11 Nov 09
Anyone that approves of state sanctioned murder is doing so for no other reason than revenge or bloodlust. Calling it forfeiture of life is pathetic. We're supposed to have advanced beyond our caveman instincts to be savage murderers, it's truly sad that many people still believe this is the right way to do things.
Originally posted by Anonymousnumber1But couldn't the same be said about you? Are you not letting your emotions about capital punishment effecting whether or not you support it?
no one has the right to take another's life no matter what
but we easily forget that when we're blinded by our own intense emotions, and desires
mine included, but no one is perfect. you can argue morality, you can give examples to test each others own inner demons/faults, you can even argue that there are too many people on this planet anyway, never make it right...only easier to swallow...
edit: my grammar only works when im sober
Of course, they have the right, or at least, legal right to kill him. The question then becomes, is it ethical or moral? For such a question, what do you base your morality upon?
Originally posted by StarrmanHave you been reading my posts?
Anyone that approves of state sanctioned murder is doing so for no other reason than revenge or bloodlust. Calling it forfeiture of life is pathetic. We're supposed to have advanced beyond our caveman instincts to be savage murderers, it's truly sad that many people still believe this is the right way to do things.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think 'right' is the correct word. The question you should ask is where that supposed right has come from and what informs the law to call it a right? The ethical consideration should come before, not after.
But couldn't the same be said about you? Are you not letting your emotions about capital punishment effecting whether or not you support it?
Of course, they have the right, or at least, legal right to kill him. The question then becomes, is it ethical or moral? For such a question, what do you base your morality upon?
Originally posted by whodeysay's who? a group of flawed meat sacks bouncing around on a single rock? where do you get off trying to justify what another person is capable of doing/accomplishing in the future? are you some sort of demi-god i'm not aware of? do you have a time traveling machine?
Of course, they have the right, or at least, legal right to kill him.
you really should rethink your own self-importance on this plain of existence, and consider the fact that the system is flawed, and always will be
The question then becomes, is it ethical or moral? For such a question, what do you base your morality upon?
my basis for such thoughts are irrelevant towards said implication - its the matter of releasing the thought, and not smothering it. to breath it in, and let it circulate, instead of holding your breath. in other words, instead of trying to find the basis of my thought processing, you should address the idea in itself:
people shouldn't kill other people. where is the problem in that, whodey? what is so hard to figure out?
People. Shouldn't. Kill. Other. People.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, like I said, our moral standards are on the same page. I may have remembered the phrases, I'm not sure; they're words I'd use anyway, I think.
The description of executions as sad, primitive and motivated by bloodlust is almost textually out of my posts in the Wut? thread. 😠
Originally posted by StarrmanThen explain abortion. For those who boohoo about a sorry ass bastard like this one you stand idly by when a fetus gets its brains vacuumed out. We have not and will not advance until we eliminate all these evils. Until such time I am all for executing the guilty. Fetuses get no trial.
Anyone that approves of state sanctioned murder is doing so for no other reason than revenge or bloodlust. Calling it forfeiture of life is pathetic. We're supposed to have advanced beyond our caveman instincts to be savage murderers, it's truly sad that many people still believe this is the right way to do things.