely impaired in their ability to control.

Therefore, they have chosen to endanger life. Not necessarily to kill, but they have chosen to DRINK as more important than the RISK of killing someone.

But you support it for mentally ill people, right?
Not as a way of life, no. But, once they pass the age of majority, they come under adult law.

I was under the impression lawyers were MEANT to leave their own opinons out of the issue. A defense attorny can't stand up and say "You know what? I think this guy did it. Give 'im the chair". They are meant to deal only with the evidence. They aren't defending people because they particularly care whether they suffer (if they think they're innocent for sure they might not want them to, and if they think for sure they're guilty they might WANT them to)... they defend people because that's the job they're being paid for.
If you were to hire a defense lawyer, wouldn't you want one that feels for you? I know I would carefully shop around and find one that cared about my case (or have my relatives do it for me). They can leave their feelings at the door when presenting the case before the judge, that's professionalism, but if he's not on "my side" then he's not worth his money.

You're almost there. You are too close, because of your relationship. So you cannot be objective. That is all true. I am not close to him (I can't even prove he exists), so I AM more objective.

I'm not saying he should die. If he commits a crime punishable by the death penalty, then he should. That you will miss him IS ENTIRELY subjective.

I'm not sure I like the ramifications of your final point, but it is quite close to what I am saying... you are too close to the issue to make a balanced decision about the fairness of his treatment.
So, objectively, I won't miss him, is that what you are saying?

And that doesn't matter. You said he tried to kill. If he succeeded, the person is just as dead from his 'mentally unbalanced attempt' as they would be from a premeditated murder by a more rational mind.
And he would be just as dead if he was killed by a child. Therefore the fact that he is dead alone is not enough to justify the death penalty. Therefore I have to conclude that you support the death penalty for criminals, but only in the case the murderer is above 18, because minors are 'innocent' to bad and good.

Actually, it was a flame.... and 'get over it' isn't a response to ameliorate that.OK it was flame then.

Drunk drivers, setting out to drink, knowing that they will drive are making a choice. They are deciding that they are going to drive a heavy, powered vehicle on public accessways, whilst being severely impaired in their ability to control.

Therefore, they have chosen to endanger life. Not necessarily to kill, but they have chosen to DRINK as more important than the RISK of killing someone.And what if they don't know? Just imagine they think it is OK and that they can drive safely because they have pilot-like master driving abilities?

Not as a way of life, no. But, once they pass the age of majority, they come under adult law.OK I get it. But let's argue outside of the current legal framework please, because it doesn't make any sense to support a law just because is is how it is currently implemented.

I think Bottle has this opinion as well, because she said the criminal should not suffer. I think it means she thinks his life has a value.
wrong. i believe execution should not involve undue suffering because a) there's no point, since causing somebody to suffer requires more effort than snuffing out their life quickly and (relatively) painlessly and b) because the suffering of the condemned serves no purpose, and there is no logical reason to inflict suffering when your only ultimate goal is the ending of a life.

put it to you this way: i don't believe it is good for the government to sponsor the torture of animals, either, even though i consider animal life to be significantly less "valuable" than human life. how "valuable" a life is does not determine whether i endorse inflicting extreme pain upon that life.

a) The cost saving argument is null. The price of a human life is much more than the cost you can save by ending it.
i disagree. i do not believe all human life is equally valuable, and many human lives are worth less than a dollar (in my opinion). i think many human lives are worth negative money, if you want to measure it that way, and the life of a murderer or a rapist would be in that category.


b) no he doesn't and if he does, he can always end his life himself. What do you think all those lawyers are fucking doing when they try to save their customers from the electric chair? Trying to make them suffer more?

it is a simple fact that a man living in prison for his life will suffer more than one who is executed promptly, because a dead man cannot suffer. in that sense, any effort to keep a death-row prisoner alive is causing them to suffer more than they would if they were executed.


And what about all the family of the criminal?

what about them? if their feelings are the only way by which we gauge our punishment of a criminal, then we shouldn't have imprisoned him in the first place...the family would suffer much less if we simply let him go, after all. if you're going to say "what about the family of the criminal" then i think you just argued against ANY punishment for criminals that makes their families unhappy.


That you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean I say nothing.
And I'm not about to present arguments against the death penalty because they are obvious to anyone. I'm just about to kill any argument for the death penalty because none of them make any sense.
i am not the only person here who is finding serious flaws in your arguments. if you wish to tell yourself that you are doing a perfect job of making your case then that's your business, and i don't really care how deep you want to bury your head in the sand. i'm just giving you an honest evaluation: if you have a point, you aren't making it convincingly, and if you have arguments you aren't presenting them. you are making statements of your opinion as though they were fact, and then failing to support them...that sort of thing doesn't fly around here, and i would think you'd have realized that after being corrected so many times on this thread alone.

i am, obviously, interested in discussing this topic. i am not interested at all in having you tell me your unsupported opinions over and over and over. if you have any sort of real argument to make i would love to chat with you, but until you do i think i'll have to call it quits...this is getting dull, frankly, and i would rather have a more challenging discussion with somebody who is prepared to set forth something beyond their personal say-so.

have fun, everybody!

Originally Posted by Willamena
Well, I'm glad to see you temper your literal interpretations of the Bible with experience and reason. Paul's is good advice, but only as a philosophy.I see it as something to be given if deserved.
Kindness as a commodity is a common attitude; I've also seen respect addressed as a commodity, only to be handed out to those who "earn" it. It doesn't work for me.

Brad once said, Those who give expect to get. I am more of the attitude, You have to give in order to get. I think Paul is, too; at least, that's what I get from the words he's given. This isn't to say give just to get something; what you get (good or bad) back doesn't matter. Yes, sometimes you give, like kindness, and they abuse you, but what THEY do with what you give isn't the issue. It's what YOU do that counts. It's what YOU give that's going to win YOU brownie points in the here-after.

I'd give kindness even if they did abuse it, or me. But that's just me.

So, objectively, I won't miss him, is that what you are saying?

Not even vaguely close, as I am forced to suspect you know very well.
My argument is that you cannot be objective on this subject, due to your proximity. Whether or not you will 'miss' your uncle is irrelevent to the discussion, and was only originally mentioned by you - which I then pointed out was ALSO a subjective concept.

And he would be just as dead if he was killed by a child. Therefore the fact that he is dead alone is not enough to justify the death penalty. Therefore I have to conclude that you support the death penalty for criminals, but only in the case the murderer is above 18, because minors are 'innocent' to bad and good.

Actually, I use the model that a person stops being a minor at 16. It's not that minors ARE innocent, but they are 'presumed' to be more innocent. Like I said, look at the James Bulgar case for an example where I think there is good argument for the death penalty for much younger persons.

In general, I don't support the death penalty for under-16's, because they still have the 'excuse' of youth... although I think this cut-off line should vary with individuals.

OK it was flame then.


I know it was a flame. You might have had the good grace to a) not flame in the first place, or b) apologise.


And what if they don't know? Just imagine they think it is OK and that they can drive safely because they have pilot-like master driving abilities?


What your driving ability is like sober has no relation to your driving ability drunk. There is no good excuse for getting behind the wheel of a car drunk. Everyone SHOULD know that driving is affected by alcohol, and if they don't know THAT, they aren't mature enough to be driving anyway.

=Grave_n_idle[/B]]I didn't see an explanation of the "use you to the hilt" reference, could you tell me which post it was in?

