the death penalty

chadwick

OnTheEdge wrote:

You see the little girl in my pic? She is my world, my life. I would give my life away in a heartbeat to save hers. If a pedophile murdering rapist ever entered my house in the middle of the night, I would put a 9mm in his back while he's trying to run away. Will I be sentenced? In this politicaly correct country....probably. But he would never come back to my house..........or anyone elses for that matter. He would never have the opportunity to harm anyone ever again. And if he's just there to rob me? Sucks to be him....how was I to know. You break into someones home in the middle of the night, you have the right to be shot.

well done, Sir.

catefrances

OnTheEdge wrote:

You see the little girl in my pic? She is my world, my life. I would give my life away in a heartbeat to save hers. If a pedophile murdering rapist ever entered my house in the middle of the night, I would put a 9mm in his back while he's trying to run away. Will I be sentenced? In this politicaly correct country....probably. But he would never come back to my house..........or anyone elses for that matter. He would never have the opportunity to harm anyone ever again. And if he's just there to rob me? Sucks to be him....how was I to know. You break into someones home in the middle of the night, you have the right to be shot.

all 4 of my children live at home as does my grand daughter. i understand giving your life for theirs. but i have a real problem shooting someone in the back. plus they took our guns away from us so my knife throwing accuracy would have to be akin to paris' shooting an arrow into achilles' heel.

chadwick

catefrances wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

You see the little girl in my pic? She is my world, my life. I would give my life away in a heartbeat to save hers. If a pedophile murdering rapist ever entered my house in the middle of the night, I would put a 9mm in his back while he's trying to run away. Will I be sentenced? In this politicaly correct country....probably. But he would never come back to my house..........or anyone elses for that matter. He would never have the opportunity to harm anyone ever again. And if he's just there to rob me? Sucks to be him....how was I to know. You break into someones home in the middle of the night, you have the right to be shot.

all 4 of my children live at home as does my grand daughter. i understand giving your life for theirs. but i have a real problem shooting someone in the back. plus they took our guns away from us so my knife throwing accuracy would have to be akin to paris' shooting an arrow into achilles' heel.

throwing stars, catefrances
throwing stars

be the ninja you were meant to be
god dammit

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... s%3Disch:1

Hugh Freaking Dillon

that's not for "no reason". that's instinct and protecting their own. my point was animals don't kill others out of some emotional response to something, as humans do. they have no consious thought process in their heads that says "I don't like this lion, I'm gonna off him".

ajedigecko wrote:

speaking of primates killing for "no reasons".......when you get time, look into the process of male lions eliminating the blood line of the previous pride leader.

catefrances

i think im gonna have to disagree. as much as im weary of attributing 'human' charatceristics to animals i think that offing the blood line of a rival is very much an emotional response. a cub is identified as the offspring of a previous pride leader and then killed. that shows calculation on the part of the lion doing the killing. sounds like the friggin' mafia if you ask me... protecting their own through killing.

Paul David wrote:

that's not for "no reason". that's instinct and protecting their own. my point was animals don't kill others out of some emotional response to something, as humans do. they have no consious thought process in their heads that says "I don't like this lion, I'm gonna off him".

ajedigecko wrote:

speaking of primates killing for "no reasons".......when you get time, look into the process of male lions eliminating the blood line of the previous pride leader.

redrock

catefrances wrote:

i think im gonna have to disagree. as much as im weary of attributing 'human' charatceristics to animals i think that offing the blood line of a rival is very much an emotional response. a cub is identified as the offspring of a previous pride leader and then killed. that shows calculation on the part of the lion doing the killing. sounds like the friggin' mafia if you ask me... protecting their own through killing.

It's survival. No emotional 'baggage' attached to it. As humans, we have a tendency to interpret animal behaviour according to our own values/emotions but their brain works differently.

wolfamongwolves

chadwick wrote:

i would say yes
sure its murder
but who cares?
i dont

So... Now that chadwick has made the astonishing and self-defeating admission that killing murderers is indeed murder (directly contradicting his ally ed), I'm going to ask this question one more time.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

I can only assume it's because that will involve having to acknowledge the logical and moral incoherence of their position and of the death penalty itself.

