9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

rgambs

rustneversleeps said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

Its not extending mercy to a mass murderer. Its about not becoming him.

We're not becoming mass murderers by punishing him for his crimes and seeking justice for the victims. It's a stretch to suggest so.

By the same logic... we'd be kidnapping him by imprisoning him.

I obviously wasnt suggesting that society would literally become mass murderers.

We've been over the kidnapping analogy as well. Its fundamentally flawed in that keeping him in prison is the least that needs to be done to keep society safe. Anything less is not an option. Again, as is my M.O, putting society first.

Sure... if keeping society safe was the agenda, but the agenda is actually administering justice.

We don't say, "Holy f**k... that dude just shot nine people in a church. Let's lock him up so he doesn't shoot nine more." We place that dude on trial, let him face the magnitude of his crime, and administer a punishment that most accurately serves as justice for the victims and reflects our level of disdain for the crime.

That's a very dark and archaic view of the process.
If the kidnapping analogy flies then it should fly that this is only a half a step away from Hammurabi.

the bolded, dramatic fluff made me vomit.

I made a Trumpster vomit?

Most excellent!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

Its not extending mercy to a mass murderer. Its about not becoming him.

We're not becoming mass murderers by punishing him for his crimes and seeking justice for the victims. It's a stretch to suggest so.

By the same logic... we'd be kidnapping him by imprisoning him.

I obviously wasnt suggesting that society would literally become mass murderers.

We've been over the kidnapping analogy as well. Its fundamentally flawed in that keeping him in prison is the least that needs to be done to keep society safe. Anything less is not an option. Again, as is my M.O, putting society first.

Sure... if keeping society safe was the agenda, but the agenda is actually administering justice.

We don't say, "Holy f**k... that dude just shot nine people in a church. Let's lock him up so he doesn't shoot nine more." We place that dude on trial, let him face the magnitude of his crime, and administer a punishment that most accurately serves as justice for the victims and reflects our level of disdain for the crime.

That's a very dark and archaic view of the process.
If the kidnapping analogy flies then it should fly that this is only a half a step away from Hammurabi.

The kidnapping analogy is goofy- just like the 'we become murderers too' analogy. I only used it to extend the logic and display its weakness.

Whats dark are the crimes we are left to clean up. Unfortunately, some people drag us into the mud with their obscenity. It would be nice if we didn't have to deal with Mushroom Head because he never killed nine people in a church, but given he has... our hand has been forced.

There are consequences for your actions. Nothing archaic about that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

rustneversleeps said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

Its not extending mercy to a mass murderer. Its about not becoming him.

We're not becoming mass murderers by punishing him for his crimes and seeking justice for the victims. It's a stretch to suggest so.

By the same logic... we'd be kidnapping him by imprisoning him.

I obviously wasnt suggesting that society would literally become mass murderers.

We've been over the kidnapping analogy as well. Its fundamentally flawed in that keeping him in prison is the least that needs to be done to keep society safe. Anything less is not an option. Again, as is my M.O, putting society first.

Sure... if keeping society safe was the agenda, but the agenda is actually administering justice.

We don't say, "Holy f**k... that dude just shot nine people in a church. Let's lock him up so he doesn't shoot nine more." We place that dude on trial, let him face the magnitude of his crime, and administer a punishment that most accurately serves as justice for the victims and reflects our level of disdain for the crime.

That's a very dark and archaic view of the process.
If the kidnapping analogy flies then it should fly that this is only a half a step away from Hammurabi.

the bolded, dramatic fluff made me vomit.

I made a Trumpster vomit?

Most excellent!

(heard picturing you in your blue suit with your long fingers intertwined with each other)

Hahaha

rustneversleeps

rgambs said:

rustneversleeps said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

Its not extending mercy to a mass murderer. Its about not becoming him.

We're not becoming mass murderers by punishing him for his crimes and seeking justice for the victims. It's a stretch to suggest so.

By the same logic... we'd be kidnapping him by imprisoning him.

I obviously wasnt suggesting that society would literally become mass murderers.

We've been over the kidnapping analogy as well. Its fundamentally flawed in that keeping him in prison is the least that needs to be done to keep society safe. Anything less is not an option. Again, as is my M.O, putting society first.

Sure... if keeping society safe was the agenda, but the agenda is actually administering justice.

We don't say, "Holy f**k... that dude just shot nine people in a church. Let's lock him up so he doesn't shoot nine more." We place that dude on trial, let him face the magnitude of his crime, and administer a punishment that most accurately serves as justice for the victims and reflects our level of disdain for the crime.