Post 330:

[QUOTE]I think Paul gave some great advice, but from a lot of personal

experience I've had, the worst people you can run into when shown

compassion usually take that as a sign of your weakness and try to take

advantage of you, I may be a bit too bitter from being done over by junkies a

few times.

Regardless... the implication of the original post was unsavoury, and that is what I mentioned to Willamena. I didn't actually make any comment ABOUT the content, other than that she might not want to know.

So, no flame.

Then mine wasnt either, I was just joking around you know.

Re: Solomon v's Jesus... but which one is the model for your life? Are you a Solomonian or a Christian. Solomon is good, but Jesus is god, right?

Jesus is the model of course, although I regard King Solomon to be extremely

wise, he stumbled unfortunately in the end when he fell for greed and self

abasement.

I am a Christian, I dont believe there are any religous sects or cults called

the 'Solomonians'

And if there are, I'm not one of them lol

[QUOTE =Bottle] it is a simple fact that a man living in prison for his life will suffer more than one who is executed promptly, because a dead man cannot suffer. in that sense, any effort to keep a death-row prisoner alive is causing them to suffer more than they would if they were executed.

Thats not very humane but is it.



"what about the family of the criminal" then i think you just argued against ANY punishment for criminals that makes their families unhappy.

For all you know they might hate the bastard too.

CRUCIFIXION = MOST HUMANE PUNISHMENT!

jk

=Willamena]Kindness as a commodity is a common attitude; I've also seen respect addressed as a commodity, only to be handed out to those who "earn" it. It doesn't work for me.

Brad once said, Those who give expect to get.

I dont, but if it comes back I'm happy.

And who's Brad?


I am more of the attitude, You have to give in order to get.

Sounds like you are only giving in order to gain then.


I think Paul is, too; at least, that's what I get from the words he's given. This isn't to say give just to get something; what you get (good or bad) back doesn't matter. Yes, sometimes you give, like kindness, and they abuse you, but what THEY do with what you give isn't the issue. It's what YOU do that counts. It's what YOU give that's going to win YOU brownie points in the here-after.

I think what counts the most is the results of the help you give, and you

yourself claiming no reward for it.



I'd give kindness even if they did abuse it, or me. But that's just me.

Ive copped abuse from people Ive helped, but I dont think Im going to give

someone I dont know very well, rude or not, money.

If they say their hungry Ill buy them food, if they say they need the money

for fares then Ill buy them the ticket, but handing out cash to beggars is

usually just helping them fund their addiction.

CRUCIFIXION = MOST HUMANE PUNISHMENT!

jk

You should try it then, I think you will change your mind shortly afterwards

when you begin to slowly suffocate to death.

Then mine wasnt either, I was just joking around you know.


Then we can, if all participants agree, declare "NO FOUL" on this flame-instance.

NO FOUL



Jesus is the model of course, although I regard King Solomon to be extremely
wise, he stumbled unfortunately in the end when he fell for greed and self
abasement.
I am a Christian, I dont believe there are any religous sects or cults called
the 'Solomonians'
And if there are, I'm not one of them lol

I don't know if there actually IS a sect of Solomonians (I can't see why there SHOULDN'T be)... but, I guess if you follow the teachings of Solomon above the teachings of Jesus, that would make you a Solomonian... maybe?

Stumbled? As opposed to his GOOD ideas, like cutting babies in half?

And who's Brad?


Now THAT, my friend, is the one transgression that can NEVER be forgiven...

BLASPHEMER!!!!

[QUOTE= Grave_n_idle]Then we can, if all participants agree, declare "NO FOUL" on this flame-instance.

NO FOUL

Agreed.


I don't know if there actually IS a sect of Solomonians (I can't see why there SHOULDN'T be)... but, I guess if you follow the teachings of Solomon above the teachings of Jesus, that would make you a Solomonian... maybe?

I dont think there is, I checked and they werent on the net.

I dont hold the teachings of Solomon to be more important than Jesus's ones,

yes they are wise, he was the Son of David, and Josephs great great great

great great great great great great great great grandfather or somewhere

about, but he wasnt the son of God.


Stumbled? As opposed to his GOOD ideas, like cutting babies in half?

That was never going to really happen.

Solomon was wise enough to see that this would make the real mother give

the child to the other woman in order to save it, before the sword ever

touched the baby, thus Solomon gave the child to her not the other woman.

Being wise Solomon would have probably known before hand anyway, just by

studying the womens different body language, who the real mother was

anyway.

He used this sword method in the Bible to prove it also to everyone else.

Now THAT, my friend, is the one transgression that can NEVER be forgiven...

BLASPHEMER!!!!


Is this something out of Monty Python? :)

It is isnt it.

The Book of Brad right?

lol

I dont, but if it comes back I'm happy.
Fair enough.

And who's Brad?
Brad is a friend of mine.

I think what counts the most is the results of the help you give, and you
yourself claiming no reward for it.
Yup. But if you're giving kindness, there is really nothing to claim.

Ive copped abuse from people Ive helped, but I dont think Im going to give
someone I dont know very well, rude or not, money.
If they say their hungry Ill buy them food, if they say they need the money
for fares then Ill buy them the ticket, but handing out cash to beggars is
usually just helping them fund their addiction.
Fair enough.

It's painful, terrifying, and needlessly gruesome. The same goes for hanging.

actually hanging if done properly, breaks the neck instantly killing a person.

which makes it funny how some people hang themselves in a non-intentional suicide/cry for help, as they think someone will help them before they die... but nope.

however, at least until the juicial system is perfect and everyone who is convicted is actually guilty, capital punishment shouldn't happen.

CRUCIFIXION = MOST HUMANE PUNISHMENT!

jk

nah, the cage or the wheel...


perhaps the spanish horse? oh yeah, let's get into medieaval torture methods.

And yes, I have thought about the families of the victims. And I don't see how murdering the murderer can in any way make up for their loss. Justice doesn't have to be served by "an eye for an eye".

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - gandhi

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - gandhi

Then we would have to go for ears. :)

[QUOTE=Willamena]

Brad is a friend of mine.

Right, I thought this was out of a monty python skit :)

good stuff most of it.

Yup. But if you're giving kindness, there is really nothing to claim.

Exactly, any good feelings are just natural ones.

[QUOTE]

Right, I thought this was out of a monty python skit :)

good stuff most of it.



Exactly, any good feelings are just natural ones.

Now THERE is a curious and enigmatic little phrase....

Now THERE is a curious and enigmatic little phrase....
especially coming from somebody who argues in favor of legislating against other individuals' right to feel good...

Now THERE is a curious and enigmatic little phrase....
Yes. I've always found Monty Python to be enigmatic, too. ;-)

Yes. I've always found Monty Python to be enigmatic, too. ;-)

nudge nudge, wink wink...

Now THERE is a curious and enigmatic little phrase....

I think your reading too much into it.

especially coming from somebody who argues in favor of legislating against other individuals' right to feel good...

Can you try and be specific?

And I was referring to before, feeling good from helping people who need it,

not advocating feeling good for purely self centred reasons.

Thats not very humane but is it.


POST 360


For all you know they might hate the bastard too.



Still waiting for a reply on this one, cat got your tounge Bottle, or did he take

your whole brain.. :rolleyes:

It was argued earlier that ultimately that life sentence and death penalty has the same overall effect. With this in mind, with the current judicial system, we risk jailing innocents with life terms. Whats the difference? If you allow 5 years as a grace period you could remove reasonable doubt that any new evidence would be forthcoming. Your argument is ultimately that the judicial system is flawed, not the practice of the death penalty... they aren't one and the same.



