11 Nov 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoThat is a question of whether right to life exists and the right to autonomy, not to the waiving of rights in pursuit of vengeance. Would I like to see a world in which abortion was not necessary? Yes. But until that is possible without taking the right to choose away from an autonomous being it should remain.
Then 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.
Equating your puerile desire for blood-tithes with the difficult and changing question of abortion is simplistic and juvenile.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by Anonymousnumber1There is one very effective time machine. This bastard will never again kill. That's the only future that counts. He forfeited his life, end of story. Executing a condemned prisoner is not murder. People should not murder other people. Killing sometimies becomes an expedient when it happens in executions or in war. What should we have done with the convicted at Nuremberg, for example? There comes a time when justice demands retribution. How could one morally justify letting mass murderers like those at Nuremberg live? By your reasoning since the system is flawed then no punishment is ever just. WE should never arrest, try and convict anyone because the system is not perfect?
say'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?
you really should rethink your own self-importance on this plain of existence, and ...[text shortened]... em in that, whodey? what is so hard to figure out?
People. Shouldn't. Kill. Other. People.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by SunburntAww waaah! The prick got what was coming to him. My only complaint is it took to long. Beating him to death with a hammer on the steps of the courthouse might have been excessive, but, still preferable to the prolonged wait from sentence to justice.
Put to sleep. That's not what is being done.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by Anonymousnumber1Oh, you're being rational alright. Just wrong.
seriously? i didn't know that! i thought a conglomerate of more intellectually stimulated gents could at least sympathize with my reasonings, if not come up with a compelling argument why i am being irrational on this issue
suppose i'll have to send a letter to congress telling them to start pressing on issues that could eventually not get them r ...[text shortened]... y so! point being, a necessary evil voted on the majority is still evil, therefore unnecessary
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzo1. People should not murder other people.
There is one very effective time machine. This bastard will never again kill. That's the only future that counts. He forfeited his life, end of story. Executing a condemned prisoner is not murder. People should not murder other people. Killing sometimies becomes an expedient when it happens in executions or in war. What should we have done with the conv ...[text shortened]... is ever just. WE should never arrest, try and convict anyone because the system is not perfect?
2. Executing a condemned prisoner is just a legal representation of restitution. Those affected really do not feel justice is served since they will never be made "whole" again.
3. Justice in a murder case is never really served since there is no true means of restitution. No amount of money or administered punishment can bring that person back, or totally remove those feelings of sorrow, regardless of how much time has passed.
4.Whoever said time heals all wounds has obviously not been involved in such a matter.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by StarrmanOh God put your purse down and stop fussing.
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.
"eeeew, state executions are like all cave manny an savage and stuff, oh, eew".
Originally posted by Sam The ShamFunny, you complain about Inglewood for being a wild place ever since diversity
Oh God put your purse down and stop fussing.
"eeeew, state executions are like all cave manny an savage and stuff, oh, eew".
(a.k.a. "black people" ) came to the neighborhood... and you're so scared that you
have assured to sleep with a gun under your pillow.
Hence, I doubt you're entitled to tell anyone "Oh God put your purse down and
stop fussing".
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzothat is dishonest. to summarize a single event into the defying meaning of a person isn't right, or even accurate. a more through investigation is needed; more data, more interpretation
There is one very effective time machine. This bastard will never again kill. That's the only future that counts.
He forfeited his life...Executing a condemned prisoner is not murder.
No s/he did not. We did that. At least take responsibility for your accusations!
It is murder, since we, as a society, are taking a life away from someone we will never understand, much less implicate what the end result will be with said subject.
People should not murder other people.
Then why do we have a death penalty? Isn't that the same thing?
Killing sometimes becomes an expedient when it happens in executions or in war. What should we have done with the convicted at Nuremberg, for example? There comes a time when justice demands retribution. How could one morally justify letting mass murderers like those at Nuremberg live?
War is war, loser - is that where you're getting at?
War is just another excuse to commit atrocities without having to justify it. Justice demands due process, spazzo. No need to rush to conclusions just because it is convenient.
How could one morally justify letting mass murderers like those at Nuremberg live?
It's not your sole decision. Just because you have the power doesn't mean you should use it. To end ones life is to assume that there is no hope in rehabilitation. We are not evolved/smart enough to determine whether or not a life is beyond from redemption.
By your reasoning since the system is flawed then no punishment is ever just. WE should never arrest, try and convict anyone because the system is not perfect?
By my reasoning we should keep trying to perfect a system that will never be perfect. We're not all-knowing beings, but that isn't a good enough excuse to give up!
To assume everything is black and white, and we have everything figured out - living in a perfect world, is to conclude that we have all the variables, and tools to make those kinds of conclusions.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by Scotty70this is also dishonest. my grandfather was shot and killed at church by a lunatic, and he has served his time until he was rehabilitated. he now lives near my families community trying to make up for it all. he has a family now. who am i to take away his happiness from his new-found family? my grandmother remarried to a good man, and i am not saying that it is all for the better, but i am certainly not one to judge on something i do not fully comprehend. ignorance is no excuse...no matter how i feel about it...
Whoever said time heals all wounds has obviously not been involved in such a matter.
11 Nov 09
Originally posted by SeitseZing!
Funny, you complain about Inglewood for being a wild place ever since diversity
(a.k.a. "black people" ) came to the neighborhood... and you're so scared that you
have assured to sleep with a gun under your pillow.
Hence, I doubt you're entitled to tell anyone "Oh God put your purse down and
stop fussing".