That's a very dark and archaic view of the process.
If the kidnapping analogy flies then it should fly that this is only a half a step away from Hammurabi.

the bolded, dramatic fluff made me vomit.

I made a Trumpster vomit?

Most excellent!

what does The Donald have to do with radical fluff? he stinks. now could you pass me the Greeeey Poupooonn?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Great references fellas!

A classic MT dust up.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

rustneversleeps said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

Its not extending mercy to a mass murderer. Its about not becoming him.

We're not becoming mass murderers by punishing him for his crimes and seeking justice for the victims. It's a stretch to suggest so.

By the same logic... we'd be kidnapping him by imprisoning him.

I obviously wasnt suggesting that society would literally become mass murderers.

We've been over the kidnapping analogy as well. Its fundamentally flawed in that keeping him in prison is the least that needs to be done to keep society safe. Anything less is not an option. Again, as is my M.O, putting society first.

Sure... if keeping society safe was the agenda, but the agenda is actually administering justice.

We don't say, "Holy f**k... that dude just shot nine people in a church. Let's lock him up so he doesn't shoot nine more." We place that dude on trial, let him face the magnitude of his crime, and administer a punishment that most accurately serves as justice for the victims and reflects our level of disdain for the crime.

That's a very dark and archaic view of the process.
If the kidnapping analogy flies then it should fly that this is only a half a step away from Hammurabi.

the bolded, dramatic fluff made me vomit.

I made a Trumpster vomit?

Most excellent!

(heard picturing you in your blue suit with your long fingers intertwined with each other)

Hahaha

Yep lol

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

Its not extending mercy to a mass murderer. Its about not becoming him.

We're not becoming mass murderers by punishing him for his crimes and seeking justice for the victims. It's a stretch to suggest so.

By the same logic... we'd be kidnapping him by imprisoning him.

I obviously wasnt suggesting that society would literally become mass murderers.

We've been over the kidnapping analogy as well. Its fundamentally flawed in that keeping him in prison is the least that needs to be done to keep society safe. Anything less is not an option. Again, as is my M.O, putting society first.

Sure... if keeping society safe was the agenda, but the agenda is actually administering justice.

We don't say, "Holy f**k... that dude just shot nine people in a church. Let's lock him up so he doesn't shoot nine more." We place that dude on trial, let him face the magnitude of his crime, and administer a punishment that most accurately serves as justice for the victims and reflects our level of disdain for the crime.

the agenda is actually a healthy mix of both.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wma31394 said:

Different continent but that piece of shit in Norway that killed all those kids at the camp plays video games, has tv, etc...sheesh.

This guy dylann deserves not even the most basic pleasures..off him asap

Yah... but the video games aren't that fantastic- that's why he went on a hunger strike (to protest). Further... he has to wait a whole 20 years before applying for parole.

And it was only 70 young people he killed. It's not like he killed a 100 or something like that.

? Norway doesn't have the death penalty, and, just like in Canada, it doesn't have a sentence of life without parole. He got the maximum sentence possible. If he'd killed 300 he would have received the same sentence. That doesn't mean he'll get parole obviously.

Oh I know.

My point is: my they sure have been fair with him, eh? It's extreme. Short of making him say "sorry"... this is leniency at its finest.

Well, they don't deal with him the way they do for his sake. They are like that for their own sakes. They are pretty big believers in the idea that the treatment of prisoners is a direct reflection of them as a people, and that treating prisoners relatively well (while keeping citizens safe) is actually more beneficial for their society (and souls, if you will) than treating prisoners with a strong sense of revenge would be. I personally agree with that idea. I know that you don't.

No. I don't. I don't give two shits about some sane shithead that kills 70 of our children to make a political statement. It is worse for society to hear of his musings and hear of his antics behind bars than it is to erase him from society. Every time he complains that his video games aren't the ones he wants... it is a reminder of a horrific event and of the failure of the judicial system to do what it is supposed to do- deliver justice.

His country club is the farthest thing imaginable from justice- a term confused with 'revenge' on the part of those eager to display they're heightened levels of enlightenment. 70 kids decompose... and he gets state paid university degrees, hot meals, video games, and kayaking.

Are you f**king serious? (asked to nobody)

Sigh. Again you keep talking about the criminal. You just don't get it.

No... I get it very well.

Of course I'm talking about the criminal. It's all about the criminal (and his victims).

You want me to buy fluff about society becoming dignified by extending mercy to a mass murderer? I prefer to look at the world more pragmatically.

I am pragmatic too. Pragmatism has nothing to do with your attitude. If anything, the anti-DP crew is more pragmatic than you are about it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

HAHA. that's funny. want to try making those two statements a little less biased?