Todays deathrow inmates wait up to 20 years until they get executed, And still every sixth executed inmate is later proven to be innocent.

I still want to hear one valid argument for the death penalty.
I mean one argument which is not "you're an idiot/subjective/uninformed if you can't see the death penalty is a good thing".

I still want to hear one valid argument for the death penalty.
I mean one argument which is not "you're an idiot/subjective/uninformed if you can't see the death penalty is a good thing".

How about the fact that you can stop a paedophile from ever harming another child again, by taking his life.

Still waiting for a reply on this one, cat got your tounge Bottle, or did he take

your whole brain.. :rolleyes:
erm, i didn't reply because i didn't understand your first sentence ("Thats not very humane but is it.") and i agreed with your second sentence (i was actually arguing the exact point you seemed to be trying to make).

if you feel like clarifying what your first sentence meant then i can respond to it. your second sentence did not contradict me or add new information to the line of discussion, so i don't know what you want me to say to it.

is there a reason why you are trying (unsuccessfully) to attack me, even though i think we are on the same side in this discussion?

erm, i didn't reply because i didn't understand your first sentence ("Thats not very humane but is it.") and i agreed with your second sentence (i was actually arguing the exact point you seemed to be trying to make).

if you feel like clarifying what your first sentence meant then i can respond to it. your second sentence did not contradict me or add new information to the line of discussion, so i don't know what you want me to say to it.

is there a reason why you are trying (unsuccessfully) to attack me, even though i think we are on the same side in this discussion?

You have to think 'Australian' to translate... (it's not helped by a severe lack of punctuation...)

Aussie's use "but" the same way other English speakers use "though".

So, to translate Terminalia-ese into words: "That's not very humane, though. Is it?"

What it was referring to, I have no idea.....

How about the fact that you can stop a paedophile from ever harming another child again, by taking his life.

How about the fact that you can stop a paedophile from ever harming another child again by keeping them away from children, and you can stop a non-paedophile from ever looking after their own kids again by taking their life in the mistaken belief that they are a paedophile?

Aussie's use "but" the same way other English speakers use "though".


lots of english do that too. I never saw it written down but.

How about the fact that you can stop a paedophile from ever harming another child again by keeping them away from children, and you can stop a non-paedophile from ever looking after their own kids again by taking their life in the mistaken belief that they are a paedophile?

And how do you keep them away from another child? The rather pathetic justice systems in the 'civilised' world do not put a life sentence on paedophilia... so you can only contain the paedophile for so long before you have to return him to the community.

Of course, the parents (IF they are told that a paedophile has been returned to the community) can try to sheild their children from the evil, but they have to safeguard their children ALL the time. The paedophile only needs for them to let up their security for a moment.

And why would you execute the non-paedophile? I thought we were talking about a case where we were relatively certain of guilt. To me it seems that there are certain 'evidences' (for want of being too graphic) that might suggest paedophilia had taken place... and even the 'genetic identity' of the paedophile.

And how do you keep them away from another child? The rather pathetic justice systems in the 'civilised' world do not put a life sentence on paedophilia... so you can only contain the paedophile for so long before you have to return him to the community.The rather pathetic justice system you talk about will not improve when the death penalty is legalized.
I think this is a case for life sentence, but it doesn't make the death penalty better than the life sentence.

I think that if the death penalty is going to be administered it should be done in a costly, time-effective manner. I don't care a whole lot if they have pain or suffering, since I would assume that the majority of the offenders had no such care for their victims. My proposal for the death penalty is to take all the guilty parties and put them in a straight line. Probably have them sit in chairs so that they are all closer to the same height. Then, take a high powered sniper rifle and shoot them all through the head with one bullet. Each prisoner that isn't killed by the bullet that day gets another week to live and another last meal. If the bullet gets deflected (it's possible that a skull could cause the trajectory to change) and a person is only grazed or shot in another part of the body, then they can have life in prison instead of the death penalty if they choose. The upside to this is that it's very cost effective.
After the current population of death row inmates are cleared out (the ones that are guilty beyond a doubt), then execution dates could be set up every 3 to 4 years. This would give the accused a chance to have another trial if they chose to. A cut-off date could also be added to ensure that prisoners would have at least a year to get a new trial. If they did not have at least a year, then they would be added to the list of prisoners that would be executed at the next execution date.
Now, it's not that I absolutely feel that the death penalty is something we have to have, but I do feel that it is something that we need. While the number of prisoners of death row isn't really that high the cost of housing them is.
( 3,487 as of April 1, 2004 http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/pubs/drusa/DRUSA_Spring_2004.pdf)
For example lets take Massachusettes, in 2003 their cost of housing a max security prisoner was $48,000. (http://www.cjpc.org/doc_doc_stats.htm) Refer to my earlier link and you can see that they have 70 inmates on death row, this results in a total cost of $3,360,000. Now the cost of a high-powered, millitary grade sniper rifle is about $6,000 (http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/arms_m82.htm).
I couldn't find info on the bullets, but I would assume they are in the range of $3-$5 each. For roughly the cost of $6,000, MA could reduce is it's death row population and free up approximately $3,354,000. This would leave money for worth while programs such as education. If you don't want the money to leave the prison system, then spend a little more money on reforming the prisoners with life terms. As the life prisoners get older the cost of keeping them healthy becomes a burden on the state. So, for the paltry cost of $6000 dollars, a state can free up a lot of resources to deal with other issues that need to be dealt with. That is why I feel that the death penalty is needed.

You have to think 'Australian' to translate... (it's not helped by a severe lack of punctuation...)

Aussie's use "but" the same way other English speakers use "though".

So, to translate Terminalia-ese into words: "That's not very humane, though. Is it?"

What it was referring to, I have no idea.....
AHHHH! gotcha. assuming that is what Terminalia meant, then i can respond:

if "humane" is defined as "marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering," then it could very easily be argued that execution is more humane than life in prison. a person who is dead cannot suffer, while a person who is incarcerated can (and will) suffer, so the ending of a prisoner's life fits under the definition of "humane."

now, this alone is not a full defintion, nor would i claim it is, because we could make the same argument about a young child; any normal child will experience suffering as a part of their life, and if we killed the child at birth it would never suffer...does that mean that killing infants is more humane than allowing them to live? i don't know that anybody would argue that, but i know i certainly wouldn't.

the crucial distinction is that the suffering a child will experience over the course of their life is not one that we intentionally inflict upon that child, while the suffering of an incarcerated person is directly controlled and inflicted by the state. if we are prepared to inflict a lifetime of suffering on a prisoner who we convict of murder, then why are we not prepared to execute that prisoner instead? right now, my answer is that our justice system is too falible, and we cannot reverse a death sentence for a man later found innocent; we also cannot give back the years we take from the life of a wrongly-imprisoned man, but at least we can give him some future years of freedom by releasing him. however, if it were possible for us to establish guilt beyond any doubt then i believe it would be more humane to execute a person rather than leaving them in prison for the remainder of their life.

just out of curiosity, has anybody here actually been in jail or in prison? has anybody worked in the corrections system? i promise that i will NOT flame or insult anybody who admits to having been in prison, and i will extend that trust by disclosing that i personally have been "in the system" myself...when i was a teen i spent a couple of nights in jail and several weeks in a juvinille corrections facility, and i have also worked on the other side of the bars as a victim's advocate in a county court system.