If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Step up to th plate and answer the question.

catefrances

redrock wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i think im gonna have to disagree. as much as im weary of attributing 'human' charatceristics to animals i think that offing the blood line of a rival is very much an emotional response. a cub is identified as the offspring of a previous pride leader and then killed. that shows calculation on the part of the lion doing the killing. sounds like the friggin' mafia if you ask me... protecting their own through killing.

It's survival. No emotional 'baggage' attached to it. As humans, we have a tendency to interpret animal behaviour according to our own values/emotions but their brain works differently.

thats not what i was doing. i stated i was weary of attributing human characteristics to animal behaviour but i think the killing of a rivals bloodline shows some consciousness of what one is doing. you call it survival... a mafia don could well use the same justification. perhaps a lion would too... if it could speak so we could understand.

redrock

catefrances wrote:

It's survival. No emotional 'baggage' attached to it. As humans, we have a tendency to interpret animal behaviour according to our own values/emotions but their brain works differently.

thats not what i was doing. i stated i was weary of attributing human characteristics to animal behaviour but i think the killing of a rivals bloodline shows some consciousness of what one is doing. you call it survival... a mafia don could well use the same justification. perhaps a lion would too... if it could speak so we could understand.[/quote]

This is a completely different debate but what I am trying to say is that, whilst there is a certain 'consciousness/calculation' or whatever one wants to call it, it is instinct and survival. Animals do not have the notion of right or wrong. It is humans who put certain of their emotions to explain animal behaviour as we have no other way to do so. Unless, of course, one is a biologis/other scientist that is researching and testing animals. I will not say anymore on this as, I said, it's another debate.

OnTheEdge

wolfamongwolves wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i would say yes
sure its murder
but who cares?
i dont

So... Now that chadwick has made the astonishing and self-defeating admission that killing murderers is indeed murder (directly contradicting his ally ed), I'm going to ask this question one more time.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

I can only assume it's because that will involve having to acknowledge the logical and moral incoherence of their position and of the death penalty itself.

If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Step up to th plate and answer the question.

Because it's a silly question. Think outside the box! When a person intentionaly beats, rapes and murders someone, they have decided their own fate, and law, created by man, shall carry out that fate.

wolfamongwolves

OnTheEdge wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

...I'm going to ask this question one more time.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

I can only assume it's because that will involve having to acknowledge the logical and moral incoherence of their position and of the death penalty itself.

If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Step up to th plate and answer the question.

Because it's a silly question. Think outside the box!

Yet another vacuous non-answer. How surprising.

Why not try to explain to me clearly why it is "silly", and how it does not indicate that your position contradicts itself? It's really not good enough just to say it's silly and expect that to be a valid answer.

Godfather.

Paul David wrote:

that's not for "no reason". that's instinct and protecting their own. my point was animals don't kill others out of some emotional response to something, as humans do. they have no consious thought process in their heads that says "I don't like this lion, I'm gonna off him".

ajedigecko wrote:

speaking of primates killing for "no reasons".......when you get time, look into the process of male lions eliminating the blood line of the previous pride leader.

I disagree.

Godfather.

OnTheEdge

wolfamongwolves wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

So... Now that chadwick has made the astonishing and self-defeating admission that killing murderers is indeed murder (directly contradicting his ally ed), I'm going to ask this question one more time.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

I can only assume it's because that will involve having to acknowledge the logical and moral incoherence of their position and of the death penalty itself.

If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Step up to th plate and answer the question.

Because it's a silly question. Think outside the box!

Yet another vacuous non-answer. How surprising.