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

+1

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

Rephrase it any way you want.

You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

Rephrase it any way you want.

You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.

??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

Rephrase it any way you want.

You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.

??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.

Well then we can agree to disagree.

I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.

I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.

You've never responded to that.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

Rephrase it any way you want.

You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.

??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.

Well then we can agree to disagree.

I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.

I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.

You've never responded to that.

I don't recall reading it. How do you think it's far worse for society to read about these insanely rare and sensationalized instances than it is to have a system where the government is in the business of revenge killing and leaves cracks for innocent people to be killed, drags out the appeals process for decades and spends more tax dollars to do it?
So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

Rephrase it any way you want.

You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.

??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.

Well then we can agree to disagree.

I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.

I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.

You've never responded to that.

I don't recall reading it. How do you think it's far worse for society to read about these insanely rare and sensationalized instances than it is to have a system where the government is in the business of revenge killing and leaves cracks for innocent people to be killed, drags out the appeals process for decades and spends more tax dollars to do it?
So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....

sooooo... you're crediting not having capital punishment for socialist countries' success in having a peaceful and well-functioning society? How about successful social programs? How about variables such as gun ownership and poverty rates as well? Not to mention the fact that the same countries you speak of have their share of mutant murderers as well- the last two referenced outside of this Hood thread were from Canada and Norway.

And call the demand for the DP emotional all you want. I don't think it is. Those are your and others' words. Letting the punishment fit the crime is hardly emotional. It's as pragmatic as pragmatic might hope to be (using the term again).

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

^^^

No. Which of the following statements is more 'pragmatic' (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations)?

1. Anti crew asserts "It's about society and how executing someone for murdering a whole whack of people makes us feel."

2. Pro crew asserts "It's about the criminal and the victims and the need to administer justice so that it fits the crime."

That is pretty fucking odd how you managed to take emotion out of your position, when emotion is what drives your position. Sorry man, but you have it TOTALLY backwards here.

Rephrase it any way you want.

You referenced the anti DP side being more pragmatic than the pro side, but the basis of your argument (outside of the possibility for executing a wrongfully convicted person) is rooted in philosophy. Hardly pragmatic.

??? One argument of many may be rooted in philosophy, but even then the philosophy lends itself to a pragmatic goal. Most of the anti-arguments are WAY more pragmatic than those of the pro-arguments... sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with claiming that your view of the DP is pragmatic, because it isn't at all.

Well then we can agree to disagree.

I don't think society is served in some abstract way by not executing mass murderers as you like to suggest.

I've said it's far worse for society to read of these types (Clifford Olson et al) and their prison antics than it is to put them to death in clinical fashion and never hear from them again.

You've never responded to that.

I don't recall reading it. How do you think it's far worse for society to read about these insanely rare and sensationalized instances than it is to have a system where the government is in the business of revenge killing and leaves cracks for innocent people to be killed, drags out the appeals process for decades and spends more tax dollars to do it?
So in response to your theory... well, it's based on nothing but emotion. Now, if you look at all the nations that don't have the DP and all the nations that do, you will find that the former all have a leg up in terms of having a peaceful and well-functioning society, sooo.....

sooooo... you're crediting not having capital punishment for socialist countries' success in having a peaceful and well-functioning society? How about successful social programs? How about variables such as gun ownership and poverty rates as well? Not to mention the fact that the same countries you speak of have their share of mutant murderers as well- the last two referenced outside of this Hood thread were from Canada and Norway.

And call the demand for the DP emotional all you want. I don't think it is. Those are your and others' words. Letting the punishment fit the crime is hardly emotional. It's as pragmatic as pragmatic might hope to be (using the term again).

No, I am saying that it is something that relatively peaceful and well-functioning societies have in common. Basically, I'm saying that a more enlightened society is able to understand what it means to not have the DP, and less enlightened societies don't. In other words, I feel that craving the DP is a very unenlightened viewpoint, both on a personal level and on a societal level.
Letting the punishment fit the crime is fine and dandy when you're talking about lesser crimes. When it comes to murder, it just drags the punisher down to the criminal's level. Also, wanting to kill to punish killing is 100% emotional. Just using the phrase "let the punishment fit the crime" doesn't make vengeance any less emotional no matter how "equal" it is.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

So hold the bar high for petty crimes but not so much for mass murder?

I actually think the opposite. Dope and petty thievery are crimes we can live with and shouldn't have sentences damning to the offender.

mcgruff10

Allie, del, Are you guys snowed in or something?! I know the Canadian winters can be rough......