How about the fact that you can stop a paedophile from ever harming another child again, by taking his life.
How about the fact that killing someone for something he *might* do is not ethical?

Fred Inbau, Cook County Illinois District Attorney, Professor of Criminal Law, holder of the patent to the lie detector, and original model for the Dick Tracy comic strip:
"I oppose the death penalty because prosecutors get more convictions without it. Juries are reluctant to convict the guilty when they know the defendant may be executed."

Bottle]erm, i didn't reply because i didn't understand your first sentence ("Thats not very humane but is it.")


All you had to do was ask me, I thought it made perfect sense, how could

you misunderstand it?

And are you on the same side as me?

I prefer the death sentence to be given over life imprisonment, as its more

humane and alot cheaper to the taxpayer, and I dont mean sitting on Death

row for twenty years, thanks to legal technicalitys thrown up by lawyers for

the sole purpose of making money, just to feed each other.

Lawyers.

Grrrr

Im talking found guilty, taken from a normal jail and executed that day.


if you feel like clarifying what your first sentence meant then i can respond to it. your second sentence did not contradict me or add new information to the line of discussion, so i don't know what you want me to say to it.

What the hell is there to clarify, dont you understand English??

is there a reason why you are trying (unsuccessfully) to attack me, even though i think we are on the same side in this discussion?

Same reason your always attacking me(unsuccessfully ;) )I guess.

lots of english do that too. I never saw it written down but.

Its not correct grammer old boy.

just out of curiosity, has anybody here actually been in jail or in prison? has anybody worked in the corrections system?

Does being born in Australia count? :)

By the way, I just started a new thread on the Abortion problem in serious

discussions called Prolife V ProChoice, if anyones interested, it has a poll as

well.

I posted the Admin on here to get it moved to General, but they

must have not seen it.

From a Catholic perspective, capital punishment plays a necessary role in maintaining justice.

*Streaks thread swinging axe at random passersby’s heads*

All you had to do was ask me, I thought it made perfect sense, how could

you misunderstand it?



please read above. others have very easily understood how i would be confused by it, so perhaps you could read the translation...it should answer your question.



And are you on the same side as me?

I prefer the death sentence to be given over life imprisonment, as its more

humane and alot cheaper to the taxpayer, and I dont mean sitting on Death

row for twenty years, thanks to legal technicalitys thrown up by lawyers for

the sole purpose of making money, just to feed each other.

Lawyers.

Grrrr

Im talking found guilty, taken from a normal jail and executed that day.


if you have any questions about whether or not we are on the same side of this argument then perhaps you should read my posts on it; they seem to answer that pretty well, i think.


What the hell is there to clarify, dont you understand English??

i understand English, yes. i don't understand English words used inappropriately and with incorrect punctuation, since both of those things will radically change the meaning of sentences.


Same reason your always attacking me(unsuccessfully ;) )I guess.
um, no. i have yet to attack you for holding views that match up with my own; that would be silly, because then i would be effectively arguing that i myself was wrong. you appear to just be trying to insult me because you don't like me, which has no bearing on the topic at hand. i would recommend you save your energy for topics where we actually disagree. but hey, whatever you like.

Does being born in Australia count? :)
lol, you tell me.

Im all for it, and personally I believe the guilloteen is the quickest, cheapest and most humane way to administer it.


Its a cut above the rest. :)
actually a body can continue to keep respatory and circulatory systems functioning for up to...12 hours I think after a...beheading
The reason we (USA) use lethal injection is because its painless, and incredibly quick

actually a body can continue to keep respatory and circulatory systems functioning for up to...12 hours I think after a...beheading

um, no. it cannot. i don't know where you are getting that.

actually a body can continue to keep respatory and circulatory systems functioning for up to...12 hours I think after a...beheading
The reason we (USA) use lethal injection is because its painless, and incredibly quick
Not as quick and painless as the Gallagher. Although the Gallagher tends to be a bit messier.

Not as quick and painless as the Gallagher. Although the Gallagher tends to be a bit messier.
now THAT would be a deterrant to crime. you know all those "scared straight" programs where they take young offenders to jail to see what a life of crime will lead to? well, just picture having those kids watch a Gallagher execution. i sure as hell wouldn't be breaking any laws after that.

Damn straight.

=Bottle]please read above. others have very easily understood how i would be confused by it, so perhaps you could read the translation...it should answer your question.

you got confused by one word, you still could have asked me, I would have

explained it, without any sarcasm either.


if you have any questions about whether or not we are on the same side of this argument then perhaps you should read my posts on it; they seem to answer that pretty well, i think.

Yeah OK, I just got my wires crossed there, I'm just used to you always

disagreeing with everything I say, I guess.

i understand English, yes. i don't understand English words used inappropriately


speak for yourself, its common practice to use 'but' instead of 'though' in

Australia, so it doesnt make it an incorrect usage of English, just a different

one.

and with incorrect punctuation, since both of those things will radically change the meaning of sentences.

My punctuation is bad sometimes, but I'm trying to improve it.

I highlighted some of your own mistakes just above, 'i' by itself in a sentence,

is used in the capital form only.

um, no. i have yet to attack you for holding views that match up with my own; that would be silly, because then i would be effectively arguing that i myself was wrong. you appear to just be trying to insult me because you don't like me, which has no bearing on the topic at hand. i would recommend you save your energy for topics where we actually disagree. but hey, whatever you like.


lol you disagreeing with me in other threads, has often just being an excuse

to use the topic as a vehicle, for yourself to flame me with.

As for liking you, Im ambivalent.

lol, you tell me.

Its just a common mistake from other people to assume Australians of anglo descent are mostly descended from crims thats all, convicts you know, in

reality its not even 5%.

States like Victoria and South Australia had a strict no convict policy from

the beginning also, and they have a high anglo % of population.

Theres probably a higher descent of people in people in England

descended from crims than in Australia.

I havent been to jail either, and I would rather die than go there.

Not as quick and painless as the Gallagher. Although the Gallagher tends to be a bit messier.

What the hells a Gallagher, is it anything like a Guillotine?

From a Catholic perspective, capital punishment plays a necessary role in maintaining justice.

Really, whys that?

=UltimateEnd]actually a body can continue to keep respatory and circulatory systems functioning for up to...12 hours I think after a...beheading

Pfft, ever heard of rigour mortis?

Thats what happens after your body dies, because all the blood in your body

sinks to the lowest gravity points, then your body goes limp again, so much

for continued blood circulation.

As for respatory sysems going, why would they even if they could, the whole

point of a respatory system existing has just being chopped off! lol


The reason we (USA) use lethal injection is because its painless, and incredibly quick

Actually their have been recorded instances of these being anything but,

wrong dosages administrated etc

no problem with a Guilotine but, just make sure the good old blades heavy

sharp and clean, and Bobs your uncle.

The rather pathetic justice system you talk about will not improve when the death penalty is legalized.
I think this is a case for life sentence, but it doesn't make the death penalty better than the life sentence.

A life sentence doesn't ENSURE that a paedophile can never offend again. It contains him. Containment is good, as long as it lasts... but there is always the probability of parole, accidental release, or someone complaining that 'prison is barbaric' and actually managing to get prisoners free'd under that aegis.

With the death penalty, someone who is assuredly guilty of a heinous crime can be CERTAINLY prevented from EVER offending again.

How about the fact that killing someone for something he *might* do is not ethical?

I assume we are talking about persons who have been found guilty of these heinous acts on at least one occasion... so they already HAVE an established history...