Why not try to explain to me clearly why it is "silly", and how it does not indicate that your position contradicts itself? It's really not good enough just to say it's silly and expect that to be a valid answer.[/quote]

edit
see edit

OnTheEdge

Wolf, are you trying to convince me that I am wrong? Because it will never happen. I understand that you think my veiw is pathetic and I feel vise versa. No one will ever change my veiw on this. The only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it takes too long. While spending too much tax dollars with their sorry no good asses sitting in prison. For 100% cases, execution should be carried out within a week. For cases where they may be any doubt what-so-ever, the death penalty should not be considered.

wolfamongwolves

OnTheEdge wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i would say yes
sure its murder
but who cares?
i dont

So... Now that chadwick has made the astonishing and self-defeating admission that killing murderers is indeed murder (directly contradicting his ally ed), I'm going to ask this question one more time.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

I can only assume it's because that will involve having to acknowledge the logical and moral incoherence of their position and of the death penalty itself.

If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Step up to th plate and answer the question.

Because it's a silly question. Think outside the box! When a person intentionaly beats, rapes and murders someone, they have decided their own fate, and law, created by man, shall carry out that fate.

... which only begs the question again. It doesn't answer it. Yes, when someone commits a crime, they are tried and should receive a punishment that befits their crime. But there is nothing in your answer stipulates that that "fate" (or can we say "response" or "punishment", since "fate" is a rather subjective and loaded term, that certainly wouldn't be used in reference to law) should be to be killed by the state.

So... we're still back to the same unanswered question.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

wolfamongwolves

OnTheEdge wrote:

Wolf, are you trying to convince me that I am wrong? Because it will never happen. I understand that you think my veiw is pathetic and I feel vise versa. No one will ever change my veiw on this.

I am not trying to convince you of anything.I am doing no more than pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument and asking you to back them up. It's kind of the whole point of a discussion board. Without that, there is no discussion, and there's no point in either you or I being here.

I don't say "no one will ever change my veiw on this", and I think it's a pretty naive statement to make. My views on many things have changed when people have provided good reason for me to reconsider. That's how we learn, and develop our thinking. If you were to give me a logical and definitive answer to the question that challenged my position, then of course it would be nonsensical for me to pretend otherwise, and I would have to accept that there was a case for the death penalty.

But to say "no one will ever change my veiw on this" is to bury your head in the sand, to refuse to think about things sensibly, to say either "I know more than anyone else about this" or, like the Bush Sr quote I posted yesterday "I don't care what the facts are." - both of which are far more "silly" statements than the question I'm asking you. The question none of you seem willing or able to answer. You simply just dodge the difficult questions, rather than giving an open mind to them that might actually allow this thread to move on in a positive way.

OnTheEdge wrote:

The only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it takes too long. While spending too much tax dollars with their sorry no good asses sitting in prison. For 100% cases, execution should be carried out within a week. For cases where they may be any doubt what-so-ever, the death penalty should not be considered.

As for this, this is just your opinion, not fact. You're perfectly entitled to it, and I respect that as much as I disagree entirely with it.

chadwick

wolfamongwolves wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i would say yes
sure its murder
but who cares?
i dont

So... Now that chadwick has made the astonishing and self-defeating admission that killing murderers is indeed murder (directly contradicting his ally ed), I'm going to ask this question one more time.

Why is it wrong for one person to commit murder and right for another person to commit murder?

I've asked it over and over again, it is central to the whole argument, but no one on the pro-death penalty side seems to have the guts to try to answer it. Any time I've asked it it's been studiously ignored, like all the other sticky questions that they don't like.

I can only assume it's because that will involve having to acknowledge the logical and moral incoherence of their position and of the death penalty itself.

If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. Step up to th plate and answer the question.

because it is awesome when sick monsters die, yes/no?

some maniac rapes and tortures children...
if someone doesn't blow that monster's head off, it is a sad thing that
that monster lives

chadwick

the more cruel, terrible people that are put to death the better off we are, yes/no?

chadwick

cruel sucks nuts
i like love & kindness in the world

anyone who cannot be decent, anyone who is monsterous, should be offed

chadwick

6:19am
you fuckers are awesome.......
and good morning