Imagine your child, for a moment. (This IS an imaginary child, I realise). And then imagine what lengths you would go to to protect that child. What steps would you consider 'reasonable' if you knew for a fact that a child-killer or paedophile was being released into your community? Now, I'm not saying we should go forming mobs and knocking on doors, but if the legal system can administer a restrictive measure that GUARANTEES no repeat offence (and most people who offend WILL offend again) then that is maybe a good thing.

How about if the offender is ALREADY a repeat offender?

Finally. Ethics is a personal thing. It is very subjective.

Actually their have been recorded instances of these being anything but,
wrong dosages administrated etc
no problem with a Guilotine but, just make sure the good old blades heavy
sharp and clean, and Bobs your uncle.

I've found evidence of 'botched' lethal injections, but I don't think I ever came across wrong dosages... do you have a link?

They shouldn't be able to get the dosage wrong, since it's automated...

I assume we are talking about persons who have been found guilty of these heinous acts on at least one occasion... so they already HAVE an established history...

Imagine your child, for a moment. (This IS an imaginary child, I realise). And then imagine what lengths you would go to to protect that child. What steps would you consider 'reasonable' if you knew for a fact that a child-killer or paedophile was being released into your community? Now, I'm not saying we should go forming mobs and knocking on doors, but if the legal system can administer a restrictive measure that GUARANTEES no repeat offence (and most people who offend WILL offend again) then that is maybe a good thing.

How about if the offender is ALREADY a repeat offender?
Yes, I mean people with a history, and their actions are just that ...history. People can change. I have little problem with the suggestion that someone be held accountable, even to the point of execution, for things they have done --that's society's call, not mine. I do have a huge problem with the suggestion that they be held accountable for alleged things that might take place in the future.

Their problem is an obsession (or whatever the current theory about it is) with children. Your (society's) problem is them. Eliminating them eliminates your problem. Wouldn't it be saner to attempt to eliminate their problem than yours? Yes, eliminating them is a guaranteed way to ensure they never harm anyone again, but if the causes of their problem are not within them but within society, then it solves nothing.

Finally. Ethics is a personal thing. It is very subjective.
Morals are subjective. Ethics are a body of philosophy. An individual has morals --he/she owns them. An individual is subject to the ethics of a society or other such group (such as business ethics employed in the workplace).

Really, whys that?
It has been endorsed and justified by the Church.

I've found evidence of 'botched' lethal injections, but I don't think I ever came across wrong dosages... do you have a link?

They shouldn't be able to get the dosage wrong, since it's automated...

Thats what I meant, I was referring to a previous comment you made about

lethal injections going wrong sometimes.

It has been endorsed and justified by the Church.

I know, but do you know why?

What the hells a Gallagher, is it anything like a Guillotine?

Anyone?

Anyone?

I know, but do you know why?
I do, but I am curious for your apparent eagerness to express your opinion as to why.

I do, but I am curious for your apparent eagerness to express your opinion as to why.

The Catholic Church supports capital punishment as it believes killing the

body is not merely a final judgement of the convicted, only God can really do

that, the murderer wrongly judged may find solace with God, and the guilty

person let free by the courts, is really only free for the short period of time

while their on Earth, because when he/she dies, they will go to hell.

The Catholic Church supports capital punishment as it believes killing the

body is not merely a final judgement of the convicted, only God can really do

that, the murderer wrongly judged may find solace with God, and the guilty

person let free by the courts, is really only free for the short period of time

while their on Earth, because when he/she dies, they will go to hell.
I suppose that can be a correct interpretation but it is really much simpler.
Capital punishment is Catholic, so we agree.

Im all for it, and personally I believe the guilloteen is the quickest, cheapest and most humane way to administer it.


Its a cut above the rest. :)

Funny how you right wing extremist are pro-life against abortion but happy to bring in Capital punishment.

Funny how you right wing extremist are pro-life against abortion but happy to bring in Capital punishment.
Life for the innocent and proper justice for the guilty.

Liberals believe the opposite, that is death for the innocent, freedom for the guilty.

=Tenete Traditiones]I suppose that can be a correct interpretation but it is really much simpler.


How so?


Capital punishment is Catholic, so we agree.

I wouldnt say its just Catholic, just a form of punishment a lot of Catholics

support.

How so?




I wouldnt say its just Catholic, just a form of punishment a lot of Catholics

support.
So then what exactly are we debating here?

Funny how you right wing extremist are pro-life against abortion but happy to bring in Capital punishment.


And vicer verca for what you support, differnce being with us, we see

murderers as anything but innocent, and unborn babies as anything but not.

I guess you have to look at prioritys here.

So then what exactly are we debating here?

Just a difference of phrasing I guess,

and again 'how so'?

Just a difference of phrasing I guess,

and again 'how so'?
It simply is a way of maintaining Christian justice. Of course there are greater theological implications but this is the core idea.

It simply is a way of maintaining Christian justice. Of course there are greater theological implications but this is the core idea.

Its more complicated than "Christian justice", its a mainstay of Greco-Roman culture that has served as the basis for all of Western civilization. But Europe has changed first you say? Ahh there are reasons of course, but to get into those you'll have to wait for my book which will come out... Well as soon as it turns into a book magically from my notes and they agree to pay me one billion dollars.

And vicer verca for what you support, differnce being with us, we see

murderers as anything but innocent, and unborn babies as anything but not.

I guess you have to look at prioritys here.

I was more looking at TT, he's christian but wants so many people to die. I'm surprised he wouldn't want babies to die as they might end up to have a life style.

I think murderers should get life, i think rapist should have there genitals cut off...to assume makes an ass of u and me.

It simply is a way of maintaining Christian justice. Of course there are greater theological implications but this is the core idea.

Agreed, I still can't get past why some people believe a mass murderer, or

rapist, is worth rehabilitating into society, face it, I say, these guys blew any

chance of that big time.

Good riddance to the scumbags forever.

=Glinde Nessroe I was more looking at TT, he's christian but wants so many people to die. I'm surprised he wouldn't want babies to die as they might end up to have a life style.


Then you should address your sentence to him, not me.

I think murderers should get life, i think rapist should have there genitals cut off...to assume makes an ass of u and me.

No problem then, I believe murderers and rapists, should get guillotined.

I was more looking at TT, he's christian but wants so many people to die. I'm surprised he wouldn't want babies to die as they might end up to have a life style.

I think murderers should get life, i think rapist should have there genitals cut off...to assume makes an ass of u and me.
If they have committed the grave sins, then God will judge.
They should not exist upon the earth.

If they have committed the grave sins, then God will judge.
They should not exist upon the earth.
In your esteemed opinion, being a Jew or a Muslim is a "grave sin".

In your esteemed opinion, being a Jew or a Muslim is a "grave sin".
Your point?

Yes, I mean people with a history, and their actions are just that ...history. People can change. I have little problem with the suggestion that someone be held accountable, even to the point of execution, for things they have done --that's society's call, not mine. I do have a huge problem with the suggestion that they be held accountable for alleged things that might take place in the future.

Their problem is an obsession (or whatever the current theory about it is) with children. Your (society's) problem is them. Eliminating them eliminates your problem. Wouldn't it be saner to attempt to eliminate their problem than yours? Yes, eliminating them is a guaranteed way to ensure they never harm anyone again, but if the causes of their problem are not within them but within society, then it solves nothing.


Morals are subjective. Ethics are a body of philosophy. An individual has morals --he/she owns them. An individual is subject to the ethics of a society or other such group (such as business ethics employed in the workplace).

See, for me, the 'History' of an offence.. especially the repeated 'history' is a big deal, especially when you are talking about certain crimes.

I think if you steal once, you have shown a moral 'flexibility' that means you may re-offend... but that's not as big a deal as re-offending if the crime is murder, rape, or statutory rape.

We COULD ship multiple offenders off somewhere. We could incarcerate them forever. Or we could execute them. Any of the three removes the threat from immediate society, but only the third option ENSURES that the criminal can never re-offend.

I actually agree with you, that society may be failing these individuals. I don't think that's the whole answer... I think some people are born different to some other people... some kind of flexibility, some kind of different connectivity... something that LETS them act differently.

But I am willing to allow that PART of their 'issue' may be societal (most thieves, for example, I suspect are stealing because they NEED... at least, to start with). If we had a better society, maybe we would have less of a problem.

But that doesn't address the issues of those who HAVE already offended... those who are ALREADY a danger. I'm all for a just and equitable society, but, even were it to be implemented tomorrow... there are some for whom the 'PREVENTION' element comes too late.

Finally... on 'ethics'... a 'code of ethics' can address a collective or society. 'Ethics' can be societal, cultural or personal.

It simply is a way of maintaining Christian justice. Of course there are greater theological implications but this is the core idea.

Except that the Chinese, for example, have a death penalty, and very few Christians... and I support the death penalty, but am an Atheist.

But full marks for trying...

Except that the Chinese, for example, have a death penalty, and very few Christians... and I support the death penalty, but am an Atheist.

But full marks for trying...
So some Chinese as well as yourself support the death penalty.
What does this have to do with it being Christian?

So some Chinese as well as yourself support the death penalty.
What does this have to do with it being Christian?

It is ridiculous to claim it as an artifact of Christian justice, when it predates Christianity and Judaism, and is accepted by non-Christian religious people, and Atheists.

It is ridiculous to claim it as an artifact of Christian justice, when it predates Christianity and Judaism, and is accepted by non-Christian religious people, and Atheists.
That has no bearing on whether the Christian religion supports it.

That has no bearing on whether the Christian religion supports it.

You didn't say that.

You said it was a way of maintaining Christian justice... (irony enough, one would think)... which is clearly but a speck on a big picture, and, therefore, erroneous.

You didn't say that.

You said it was a way of maintaining Christian justice... (irony enough, one would think)... which is clearly but a speck on a big picture, and, therefore, erroneous.
No, it is correct and you have not refuted it.

No, it is correct and you have not refuted it.

You present neither argument, nor debate, but mere contradiction.

It is not a 'christian' tool, anymore than an 'islamic' tool or a 'secular' tool.

You present neither argument, nor debate, but mere contradiction.

It is not a 'christian' tool, anymore than an 'islamic' tool or a 'secular' tool.
It is Christian, even though others may practice it as well.
What is so hard to understand?

It is Christian, even though others may practice it as well.
What is so hard to understand?

How is it 'christian'? If it existed before christianity? If it existed before even Judaism? If it existed in cultures that NEVER encountered Christians?

It's hard to understand because it is a nonsense, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a lie.

It is Christian, even though others may practice it as well.
What is so hard to understand?

Capital punishment is a method of removing 'lice ' from our society, to keep

most importantly, children safe.

While Christians, myself being one who does, mostly support it in some

cases, I dont think its a religous priority, more a social one, that religon has a

heavy influence on.

Ok, I used to be for the death penalty for repeat offenders of serious (and not accidental) crimes. But I heard something, recently, that made me think a lot:

What if death is good. What if the afterlife is a VERY NICE place. Should we grant something we know nothing about to someone who deserves naught.

I say make them suffer here. Now. That is solid.

No, it is correct and you have not refuted it.
as far as i can tell, Graves has very thoroughly refuted your claims. would you like to point out where you think there is a flaw in Grave's reasoning?

I don't know where I really stand on capital punishment. The death penalty alone is gruesome and to think that some of the people who are put to death are innocent. That's not anything I want on my conscious. The gulliotine is so old fashioned and let's be real here, only sick and crazy people would want that to happen to someone. But I'm only talking from the innocent stand-point cause if someone harmed one of my family members, there's no telling what I would want done to them.

See, for me, the 'History' of an offence.. especially the repeated 'history' is a big deal, especially when you are talking about certain crimes.

I think if you steal once, you have shown a moral 'flexibility' that means you may re-offend... but that's not as big a deal as re-offending if the crime is murder, rape, or statutory rape.

We COULD ship multiple offenders off somewhere. We could incarcerate them forever. Or we could execute them. Any of the three removes the threat from immediate society, but only the third option ENSURES that the criminal can never re-offend.

I actually agree with you, that society may be failing these individuals. I don't think that's the whole answer... I think some people are born different to some other people... some kind of flexibility, some kind of different connectivity... something that LETS them act differently.

But I am willing to allow that PART of their 'issue' may be societal (most thieves, for example, I suspect are stealing because they NEED... at least, to start with). If we had a better society, maybe we would have less of a problem.

But that doesn't address the issues of those who HAVE already offended... those who are ALREADY a danger. I'm all for a just and equitable society, but, even were it to be implemented tomorrow... there are some for whom the 'PREVENTION' element comes too late.
I think that everyone has a ''moral flexibility'' that continually changes and evolves as they grow spiritually. It's inevitable. And I would still fight tooth and nail against a courtroom that tried to convict someone based on preventing them from committing future crimes --that's as bad as Bush's excuses for invading Iraq. Everyone has the potential to change their ways.

To say that there's some people born with a "badness" is to say that everyone else is somehow "morally normal". But it's been my observation that (*generalization alert*) there is not a single person on this Earth (over, let's say an arbitrary age of 10) who has not committed some sort of crime that violates their own moral code, whether it's as harmless as running a red light or more on the wicked side. I don't think murderers are all that different from us --serial mass murderers, perhaps, but those people are extremely rare and a small minority of those who face execution.
EDIT: very, very, very, very, tiny, miniscule, itsy-bitsy minority....

Finally... on 'ethics'... a 'code of ethics' can address a collective or society. 'Ethics' can be societal, cultural or personal.
If it's personal, then it's indistinguishable from an individual's own moral code. When I use the word 'ethical' I am referring to philosophies/values that have been passed on to me through society and through reading. I have learned, and my moral code agrees with it, that convicting people for a crime they have not committed would be unethical.

as far as i can tell, Graves has very thoroughly refuted your claims. would you like to point out where you think there is a flaw in Grave's reasoning?

Thank you... I did wonder for a while....

:)

I think that everyone has a ''moral flexibility'' that continually changes and evolves as they grow spiritually. It's inevitable. And I would still fight tooth and nail against a courtroom that tried to convict someone based on preventing them from committing future crimes --that's as bad as Bush's excuses for invading Iraq. Everyone has the potential to change their ways.

To say that there's some people born with a "badness" is to say that everyone else is somehow "morally normal". But it's been my observation that (*generalization alert*) there is not a single person on this Earth (over, let's say an arbitrary age of 10) who has not committed some sort of crime that violates their own moral code, whether it's as harmless as running a red light or more on the wicked side. I don't think murderers are all that different from us --serial mass murderers, perhaps, but those people are extremely rare and a small minority of those who face execution.
EDIT: very, very, very, very, tiny, miniscule, itsy-bitsy minority....


If it's personal, then it's indistinguishable from an individual's own moral code. When I use the word 'ethical' I am referring to philosophies/values that have been passed on to me through society and through reading. I have learned, and my moral code agrees with it, that convicting people for a crime they have not committed would be unethical.

I don't believe everyone has that same moral flexibility. I would never rape someone... there is no connection in my head that could make me do it.

Now killing someone... that I could do, under the right circumstances - but those circumstances are a direct threat of violence to my daughter or wife, and I don't think that my reaction would be all that atypical.

I am a member of your small minority, though. I have never carried out an act that is outside of my moral code. I have never carried out any acts that veered outside of societal laws (except maybe going a couple of miles per hour over the speed limit), and have basically lead a blameless life. There are some things I have done that might be outside of other's moral codes...

Maybe that's my problem here? Maybe I am not a good moral barometer for judging such an issue?

I don't think murderers are all that different from us --serial mass murderers, perhaps, but those people are extremely rare and a small minority of those who face execution.
EDIT: very, very, very, very, tiny, miniscule, itsy-bitsy minority....I don't believe everyone has that same moral flexibility. I would never rape someone... there is no connection in my head that could make me do it.

Now killing someone... that I could do, under the right circumstances - but those circumstances are a direct threat of violence to my daughter or wife, and I don't think that my reaction would be all that atypical.

I am a member of your small minority, though. I have never carried out an act that is outside of my moral code. I have never carried out any acts that veered outside of societal laws (except maybe going a couple of miles per hour over the speed limit), and have basically lead a blameless life. There are some things I have done that might be outside of other's moral codes...

Maybe that's my problem here? Maybe I am not a good moral barometer for judging such an issue?
Nah, you're in the majority. The minority I referred to was the serial killers.

You're doing just fine.

Here's a question: Why is it that the majority of "liberals" are pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty? Granted, you could twist that around into: Why is it that many "conservatives" are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty? However, I do feel that there is a difference. Being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is basically saying that you are in support of killing a human being who is completly inocent, yet are up in arms against killing a sick minded murderer. It doesn't make any sense to me. Can someone help me out here?

Here's a question: Why is it that the majority of "liberals" are pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty? Granted, you could twist that around into: Why is it that many "conservatives" are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty? However, I do feel that there is a difference. Being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is basically saying that you are in support of killing a human being who is completly inocent, yet are up in arms against killing a sick minded murderer. It doesn't make any sense to me. Can someone help me out here?

They aren't.

Many liberals are Pro-Choice and Anti-Death-Penalty. That means they SUPPORT a woman's right to choose abortion, even if they intensely dislike the idea of abortion themselves - and they thinkthe death-penalty is a holdover from more barbaric times, and holds no place in a society that, they argue, should be 'curing' the sick minds, not killing them.

I don't know how much I would consider myself a liberal, but I am very much pro-choice, and also support the death-penalty (for repeat violent offenders).

They aren't.

Many liberals are Pro-Choice and Anti-Death-Penalty. That means they SUPPORT a woman's right to choose abortion, even if they intensely dislike the idea of abortion themselves - and they thinkthe death-penalty is a holdover from more barbaric times, and holds no place in a society that, they argue, should be 'curing' the sick minds, not killing them.

I don't know how much I would consider myself a liberal, but I am very much pro-choice, and also support the death-penalty (for repeat violent offenders).

"Pro-choice" is just a preaty label put on to make it sound like it isn't what it is; murder of an inocent life. I suppose your personal oppinion makes more sense than others that I have heard. Although, I support the death penalty for pre-meditated or "cold-blood" murders. So there are certain cercumstances that would exempt one from the death penalty, IMO. It makes sense, I support killing murderers, but opposed to killing inocent people.

I'm not for it myself. It causes only more suffering. However if we are to engage in a death penalty, we should also not oppose abortions. Life is life.

"Pro-choice" is just a preaty label put on to make it sound like it isn't what it is; murder of an inocent life. I suppose your personal oppinion makes more sense than others that I have heard. Although, I support the death penalty for pre-meditated or "cold-blood" murders. So there are certain cercumstances that would exempt one from the death penalty, IMO. It makes sense, I support killing murderers, but opposed to killing inocent people.

There is argument to be made as the when a fetus is actually human. Catholics don't use birth control at all. Protestants can. My view is that a fetus is a suitable host for human consciousness only when the eyes and genitals have formed at 3 months. Can it be proved? Can anyone be sure as to exactly when a human life is present? It's clearly not just a black and white issue which is what it has become in politics. It should not be a part of politics and left to each community to decide what is best.

"Pro-choice" is just a preaty label put on to make it sound like it isn't what it is; murder of an inocent life. I suppose your personal oppinion makes more sense than others that I have heard. Although, I support the death penalty for pre-meditated or "cold-blood" murders. So there are certain cercumstances that would exempt one from the death penalty, IMO. It makes sense, I support killing murderers, but opposed to killing inocent people.

Considering that I am pro-choice, and you are anti-abortion, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with you here.

See, I don't think Pro-Choice is about abortion. I think it's about choice. Yes, it is about the choice TO HAVE abortion, but it is stillonly about the choice.

There are people on this thread that have expressed marked distaste for abortion, but still insist that, as part of her personal freedoms, the CHOICE for abortion should be left to the woman in question... and I agree.

Hence, Pro-Choice isn't a pretty name for abortion... because it is only tangentially connected to abortion.

Also - we've covered it a hundred times... it isn't murder (it isn't unlawful) and it isn't life (any more than a skin-cell is life).

Now, if we start talking about abortions AFTER the brain is formed, maybe you have a case...

Considering that I am pro-choice, and you are anti-abortion, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with you here.

See, I don't think Pro-Choice is about abortion. I think it's about choice. Yes, it is about the choice TO HAVE abortion, but it is stillonly about the choice.

There are people on this thread that have expressed marked distaste for abortion, but still insist that, as part of her personal freedoms, the CHOICE for abortion should be left to the woman in question... and I agree.

Hence, Pro-Choice isn't a pretty name for abortion... because it is only tangentially connected to abortion.

Also - we've covered it a hundred times... it isn't murder (it isn't unlawful) and it isn't life (any more than a skin-cell is life).

Now, if we start talking about abortions AFTER the brain is formed, maybe you have a case...

The brain is at a point of developement after a few weeks is enough to be considered a brain. I have no problem with killing a cell, but once it begins actually developing into a human, it is a human life. I agree that this is really isn't something that can be agreed on.

The brain is at a point of developement after a few weeks is enough to be considered a brain. I have no problem with killing a cell, but once it begins actually developing into a human, it is a human life. I agree that this is really isn't something that can be agreed on.

What was it, about 12 weeks it starts developing neural pathways...

Up until it has a neural web, it's just cells.

I wouldn't mind having the dealth penatly be applied to everyone found guilty of Homicide in the Commission of a Felony, a crime that would apply for instance to even someone who kills someone else in a felony DUI crash. I'd also like it applied to the crime of Attempted Murder. I believ that society should always encourage excellence, so I see no reason to reward those who botch the execution of a crime by giving them a lighter sentence.

The brain is at a point of developement after a few weeks is enough to be considered a brain. I have no problem with killing a cell, but once it begins actually developing into a human, it is a human life. I agree that this is really isn't something that can be agreed on.
a "few" weeks? the nervous system doesn't even START to function until around week 20, and that's only the autonomic functions. it's not until about week 28 that you are getting brainwave patterns similar to those of a fully developed infant. you can disagree on how to interpret the facts, but you can't disagree on the facts themselves...that's the beauty of science.

it isn't life (any more than a skin-cell is life).

Callous ethical rationalisation.

Unlike being a skin cell, having been entirely composed of early stage cellular life is something we also share in common. It's merely an early stage of human life. It's the same ethical rather than religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

As a friend of mine put it

"whilst a large part of the vocal opposition to it have deep religious values, the actual opposition at the heart of it is technical in nature, rather than religious."

it isn't murder (it isn't unlawful)

So it was murder until the 70's but isn't anymore?

Legality isn't exactly the best argument.

I am for the death penalty but i will refrain from boring you people with more reasons why. But i want to clear up a few things about the cost issue.

It does not cost more to execute somebody than it does to inprison them for life.

when they run those numbers they include court cost, well the judges, clerks, prosocuters, ect would have been paid anyway so you can't use their salary in the calculation. the only added cost is the defense lawyers, and they would get paid the same as if they were appealing a life sentence, so that one goes out the window also.

The drugs cost so little its not even worth bringing up, a couple of days without feeding a murder after he has been euthanized will cover those costs

and anybody in the US who recieves the death penalty recieves an automatc appeal, no ifs ands or butts about it.

and i wonder how many of you who are against the death penalty are for euthanasia. I thought killing was wrong?

and i wonder how many of you who are against the death penalty are for euthanasia. I thought killing was wrong?


Depends WHY you are against it, there's a difference between someone in pain who wants to die and someone who OTHERS have judged to die.

what about somebody in a coma who cannot or has not expressed their desire to die, who would be the judge then? a Dr? family?

euthanasia will start a very dangerous slippery sloap(sp) about who judges who lives and dies.

as for the death penalty. good ridence to those who have no respect for human life

and yes i do realize it is a hypocritical stance, especialy when i am also against abortion.

what about somebody in a coma who cannot or has not expressed their desire to die, who would be the judge then? a Dr? family?

euthanasia will start a very dangerous slippery sloap(sp) about who judges who lives and dies.

as for the death penalty. good ridence to those who have no respect for human life

and yes i do realize it is a hypocritical stance, especialy when i am also against abortion.
i absolutely cannot stand people who use the slippery slope falacy. it is FICTION, people. we can and do draw arbitrary lines all the time, and making one thing legal has NEVER meant that we must make another thing legal. allowing conscious persons to choose to die will not in any way require us to legalize doctors or family members to make that decision for a patient, nor would it have to lead to use making that a possibility. the slippery slope is a falacious argument, and i really really really really wish that logic and argumentation were required subjects so that more people would understand how much they embarass themselves when they try to use slippery-slope "arguments."

The problem with euthanasia is that when you are in enough pain to want to die, your judgement is not where it should be.

The problem with euthanasia is that when you are in enough pain to want to die, your judgement is not where it should be.
says who? you are judging that you are in so much pain you would rather die than continue to experience that pain. no other person is in any position to make that judgment, and your judgment on the subject is the ONLY valid judgment that could be made. it is a matter of what you personally wish to have happen to your body...i don't see where else your judgment should be.

says who? you are judging that you are in so much pain you would rather die than continue to experience that pain. no other person is in any position to make that judgment, and your judgment on the subject is the ONLY valid judgment that could be made. it is a matter of what you personally wish to have happen to your body...i don't see where else your judgment should be.

No, I meant that when someone is in that condition, their judgement could be clouded. They may not realize what it is that they are saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, but we need to be carefull.

and yes i do realize it is a hypocritical stance, especialy when i am also against abortion.

Why is that?

The death penalty is for those people who have committed grievous crimes, we don't execute the innocent. Has an unborn child committed some crime worthy of the death penalty? Abortion seems to be an argument of "when does it become a life" rather than "let's kill kill kill~"

Euthanasia is a matter of choice, personally I think it should stay no laws/penalty for suicide (no, its generally not illegal to commit suicide and those places which have laws pertaining to it, have no penalty for it), I think Euthanasia would be an affront to "Do no harm", and as mentioned the slippery slope it creates, I'd rather have it being "not officially legal". It's not as though people don't have "assistance" on occasions at the moment, it's just I don't want to be seeing cases of families complaining about doctors who "persuaded" ill people that it was in their best interests as has happened in Europe.

Callous ethical rationalisation.

Unlike being a skin cell, having been entirely composed of early stage cellular life is something we also share in common. It's merely an early stage of human life. It's the same ethical rather than religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research.


Not callous... just realistic.

I'm not sure what your first line meant... a skin-cell is attributed with 'cellular life', and the first pre-division cell of the soon-to-be-foetus is attributed with 'cellular life'. There is no real difference. This can, of course be evidenced by the principia of cloning... you can take material from a cell from the stomach-lining, and inject it into an egg cell, and create a viable cell.


So it was murder until the 70's but isn't anymore?
Legality isn't exactly the best argument.

You are correct... you could argue that, since it was illegal, it was 'murder'... except, of course, that it still doesn't count as a 'human life'... and you can't 'murder' an embryo any more than you can 'murder' frog spawn.

No, I meant that when someone is in that condition, their judgement could be clouded. They may not realize what it is that they are saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, but we need to be carefull.

That is, surely, the whole point?

When you reach the point of suffering, that is so great that you cannot even think straight, and you just wish it would all end... when you'd even be willing to give away your life, just for the cessation of the pain.... surely that is when you NEED euthanasia?

That is, surely, the whole point?

When you reach the point of suffering, that is so great that you cannot even think straight, and you just wish it would all end... when you'd even be willing to give away your life, just for the cessation of the pain.... surely that is when you NEED euthanasia?
But things they say are rarely black and white. Who gets the power to decide and interperate? As I said before, I am not opposed to it, but I have my concerns.

But things they say are rarely black and white. Who gets the power to decide and interperate? As I said before, I am not opposed to it, but I have my concerns.

Surely, the person who is suffering gets to make the decision.

Or, in the case of someone who is beyond that point, whoever is appointed as capable of making the decision for them. For me, that would be my wife.

I nominate Grave to turn off my life support system, if the need should ever

arise. :p

I support the death penalty. It should be more a little less easy though. When you kill another innocent human being in all sanity then you should die. I mean what if someone was just walking up a street minding their own buisness and not bothering anybody,and is just killed for no reason. What makes you think that someone that vile and horrible deserves to walk this on this planet? They caused pain to family members and just killed someone. People like that truly don't deserve sympathy.

I nominate Grave to turn off my life support system, if the need should ever

arise. :p

I guess this is meant flippantly, but I think you are actually doing an important thing. You are stating a case whereby you hand over attorney to someone, should the NEED ever arise.

My wife knows that I want her to 'disconnect' me if I am ever in such a state that I can no longer act for myself, or am in so much pain I wish it all to stop. She doesn't LIKE that decision, that 'power', but she understands why I feel the way I do about it, and why I would nominate HER to act as my attorney.

By the way, Terminalia. I wouldn't be that bad a choice. I am a scientist and a realist... if I thought you were suffering, I would 'help' you by flicking the switch... but I wouldn't 'cut the juice' just because WE disagree.

By the way, Terminalia. I wouldn't be that bad a choice. I am a scientist and a realist... if I thought you were suffering, I would 'help' you by flicking the switch... but I wouldn't 'cut the juice' just because WE disagree.

I know, Id prefer to get someone neutral to do it, approved of course by my

family and girlfriend, keep them at a distance from the actual act, so they

never feel bad about it.